fix(mcp): honor --help for analyze-branch and preflight

[bohdansolovie]

Summary

• Adds the same --help early-return other loopover-mcp subcommands already use for analyze-branch and preflight, before --login / git+network work begins.
• loopover-mcp analyze-branch --help and loopover-mcp preflight --help now print the shared usage text from printHelp() instead of failing on a missing login.
• Adds focused CLI regression coverage for both commands (#6256).

Closes #6256

Scope

• Code changes stay inside packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js + matching unit test
• No other subcommand dispatch changed
• Reuses existing printHelp() output (already documents both commands)

Validation

• Unit tests updated (test/unit/mcp-cli-analyze-branch.test.ts)
• Focused coverage for the exact failure mode in #6256
• CI on this PR (will mark ready after green)

Safety

• Diff is limited to CLI help dispatch for two commands
• No scheme / economics / protocol changes
• Non-help paths are unchanged

Made with Cursor

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 04:27:35 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI green · unstable

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This diff adds a single early `--help` check inside the shared command-dispatch path in `runCli` (packages/loopover-mcp/bin/loopover-mcp.js:1960), returning `printHelp()` before the `--login`/network work runs, and adds two focused unit tests exercising `analyze-branch --help` and `preflight --help`. The fix is small, targeted, closes #6256, and matches the pattern used for other subcommands. The one point I can't confirm from the diff alone is whether `analyze-branch` and `preflight` truly share this exact code branch (so one insertion covers both) — the tests assert both work, which is reassuring, but I'd want to see that both subcommand branches route through this same check before merging.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• Verify `run` (added to the import list in test/unit/mcp-cli-analyze-branch.test.ts:3) is actually exported from `./support/mcp-cli-harness` — the diff only shows it being imported, not defined.
• Confirm that `preflight` dispatches through the same code path as `analyze-branch` shown at loopover-mcp.js:1960; if it's a separate branch elsewhere, this fix may only cover `analyze-branch` despite the test claiming both.
• The inline comment referencing `fix(mcp): analyze-branch and preflight silently ignore --help, unlike every other loopover-mcp subcommand #6256` is fine, but consider stating explicitly in a comment or test name that this guard must run before the login/network branch, since that ordering is the entire point of the fix.
• Add a small comment or assertion in the test verifying no git/network calls occur when `--help` is passed (e.g., spy on the git-invoking function) to make the regression coverage more airtight against future reordering.
• If `preflight` doesn't share this branch, add the same one-line guard for it explicitly rather than relying on shared dispatch.

Flagged checks (non-blocking)

• Contributor trust — Contributor flagged for review

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	#6256
Related work	⚠️ 1 scoped overlap	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
Change scope	❌ 8/20	High 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: 82 registered-repo PR(s), 29 merged, 6 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bohdansolovie; Gittensor profile; 82 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Review context

• Author: bohdansolovie
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 82 PR(s), 6 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6253, issue #6259)

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps in the Signals table above.

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://gittensory.aethereal.dev/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

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 95.60%. Comparing base (44570d0) to head (860f777).
⚠️ Report is 42 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6326   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   95.60%   95.60%           
=======================================
  Files         596      596           
  Lines       47121    47121           
  Branches    14999    14999           
=======================================
  Hits        45049    45049           
  Misses       1290     1290           
  Partials      782      782           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	44.13% <ø> (ø)
shard-2	36.51% <ø> (ø)
shard-3	32.40% <ø> (ø)
shard-4	34.39% <ø> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-5	31.89% <ø> (ø)
shard-6	44.78% <ø> (ø)

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