docs(ams): land kill-switch incident runbook for misbehaving loops

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Lands the AMS kill-switch incident runbook (/docs/ams-kill-switch-incident) grounded in the shipped Kill-switch implementation #5670 mechanism (LOOPOVER_MINER_KILL_SWITCH, .loopover-miner.yml killSwitch.paused, mid-attempt kill_switch_engaged abandon, governor kill_switch ledger transitions).
• Wires nav + docs index + cross-links from AMS operations / config-precedence, regenerates the route tree, and adds a contract test that pins operator-facing CLI/env/ledger facts to resolveMinerKillSwitch / buildMinerKillSwitchTransitionGovernorLedgerEvent.
• Fresh PR after #7593 (closed for missing Closes #); this PR explicitly Closes Incident runbook for the kill-switch #4809.

Closes #4809.

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• 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 (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint
• npm run typecheck
• Contract + loading-state tests: npx vitest run test/unit/kill-switch-incident-runbook.test.ts; npm --prefix apps/loopover-ui test -- src/routes/docs-routes-loading-state.test.tsx
• npm run test:coverage locally; codecov/patch requires ≥99% coverage of the lines AND branches you changed (aim for 100% on your diff so CI variance does not fail near the threshold). Global coverage is a non-blocking trend with a loose 90% backstop, not the gate.
• 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
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• Docs/content + route wiring only; coverage bar is the new contract test + existing docs Suspense LoadingState count bump. Full test:ci / UI build left to CI (local win32 Vite/MDX SSR cannot render CodeBlock for page screenshots; production/preview path is unchanged and matches sibling AMS runbook routes).

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.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states, not production mock/demo fallbacks.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section below with JPG/JPEG or PNG screenshots arranged as organized, captioned, clickable thumbnails. SVG screenshots are not used as review evidence. Review-only screenshots or recordings are not committed to the repository.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed; changelogs are only edited for release-prep PRs.

UI Evidence

Docs are dark-mode-only. Matrix covers the new runbook route (production before = missing page) and the docs index (Maintainers list gains the new entry).

Viewport · Theme	Before	After
Desktop · Dark
Tablet · Dark
Mobile · Dark
Desktop · Dark (/docs index)
Tablet · Dark (/docs index)
Mobile · Dark (/docs index)

Notes

• Drill targets in the runbook: ≤15 minutes detection→halt; ≤2 minutes abandon after config/env change under a normal poll interval. Hosted-tenant drill deferred to Provisioning core: create/destroy a tenant's Container + Postgres DB #7180.

[superagent-security]

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

[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 88.46%. Comparing base (17503f3) to head (e430f30).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #7604      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.48%   88.46%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         720      720              
  Lines       75749    75749              
  Branches    22559    22557       -2     
==========================================
- Hits        67024    67013      -11     
- Misses       7679     7686       +7     
- Partials     1046     1050       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	32.96% <ø> (+3.98%)	⬆️
shard-2	30.51% <ø> (-3.42%)	⬇️
shard-3	30.38% <ø> (-3.10%)	⬇️
shard-4	41.81% <ø> (-2.41%)	⬇️
shard-5	39.15% <ø> (+5.42%)	⬆️
shard-6	31.33% <ø> (+1.91%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-21 00:49:43 UTC}

9 files · no blockers · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

• AI review already in progress for this PR head: Another LoopOver pass is already running the AI review for this exact PR head. This pass is skipping to avoid a duplicate LLM call.

Review summary
AI review is already running for this PR head in another LoopOver pass. LoopOver is holding this PR for manual review until that pass completes.

Nits — 1 non-blocking

• AI review already in progress for this PR head — The gate is held for a human reviewer rather than passed automatically; it re-evaluates once the in-flight review completes or on the next update.

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (No AI review summary)
• ⚠️ Gate result — Not blocking (Advisory; not blocking this PR.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#4809
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: 381 registered-repo PR(s), 179 merged, 36 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 381 PR(s), 36 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Review context

• Author: RealDiligent
• 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: 381 PR(s), 36 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.

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/docs/ams-kill-switch-incident	desktop	before /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident	after /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident	—
/docs/ams-kill-switch-incident	mobile	before /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident (mobile)	after /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident (mobile)	—
/docs	desktop	before /docs	after /docs	—
/docs	mobile	before /docs (mobile)	after /docs (mobile)	—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

Scroll preview

Route	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)
/docs/ams-kill-switch-incident	before /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident (scroll)	after /docs/ams-kill-switch-incident (scroll)
/docs	before /docs (scroll)	after /docs (scroll)

A short scroll-through clip (desktop) — click either thumbnail to open the full animation. Evidence for scroll-linked behavior a single screenshot can't show.

_{🟩 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.