docs(ui): federated fleet intelligence operator-consent page

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Adds apps/loopover-ui/content/docs/federated-fleet-intelligence.mdx covering exported aggregate fields (Implement signed, anonymized signature-bundle export for federated fleet intelligence #6478), .loopover.yml opt-in / opt-out (Implement signed, anonymized signature-bundle export for federated fleet intelligence #6478/Opt-in collector client for federated fleet intelligence (push/pull transport) #6479), and operator-verifiable trust-gating from Design: trust-gating/anti-poisoning scoring rules for federated signal-bundle import #6477 (allowlist/collector as trust boundary, median, abuse recovery).
• Wires the page through the existing fumadocs-mdx thin route + docs nav / Maintainers index / command palette so /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence is discoverable (not orphaned).
• Documents shipped HMAC export signing and notes that receive-side import/validation (Implement signature-bundle import + trust-gating validation for federated fleet intelligence #6480) may still be landing — does not invent inbound trust behavior.

Closes #6482

Test plan

• Open /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence locally or on preview; content renders via DocsPage
• Confirm sidebar link under Maintainers → Self-hosting: release & security
• Confirm Maintainers card on /docs lists the page
• Spot-check against FederatedSignalBundleBody + federatedIntelligence manifest fields

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-16 16:36:07 UTC}

6 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR adds a docs-only page describing the (already-shipped) federated fleet intelligence feature — opt-in export, consent via .loopover.yml, and the trust-gating design — plus wires it into the route tree, nav, docs index, and command palette. The content is consistent with the referenced source (federated-collector.ts, the FederatedSignalBundleBody fields) and correctly flags that receive-side import/validation (#6480) is not yet shipped, avoiding inventing inbound trust behavior. The generated routeTree.gen.ts diff is mechanical output from the route file and matches the existing pattern for other docs routes.

Blockers

• CI's `validate` and `validate-code` checks are FAILED on this commit, and no evidence in the diff explains why — before merge this needs to be traced to a concrete failure (lint/type error) rather than assumed to be flaky, since an MDX/route-registration mismatch could plausibly trip either check.

Nits — 6 non-blocking

• No test coverage was added, but this is a static docs page + generated route wiring, which is consistent with how other docs pages in this repo are covered (verify docs.index.tsx / nav changes don't have an existing smoke test convention being skipped here).
• apps/loopover-ui/content/docs/federated-fleet-intelligence.mdx's CodeBlock YAML for `collectorMode` shows only a comment for allowed values (`push | pull | both`) without linking to where those are validated/typed — a link to the manifest schema would help operators avoid typos.
• The command-palette.tsx entry for 'Federated fleet intelligence' is inserted out of alphabetical order (between 'Self-host security' and 'Self-host troubleshooting') — minor, but the rest of that Docs group is roughly self-hosting-topic ordered, not alphabetical, so this may be intentional; confirm the convention.
• Investigate the FAILED `validate` / `validate-code` checks before merge — identify whether it's the new route file, the MDX frontmatter, or an unrelated pre-existing failure.
• Consider a light smoke test (if the repo has one for other docs routes) asserting `/docs/federated-fleet-intelligence` resolves via docsSource.getPage and renders, matching whatever pattern (if any) covers sibling docs routes.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Why this is blocked

• CI's `validate` and `validate-code` checks are FAILED on this commit, and no evidence in the diff explains why — before merge this needs to be traced to a concrete failure (lint/type error) rather than assumed to be flaky, since an MDX/route-registration mismatch could plausibly trip either check.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. CI's \`validate\` and \`validate-code\` checks are FAILED on this commit, and no evidence in the diff explains why — before merge this needs to be traced to a concrete failure \(lint/type error\) rather than assumed to be flaky, since an MDX/route-registration mismatch could plausibly trip either check.

Decision drivers

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

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6482
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: 357 registered-repo PR(s), 174 merged, 32 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 357 PR(s), 32 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none · LLM: 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: 357 PR(s), 32 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.

Visual preview

Route	Viewport	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)	Diff
/docs/federated-fleet-intelligence	desktop	before /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence	after /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence	—
/docs/federated-fleet-intelligence	mobile	before /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence (mobile)	after /docs/federated-fleet-intelligence (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.

_{🟩 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (AI reviewers agree on a likely critical defect: CI's `validate` and `validate-code` checks are FAILED on this commit, and no evidence in the diff explains why — before merge this needs to be traced to a concrete failure (lint/type error) rather than assumed to be flaky, since an MDX/route-registration mismatch could plausibly trip either check.). This is an automated maintenance action — to pursue this change, please open a new pull request with the issues resolved. Closed PRs may be analyzed later to improve review accuracy, but they are not automatically reopened or re-reviewed.