fix(signals): render discouragedPaths in onboarding-pack preview markdown

[bitfathers94]

fix(signals): render discouragedPaths in onboarding-pack preview markdown

buildPreviewMarkdown dropped the sanitized discouragedPaths lane field,
rendering only preferredPaths, validationExpectations, and publicNotes.
Add the missing appendNestedList call so contributors see discouraged
paths that the underlying lane data already carries.

Closes #9286

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 75.41%. Comparing base (f7dda79) to head (414e5d8).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9336      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   75.41%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         275      276       +1     
  Lines       58023    58115      +92     
  Branches     6181     6203      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits        43739    43830      +91     
  Misses      14014    14014              
- Partials      270      271       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	98.91% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/signals/onboarding-pack.ts	98.91% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 13:30:52 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a minimal, correctly scoped one-line fix: buildPreviewMarkdown was missing the appendNestedList call for lane.discouragedPaths, so the sanitized field was computed but never rendered. The added call at src/signals/onboarding-pack.ts:414 matches the exact pattern used for preferredPaths/validationExpectations/publicNotes, and appendNestedList already no-ops on empty arrays, so the new empty-discouragedPaths test at test/unit/onboarding-pack.test.ts:110-127 is a real, non-fabricated coverage addition. The fix closes #9286 and both the populated and empty-list branches are now tested.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The file is now ~416 lines (over the repo's 400-line convention per the external size-smell note); consider splitting sanitize/render helpers out in a follow-up rather than in this PR.
• Nice scoping — a single missing line plus a matching branch test is exactly right for this kind of regression fix.

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	#9286
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: 65 registered-repo PR(s), 45 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 65 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds the missing appendNestedList call for lane.discouragedPaths in the same loop as the other three fields, and the test file gains both a populated-value assertion ("Discouraged paths: scripts/release/") and an empty-array test verifying no section is rendered, matching all three stated deliverables.

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: 65 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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.