docs(engine): correct normalizeNonNegativeInteger's floor in its doc comment (#6775)

[shin-core]

Summary

• normalizeNonNegativeInteger's doc comment claimed it matches "MinerGoalSpec's own normalizePositiveInteger convention" — but that sibling rejects any value < 1 after flooring, while this one only rejects < 0 and deliberately accepts 0 (already-tested behavior: a 0 budget is a meaningful "do nothing" setting).
• Corrected the comment to describe its own >= 0 floor and why 0 is accepted, so it can't mislead a contributor into believing 0 is rejected here the way it is in miner-goal-spec.ts.
• Comment-only — no behavior change (the logic is correct as-is, per the issue).

Closes #6775

Test plan

• Comment-only diff (verified: no non-comment lines changed).
• npm run test --workspace @loopover/engine green — 588 pass / 0 fail, including the existing ams-policy-spec-parser zero-budget case that pins the real >= 0 behavior.
• npm run typecheck clean.

[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]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 07:19:13 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · CI green · unstable

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a comment-only fix that corrects a misleading doc comment on normalizeNonNegativeInteger, which previously claimed it followed MinerGoalSpec's normalizePositiveInteger convention (reject <1) when it actually floors and accepts 0. The new comment correctly describes the >=0 floor and explains why 0 is deliberately accepted (a meaningful 'do nothing' budget setting), verified against the function body which only checks `value < 0` in normalizePositiveNumber. No logic changed, and the PR closes the linked issue #6775 which specifically flagged this doc/behavior mismatch.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• Consider also updating MinerGoalSpec's normalizePositiveInteger doc comment (if it references this function) to keep the cross-reference bidirectional and avoid future drift.
• No changes needed; the comment now accurately reflects the >=0 floor and the zero-budget rationale.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

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	#6775
Related work	✅ No active overlap found	No same-issue or scoped active PR overlap found.
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: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 25 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	shin-core; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none

Review context

• Author: shin-core
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: TypeScript, JavaScript, Solidity, Dart, Python, CSS, PHP, Rust
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Add a concise scope and risk note.
• Then work through the remaining 1 step 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://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.