chore(mcp): add tsc pipeline and convert Phase 1+2 libs to TypeScript

[RealDiligent]

Summary

• Adds a real tsc build pipeline for @loopover/mcp (tsconfig.json, build:tsc / build:verify), mirroring miner Phase 1 (chore(miner): add a real tsc build pipeline for loopover-miner (#7290) #7299 / chore(mcp): add tsc build pipeline + convert small lib utilities to TypeScript (Phase 1 of #7291) #7328).
• Converts Phase 1's four small libs (cli-error, format-table, redact-local-path, telemetry) plus Phase 2's local-branch to real TypeScript with in-place .js/.d.ts emit.
• Updates the MCP pack allowlist for sibling .d.ts files, turbo build graph, and adds mcp-cli-error + package-skeleton tests so codecov/patch and CI path filters stay green.

Closes #7329

Phase 1 deliverables from #7328 are included as the required build-pipeline prerequisite for Phase 2 (local-branch). bin/loopover-mcp.js is untouched (Phase 3).

Test plan

• npm --workspace @loopover/mcp run build (tsc + node --check)
• node scripts/check-mcp-package.mjs (allowlist accepts lib/*.d.ts)
• unit: mcp-cli-error, mcp-package-skeleton, format-table, redact-local-path, mcp-local-telemetry, local-branch, local-scorer-adapter
• CI: validate-code (Build MCP + engine), validate-tests-merge, codecov/patch

Made with Cursor

[superagent-security]

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

[codecov]

⚠️ JUnit XML file not found

The CLI was unable to find any JUnit XML files to upload.
For more help, visit our troubleshooting guide.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-20 04:23:38 UTC}

24 files · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

• 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.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests (6)
• validate-tests (2)
• validate-tests (5)
• validate-tests (3)
• validate-tests (4)
• validate-tests (1)
• validate-code

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	#7329
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: 398 registered-repo PR(s), 190 merged, 33 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	RealDiligent; Gittensor profile; 398 PR(s), 33 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds packages/loopover-mcp/lib/local-branch.ts as a genuine TypeScript conversion of the file (with typed function signatures, interfaces, and exported symbols), replacing the compiled .js as build output via the new tsc pipeline, directly fulfilling Phase 2's core ask.

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: 398 PR(s), 33 issue(s).
• Related work: Titles/paths share 9 meaningful terms. (issue #7328)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 7 meaningful terms. (issue #7330)
• Related work: Titles/paths share 11 meaningful terms. (issue #7329, issue #7328)
• 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 is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (CI is failing (validate, validate-tests (6), validate-tests (2), validate-tests (5), validate-tests (3), validate-tests (4), validate-tests (1), validate-code)). 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.