fix(signals): guard focus-manifest's preferred linked-issue nudge on bodyObserved (#8326)

[galuis116]

Summary

Closes #8326.

buildFocusManifestGuidance in src/signals/focus-manifest.ts builds contributor-facing findings from a repo's maintainer focus manifest. Its "required" linked-issue branch already carries a bodyObserved guard:

if (manifest.linkedIssuePolicy === "required" && linkedIssueCount === 0 && bodyObserved && !hasNoIssueRationale) {

That guard exists to avoid a false positive on a sparse webhook payload where the PR body was never actually observed -- linkedIssueCount === 0 then only means "we don't know", not "there really is no linked issue".

The "preferred" sibling immediately below was missing it, so a repo configured with linkedIssuePolicy: "preferred" could surface the "Maintainer prefers a linked issue" nudge for a PR whose body was never observed -- the exact false-positive class the "required" branch was already fixed to avoid.

Adds && bodyObserved to the "preferred" condition so it matches its sibling.

Per the issue's guidance, hasNoIssueRationale is deliberately not added to the "preferred" branch -- only the concretely-verified bodyObserved gap is closed, leaving the stricter "required" contract's extra exemption where it is.

Tests

Adds a regression test asserting a preferred-policy repo with bodyObserved: false and linkedIssueCount: 0 does not produce the manifest_linked_issue_preferred finding. The existing "prefers a linked issue under the preferred policy" test directly above already covers the bodyObserved: true arm, so both sides of the new operand are exercised.

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 (Closes #8326).

Validation

• git diff --check
• npm run actionlint - no workflow files touched.
• npm run typecheck
• npx vitest run test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts - 793 pass (was 792).
• Changed-line coverage verified locally: the modified line executes 299x with the new bodyObserved operand exercised on both arms (true via the existing preferred test, false via the new one).
• npm run test:coverage (full) / test:workers / build:mcp / ui:* - not run: this is a one-line condition change plus one test, touching no worker, MCP, or UI surface.
• npm audit --audit-level=moderate - no dependency changes.
• New or changed behavior has unit tests for new branches and fallback paths.

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

• The one changed src/** line is covered on both branch arms locally, so codecov/patch has real coverage for the diff.

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, none touched.
• API/OpenAPI/MCP behavior is updated and tested where needed - n/a; this only narrows an advisory finding's condition.
• UI changes use live API data or real empty/error/loading states - n/a, no UI change.
• Visible UI changes include a UI Evidence section - n/a: no visible UI/frontend/docs/extension change.
• Public docs/changelogs are updated where needed - n/a.

Notes

• This strictly narrows when an advisory info finding is emitted; it can never introduce a new blocker.

[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 89.69%. Comparing base (add1f78) to head (7ba71a8).
⚠️ Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8448      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   92.42%   89.69%   -2.74%     
==========================================
  Files         791       98     -693     
  Lines       79294    22949   -56345     
  Branches    23952     4021   -19931     
==========================================
- Hits        73291    20583   -52708     
+ Misses       4866     2187    -2679     
+ Partials     1137      179     -958     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	66.66% <100.00%> (+8.90%)	⬆️
shard-2	30.45% <100.00%> (-17.23%)	⬇️
shard-3	91.35% <100.00%> (+34.78%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/signals/focus-manifest.ts	99.58% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 693 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 13:59:27 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a minimal, well-targeted one-line fix that adds a missing `bodyObserved` guard to the `preferred` linked-issue-policy branch of `buildFocusManifestGuidance`, matching the same guard already present on its `required` sibling. The change correctly closes the false-positive gap described in issue #8326 (a sparse webhook payload where `linkedIssueCount === 0` only means 'unknown', not 'no issue') and deliberately withholds `hasNoIssueRationale` per the issue's stated scope. The accompanying test exercises the new `bodyObserved: false` arm directly, and the adjacent existing test already covers the `bodyObserved: true` arm, so both sides of the added operand are verified.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The new test's comment (test/unit/focus-manifest.test.ts:704-706) is a bit verbose for a one-line assertion; a shorter inline comment referencing the required-branch precedent would suffice.
• Consider adding a comment at src/signals/focus-manifest.ts:786 noting the two branches are intentionally kept in sync on `bodyObserved` but diverge on `hasNoIssueRationale`, so a future editor doesn't 'fix' the asymmetry.
• No functional suggestions beyond the nits — the fix is narrowly scoped and directly traceable to the linked issue.

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	#8326
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: 1897 registered-repo PR(s), 1235 merged, 56 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	galuis116; Gittensor profile; 1897 PR(s), 56 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff adds the exact `&& bodyObserved` guard to the "preferred" branch as requested, deliberately omits `hasNoIssueRationale` per the issue's guidance, and includes a regression test proving the finding is suppressed when bodyObserved is false while relying on an existing test for the bodyObserved:true case.

Review context

• Author: galuis116
• 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: 1897 PR(s), 56 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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.