test(scenarios): grade the #8884 guard via its engine-src path

[bitfathers94]

test(scenarios): grade the #8884 guard via its engine-src path

The scenario source-upload guard now lives in packages/loopover-engine/src/
scenario-input-safety.ts, but the suite reached it through the @loopover/engine
barrel, which resolves to the built dist/*.js copy. v8 then attributed the
executed statements to dist while reporting the src file (in coverage.include)
at 0%, so codecov/patch graded the moved lines as uncovered. Import the guard
directly from its engine-src module (the same relative-path pattern other
engine-src suites use) so coverage lands on the real file: 19/19 statements,
patch 100%.

Closes #8884

Validation

Verified locally on this branch before opening:

• npm run typecheck
• npx turbo run build:tsc build:verify
• npm run test:coverage — patch coverage 100.0% of changed lines

[superagent-security]

Superagent didn't find any vulnerabilities or security issues in this PR.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 93.88%. Comparing base (9df67ed) to head (d3172d0).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9104      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   93.88%   93.88%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         810      811       +1     
  Lines       80600    80598       -2     
  Branches    24454    24453       -1     
==========================================
- Hits        75675    75669       -6     
  Misses       3560     3560              
- Partials     1365     1369       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	95.17% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...kages/loopover-engine/src/scenario-input-safety.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
packages/loopover-mcp/lib/local-branch.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/scenarios/input-model.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-26 18:02:59 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR relocates the #8884 scenario-input safety guard from src/scenarios/input-model.ts into packages/loopover-engine/src/scenario-input-safety.ts, re-exports it from both src/scenarios/input-model.ts and the engine barrel, and switches the production collector (packages/loopover-mcp/lib/local-branch.ts) and the test suite to import it via the engine-src relative path instead of the @​loopover/engine barrel (which resolves to the built dist copy for coverage purposes). The move is a straight cut-and-paste with identical guard logic (verified against the full file content), the backend re-export keeps the public surface of src/scenarios/input-model.ts unchanged, and the mcp collector now calls the shared guard at the real collection entry point (collectLocalBranchMetadata) rather than the old weaker env-flag-only check. The new test in test/unit/local-branch.test.ts exercises the guard through the real collector, which is the correct path being graded.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• packages/loopover-engine/src/scenario-input-safety.ts:34 — the `4000` oversized-payload threshold is an unexplained magic number; consider naming it e.g. `MAX_CHANGED_FILE_FIELD_CHARS`.
• packages/loopover-mcp/lib/local-branch.ts:1 imports `assertScenarioLocalBranchInputSafe` from `@​loopover/engine` (the dist barrel) for production use while the tests import the engine-src copy directly — worth a one-line comment noting this asymmetry is intentional (production uses the built package, tests target coverage attribution) so a future reader doesn't 'fix' it into consistency.
• test/unit/scenario-input-model.test.ts full diff wasn't available for review here, so I couldn't independently confirm its import change matches the stated intent — worth double-checking it also targets the engine-src path per the PR description.
• Consider adding a brief top-of-file note in scenario-input-safety.ts pointing at src/scenarios/input-model.ts's re-export so the two-file split doesn't surprise the next contributor who edits one and misses the other.
• If dist/src coverage-attribution mismatches like this one recur, consider a lint rule or CI check flagging `@​loopover/engine` barrel imports inside test files targeting src-migrated modules.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (1 reviewer)
• ✅ Gate result — Passing (No configured blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#8884
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
Change scope	✅ 20/20	Low review scope from cached public metadata (1 linked issue).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 52 registered-repo PR(s), 41 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 52 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff wires assertScenarioLocalBranchInputSafe into collectLocalBranchMetadata in local-branch.ts, replacing the weaker assertSourceUploadDisabled, and adds a regression test in test/unit/local-branch.test.ts asserting the production entry point rejects forbidden-key and oversized-content payloads.

Review context

• Author: bitfathers94
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 52 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

Signal definitions

• Related work = same linked issue, overlapping active PRs, or title/path similarity.
• Change scope = cached public metadata such as size labels, draft state, and review-burden hints.
• Validation posture = whether the PR provides enough public validation/test evidence for maintainer review.
• Contributor workload = public contributor activity and cleanup pressure, not a repo-wide quality failure.
• Contributor context = public GitHub/Gittensor identity context; non-Gittensor status is not a blocker.

🧪 Chat with LoopOver

Ask LoopOver a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @loopover ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @loopover chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @loopover mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically — no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://loopover.ai/docs/loopover-commands

🧪 Experimental — new and may change.

_{🟩 Safe / merged · 🟦 Advisory · 🟨 Held for review · 🟥 Blocked / closed}

---

💰 Earn for open-source contributions like this. Gittensor lets GitHub contributors earn for the work they already do — register to start earning →.

Checked by LoopOver, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run LoopOver review

[loopover-orb]

LoopOver approves — the gate is satisfied and CI is green.