chore(scripts): audit the qualityGateMinScore-unset population for the cold-start default

[bitfathers94]

chore(scripts): audit the qualityGateMinScore-unset population for the cold-start default

Adds a read-only audit that reports, across the current repository_settings
population, what fraction of configured repos have no effective
qualityGateMinScore (readiness threshold) set, and — for that threshold-less
population specifically — what per-action-class autonomy levels are actually in
force. This gives the maintainer-only cold-start-default design issue (#7595)
real data instead of a guess.

The threshold is config-as-code now (no repository_settings column backs it),
so the script resolves it exactly as resolveRepositorySettings does: from each
repo's latest repo-focus-manifest snapshot, with the typed gate.readiness.minScore
winning over the generic settings.qualityGateMinScore. The tightening-only
self-tune override is ignored on purpose — it can only raise an existing
threshold, never create one, so it can't change the unset count.

SELECT-only via wrangler d1 execute; it never writes to D1 or changes any repo's
behavior. The pure aggregation/formatting is unit-tested; the markdown report is
printed to stdout so it can be pasted verbatim as the findings comment on #7595.

Closes #7596

[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 88.48%. Comparing base (35ab1c0) to head (dbd06e5).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #7598   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   88.48%   88.48%           
=======================================
  Files         720      720           
  Lines       75749    75749           
  Branches    22559    22559           
=======================================
  Hits        67024    67024           
  Misses       7679     7679           
  Partials     1046     1046           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	28.97% <ø> (-0.04%)	⬇️
shard-2	33.93% <ø> (-2.81%)	⬇️
shard-3	33.49% <ø> (-5.60%)	⬇️
shard-4	44.24% <ø> (+4.03%)	⬆️
shard-5	33.72% <ø> (+3.83%)	⬆️
shard-6	29.41% <ø> (+0.94%)	⬆️

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 00:05:01 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 98/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This adds a read-only, SELECT-only audit script that computes the fraction of repos with no effective qualityGateMinScore and the autonomy levels in force for that population, plus a solid unit test suite covering the pure aggregation logic. The resolution logic (typed gate.readiness.minScore over settings.qualityGateMinScore, manifest autonomy replacing DB autonomy) is well-documented and matches the described intent of mirroring resolveRepositorySettings. It closes #7596 and is scoped narrowly to producing data for the linked design issue #7595, with no production code paths touched.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The script has no test coverage for the `main`/`d1Query` IO path (understandably, since it shells out to wrangler), so that portion is unverified by CI beyond typecheck — acceptable for a read-only ops script but worth calling out as an intentional gap.
• Consider validating the wrangler JSON shape more defensively in d1Query (e.g. checking `Array.isArray(parsed)` before indexing) so a wrangler CLI format change fails with a clearer message.
• The `manifestOnlyThresholdRepos` context note in the markdown report is a nice touch — no change needed, just worth confirming it doesn't confuse readers of the design-issue thread.

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	#7596
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: 63 registered-repo PR(s), 40 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	bitfathers94; Gittensor profile; 63 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Partially addressed
The PR delivers a well-tested read-only script that computes and formats the requested fraction and per-action-class autonomy breakdown, satisfying the script deliverable, but the issue's second deliverable — posting the actual findings as a comment on the cold-start design issue — is not evidenced anywhere in the diff/description (no output/results are shown, only the tooling to produce them).

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: not available
• Official Gittensor activity: 63 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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.