test(engine): build a true live-gate-vs-predicted-gate cross-check

[JSONbored]

Summary

• test/contract/engine-parity.test.ts is a SELF-consistency regression detector: it diffs buildPredictedGateVerdict's output against committed golden fixtures. It never verifies predicted-gate's output still agrees with what the REAL live gate (src/queue/processors.ts, via gateCheckPolicy + buildPullRequestAdvisory + evaluateGateCheck) would decide for the same PR — the actual "byte-parity" promise gittensory-engine exists for.
• This suite closes that gap without a live GitHub/DB round-trip: it replays each of the same 14 predicted-gate fixtures through both buildPredictedGateVerdict (which uses the ENGINE package's own advisory/gate-advisory.ts) and a new buildLiveGateVerdict harness that mirrors predicted-gate's assembly steps but resolves the gate-check policy via the REAL production path — resolveEffectiveSettings + gateCheckPolicy — feeding the ROOT src twin (src/rules/advisory.ts) that src/queue/processors.ts actually calls for a real PR.
• Comparing the final evaluateGateCheck decision (not raw policy args objects) avoids false mismatches from documented, intentional pre-submission-only omissions (slop/AI/lockfile gates, which need diff content this metadata-only predictor never receives — see PREDICTED_GATE_NOTE_SLOP).
• What this catches that the existing self-consistency suite can't: (1) behavioral drift between the two hand-maintained gate-decision twins (src/rules/advisory.ts ↔ packages/gittensory-engine/src/advisory/gate-advisory.ts) — scripts/check-engine-parity.ts only checks these for 4 marker-string presence, explicitly noting they're "deliberately maintained as structurally divergent implementations"; (2) drift between gateCheckPolicy's DB-settings-based policy mapping and predicted-gate's inline manifest-based mapping — two independent hand-written config→args translations that could silently diverge.
• Wired into test:ci alongside test:engine-parity via a new test:live-gate-parity script; updated the contributor skill docs' test:ci step list and no-dedicated-CI-job table to match.

Verification the harness has real teeth

Ran a mutation test before committing: deliberately broke one derivation (requireLinkedIssue, forced to always false). Exactly the two fixtures whose scenario depends on it (missing-linked-issue-block, merge-readiness-composite-block) failed, while the other 12 stayed green — confirming the suite genuinely exercises the comparison rather than trivially passing. Reverted before committing (not part of the diff).

Test plan

• All 14 fixtures pass on the real (non-mutated) implementation — the live gate and predicted-gate genuinely agree for every scenario currently covered
• npm run test:coverage (full suite) — 799 files / 15524 tests passing, 0 regressions
• npm run test:live-gate-parity standalone
• npx tsc --noEmit clean
• npm run docs:drift-check && npm run manifest:drift-check && npm run engine-parity:drift-check && npm run command-reference:check
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate — 0 vulnerabilities

Closes #4257

[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 94.90%. Comparing base (f0b1840) to head (407a44f).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5529   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.90%   94.90%           
=======================================
  Files         569      569           
  Lines       45260    45260           
  Branches    14675    14675           
=======================================
  Hits        42955    42955           
  Misses       1571     1571           
  Partials      734      734           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.22% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	35.78% <ø> (+0.32%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.14% <ø> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
shard-4	31.15% <ø> (ø)
shard-5	32.93% <ø> (ø)
shard-6	44.18% <ø> (ø)

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[gittensory-orb]

Tip

🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

✅ Gittensory review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-13 04:41:21 UTC}

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

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds a new contract test (`test/contract/live-gate-parity.test.ts`) that replays the 14 existing predicted-gate fixtures through both `buildPredictedGateVerdict` (engine package) and a new `buildLiveGateVerdict` harness that calls the ROOT src twin (`buildPullRequestAdvisory`/`evaluateGateCheck` from `src/rules/advisory.ts`) via the real `gateCheckPolicy`/`resolveEffectiveSettings` path, asserting the two gate decisions agree. It's wired into `test:ci` via a new `test:live-gate-parity` script and documented in the contributing skill files. The approach is sound and closes a real gap (self-consistency vs. cross-twin drift), reuses fixtures rather than fabricating new ones, and the harness's simplifications (reusing `predicted.readinessScore`/`confirmedContributor`, changedLineCount hardcoded to 0, no live check-run) are explicitly justified in comments as deliberate, in-scope boundaries rather than hidden gaps.

Blockers

• test/contract/live-gate-parity.test.ts:46 imports `buildPredictedGateVerdict` from `../../src/rules/predicted-gate`, so this does not exercise `packages/gittensory-engine/src/predicted-gate.ts` and cannot catch the package-vs-live drift described by the PR; change the predicted-side import to the engine package source/export, e.g. `import { buildPredictedGateVerdict } from "../../packages/gittensory-engine/src/predicted-gate";`, or explain why the root module is a guaranteed package re-export.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• The harness hardcodes `changedLineCount: 0` in the `gateCheckPolicy` call (live-gate-parity.test.ts around the policy invocation); if any of the 14 fixtures' gate mode logic keys off line-count thresholds this could mask a real live/predicted divergence — worth a comment confirming none of the current fixtures exercise that branch.
• `NO_DB_OVERRIDES` is cast via `{} as unknown as RepositorySettings` (live-gate-parity.test.ts) — an unsafe cast that bypasses type-checking; a `Partial<RepositorySettings>` with an actual empty-defaults helper (if one exists) would be safer, though this is test-only code.
• The block comment above `buildLiveGateVerdict` is very long (40+ lines) — consider trimming to the essential rationale and moving deep design notes to the PR description or an issue comment for long-term maintainability.
• Add a short comment or assertion documenting which specific policy-relevant field (e.g. changedLineCount) is intentionally stubbed to 0 across all fixtures, so a future contributor adding a line-count-sensitive fixture doesn't silently get a false pass.
• Consider extracting the `NO_DB_OVERRIDES` cast into a shared test helper (e.g. `test/helpers/settings.ts`) if this pattern is likely to be reused by other contract tests.
• PR author also opened the linked issue — Link an issue that was opened by a different contributor, or provide a rationale for why this self-authored issue represents genuine discovery work.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	✅ No blockers	1 reviewer
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#4257
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: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 399 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 399 issue(s).
Gate result	✅ Passing	No configured blocker found.
Improvement	⚠️ ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal — Nothing measurable for the structural-improvement analyzers on this PR (e.g. no code files changed).

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 399 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

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

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

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review