docs(miner): fix stale buildOpenPrSpec location in harness-submission-trigger

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Update harness-submission-trigger.js header/JSDoc (and .d.ts) so buildOpenPrSpec is documented at @loopover/engine, called by attempt-runner.js.
• Documented conclusion: prepareOpenPrSubmission still must not call buildOpenPrSpec — keep the gate→payload→spec layering even though the old cross-package barrier is gone.

Closes #6760

Test plan

• Spot-check comments against attempt-runner.js / @loopover/engine exports
• Existing harness-submission / attempt-runner tests still pass (docs-only)

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 13:34:54 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 86/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This is a docs-only change updating stale comments/JSDoc in harness-submission-trigger.js and its .d.ts to reflect that buildOpenPrSpec now lives in @​loopover/engine (moved per #5131/#5132) rather than root src/mcp/local-write-tools.ts, and clarifying attempt-runner.js is the real caller. Cross-checking attempt-runner.js confirms the updated comments are accurate: it does import buildOpenPrSpec from @​loopover/engine and calls it after a ready:true result from prepareOpenPrSubmission, matching the documented layering. No runtime code changed (only comments/JSDoc/type-doc), so there's no behavioral risk here.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• The external brief flags issue numbers Build production CodingAgentDriver construction + wire into the create phase #5131/Wire CLI dispatch for the real attempt pipeline (attempt command) #5132 as 'magic numbers' but these are just GitHub issue references in prose comments, not code constants — not actionable.
• No test-path changes, but that's expected and appropriate since this is a comment/documentation-only diff with no behavioral changes to verify.
• Consider a brief mention in the PR description that this is purely a comment/JSDoc update with zero runtime behavior change, to make review triage faster for future skimmers.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

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	#6760
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: 390 registered-repo PR(s), 195 merged, 35 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 390 PR(s), 35 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none · LLM: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The diff updates the header comment and JSDoc in harness-submission-trigger.js to point to @​loopover/engine and attempt-runner.js as the caller, removes the stale 'CLI/driver entrypoint does not exist' claim, regenerates the .d.ts, and includes a documented conclusion that the non-call layering is still intentionally kept even though the cross-package barrier is gone.

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: Python, JavaScript, Ruby, Svelte, TypeScript, Markdown, MDX
• Official Gittensor activity: 390 PR(s), 35 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.

_{🟩 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.