docs(miner): fix stale gittensory prose and broken links in loopover-miner docs

[JSONbored]

Summary

• Continues the repo-wide gittensory -> loopover rebrand cleanup sweep, covering packages/loopover-miner/'s remaining stale "gittensory" self-references:
  • Two broken relative links to packages/gittensory-engine/... (the package was renamed to loopover-engine) in docs/coding-agent-driver.md and docs/miner-selfimprove-calibration.md (both occurrences in the latter).
  • docs/cross-repo-evaluation.md's gittensory_assumption failure-category table entry was factually wrong -- the real constant's value (lib/cross-repo-evaluation.js's CROSS_REPO_FAILURE_CATEGORY.GITTENSOR_ASSUMPTION) is literally "loopover_assumption", verified directly against source.
  • schema/miner-goal-spec.schema.json's $id and description referenced a .gittensory-miner.yml filename that never existed under that name -- the real, only-ever config filename is .loopover-miner.yml (verified against packages/loopover-engine/src/miner-goal-spec.ts's file-discovery list).
  • Self-referential prose describing loopover's own current conventions, hosted AMS collector, and API/orb across README.md, DEPLOYMENT.md, Dockerfile, docs/ams-auth-identity-research.md, docs/observability.md.
  • docs/repo-agnostic-capability-audit.md's ## Resolution (#4784) section, which states current post-fix truth -- left the earlier "Findings by file/module" checklist section's own "gittensory"-as-concept prose alone, since that section is a deliberately-preserved pre-fix historical snapshot the Resolution section explicitly supersedes (mirrors the same judgment call already applied to the sibling src/review/repo-agnostic-capability-audit.md doc, not touched in this PR).
• Left every github.com/JSONbored/gittensory/issues/NNNN historical citation untouched -- confirmed this is an established, repo-wide convention (GitHub's rename redirect keeps them resolving; no other file anywhere in the repo rewrites this class of link), and left the Findings-section "gittensory"-as-concept prose in the audit doc alone for the same historical-snapshot reason.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves -- no issue linked: repo-owner-requested maintainer-equivalent cleanup pass, not a contributor fix tied to a filed issue.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• npm run test:coverage locally (docs/schema-only change; no src/** lines touched)
• npm run test:workers
• npm run build:mcp
• npm run test:mcp-pack
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run ui:lint
• npm run ui:typecheck
• npm run ui:build
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate (0 vulnerabilities)
• Full npm run test:ci green end to end, exit code captured directly (0). Note: two earlier attempts on this same diff transiently failed on one unrelated, pre-existing test (test/unit/ai-summaries.test.ts's 30s-timeout AI-rewrite-iteration test) -- root-caused to concurrent CPU contention from another active local session's own full test run happening at the same time (confirmed via ps/uptime; load average was 40-75 during both failures), not this diff (it passes reliably in isolation and touches zero files this change relates to). Third attempt, after the contention subsided, was clean.
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries -- N/A, no runtime code changed.

Safety

• No secrets, wallet details, hotkeys, coldkeys, user PATs, private keys, raw trust scores, private rankings, or private maintainer evidence are exposed.
• Public GitHub text stays sanitized, low-noise, and does not imply compensation guarantees or optimization tactics.
• Auth, cookie, CORS, GitHub App, Cloudflare, or session changes include negative-path tests -- N/A.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed -- N/A.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states -- N/A.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section -- N/A, no visible change.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs (none touched here).

Notes

• Fourth in a small series of PRs sweeping the remaining gittensory references left over from the rebrand (docs(selfhost): fix stale gittensory-selfhost self-host doc defaults #6826 self-hosting docs, chore(config): fix stale gittensory prose in infra/root config files #6841 root/infra config, chore(config): fix stale gittensory prose in wrangler.jsonc comments #6849 wrangler.jsonc comments).

[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 09:03:36 UTC}

10 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a pure documentation-prose rebrand sweep across packages/loopover-miner/ — fixing broken relative links to the renamed gittensory-engine→loopover-engine, correcting the JSON schema $id/description to match the real .loopover-miner.yml filename, and swapping stale 'gittensory' self-references to 'loopover' in prose across README/DEPLOYMENT/Dockerfile/docs. The cross-repo-evaluation.md table-entry rename (gittensory_assumption→loopover_assumption) is claimed to be verified against the actual CROSS_REPO_FAILURE_CATEGORY constant in lib/cross-repo-evaluation.js, which I cannot see in the provided diff/file content to independently confirm. All hunks are text-only changes with no code/logic touched, and the PR deliberately preserves historical github.com/JSONbored/gittensory/issues/NNNN links per stated repo convention.

Blockers

• The PR description does not close or clearly link an eligible open issue for this specific change — per repo convention every contributor PR must do so, and the many issue numbers cited (De-hardcode discovery from gittensory's own conventions #4784, Cross-repo evaluation harness #4788, etc.) are pre-existing historical references embedded in the prose being edited, not an issue this PR itself resolves.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• schema/miner-goal-spec.schema.json's $id was changed from .../gittensory-miner-goal-spec.json to .../loopover-miner-goal-spec.json — worth confirming no external consumer or test fixture still references the old $id string, since $id is technically part of the schema's public identity.
• docs/cross-repo-evaluation.md:16's gittensory_assumption→loopover_assumption rename is asserted to match lib/cross-repo-evaluation.js's CROSS_REPO_FAILURE_CATEGORY.GITTENSOR_ASSUMPTION constant value, but that source file isn't in the visible diff/context to verify directly.
• Add an explicit 'Closes #NNNN' or 'Refs #NNNN' line to the PR description tying this cleanup to a tracked issue, consistent with the repo's issue-scope enforcement convention.
• Consider a quick grep across the repo (or CI) for the old schema $id string and the old .gittensory-miner.yml filename to confirm no other file/test still expects them, since this diff only shows the miner package's own files.
• Diff looks like trivial or whitespace-only churn — Reduce whitespace-only or formatting-only churn and keep the diff focused on substantive changes.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• The PR description does not close or clearly link an eligible open issue for this specific change — per repo convention every contributor PR must do so, and the many issue numbers cited (De-hardcode discovery from gittensory's own conventions #4784, Cross-repo evaluation harness #4788, etc.) are pre-existing historical references embedded in the prose being edited, not an issue this PR itself resolves.
• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. The PR description does not close or clearly link an eligible open issue for this specific change — per repo convention every contributor PR must do so, and the many issue numbers cited \(\#4784, \#4788, etc.\) are pre-existing historical references embedded in the prose being edited, not an issue this PR itself resolves.

2. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 2 blockers (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 33 registered-repo PR(s), 26 merged, 332 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 33 PR(s), 332 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: low · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: minor

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: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 33 PR(s), 332 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: 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.

🧪 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