feat(api): REST + stdio mirror for loopover_plan_idea_claims

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Add POST /v1/loop/plan-idea-claims reproducing the MCP handler (validateIdeaSubmission → buildTaskGraph → buildClaimPlan).
• Register in-process stdio tool loopover_plan_idea_claims (same offline parity pattern as #6753 / #6755).
• Unit tests assert REST/stdio parity; bump MCP discovery pin to 73 (covers #6756 plus #6942's unpinned get_maintainer_lane).

Closes #6756

Test plan

• Valid idea → claim plan with disposition buckets
• Route/stdio match pure handler for accepted shapes
• Engine validation failures → 400 { ok:false, errors }
• Zod-invalid body → 400 invalid_plan_idea_claims_request
• registerStdioTool count verified at 73 locally before open
• CI green including codecov/patch

[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 93.71%. Comparing base (3ade2dd) to head (97032dc).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6952      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   84.41%   93.71%   +9.29%     
==========================================
  Files         685      685              
  Lines       68364    68373       +9     
  Branches    18727    18729       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits        57712    64074    +6362     
+ Misses       8163     3302    -4861     
+ Partials     2489      997    -1492     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.75% <100.00%> (+0.12%)	⬆️
shard-2	36.79% <11.11%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
shard-3	32.75% <11.11%> (?)
shard-4	34.61% <11.11%> (?)
shard-5	32.13% <11.11%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
shard-6	45.75% <11.11%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/api/routes.ts	94.80% <100.00%> (+18.70%)	⬆️

... and 193 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-17 15:22:28 UTC}

5 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 80/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds a REST endpoint and stdio tool mirror for loopover_plan_idea_claims, both thin wrappers around the existing pure functions validateIdeaSubmission → buildTaskGraph → buildClaimPlan, following the same offline-parity pattern as prior PRs (#6753/#6755). The route and stdio handler are consistent with each other and with the sibling intake-idea endpoint, error handling (400 for validation/schema failures) is correctly wired, and tests assert REST/stdio parity plus the pure handler contract. The MCP discovery pin bump to 73 is justified and explained (72 from unpinned #6942 + 1 new tool), and the diff is closely scoped to the linked issue #6756.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• src/api/routes.ts:3404-3406 — the external brief flags the literal `400` status codes as magic numbers, but this matches the existing convention used throughout the file (e.g. /v1/loop/intake-idea), so it's a non-issue; no action needed.
• The long-file size flags on loopover-mcp.js and routes.ts are pre-existing file sizes, not something introduced by this diff's small additive changes.
• Consider extracting the shared `expectedPayload` helper duplicated across the two new test files (routes-plan-idea-claims.test.ts and mcp-cli-plan-idea-claims-tool.test.ts) into a shared test util if this pattern keeps repeating for future mirrored endpoints.

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	#6756
Related work	⚠️ 3 scoped overlaps	Top overlaps are listed below; lower-confidence bulk is hidden.
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: 389 registered-repo PR(s), 194 merged, 33 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 389 PR(s), 33 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds the POST /v1/loop/plan-idea-claims route delegating to validateIdeaSubmission/buildTaskGraph/buildClaimPlan, registers a stdio CLI tool with the same handler, and includes unit tests asserting REST/stdio output parity for identical inputs, matching all stated deliverables.

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: 389 PR(s), 33 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6744, issue #6756)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6747, issue #6756)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 8 meaningful terms. (issue #6746, issue #6756)
• Additional title-only matches omitted; title-only overlap does not block.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Review top overlaps.
• Then work through the remaining 2 steps 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.