test(engine): cover reviewer-consensus-calibration under root vitest

[claytonlin1110]

What

packages/loopover-engine/src/reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts (658 lines, ~128 branches) already had a full, passing node:test suite one directory over — but Codecov's codecov/patch gate only reads root vitest coverage, so the package's largest branch surface reported ~0% despite real tests. Same blind-spot class as #6250.

Changes

• Added test/unit/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts (vitest), importing the four public APIs from the engine barrel — matching the test/unit/calibration-dashboard.test.ts pattern.
• Mirrored every scenario from packages/loopover-engine/test/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts, plus remaining branch edges, so the module hits 100% statements/branches/functions/lines under npm run test:coverage.
• No changes under packages/loopover-engine/src/** or packages/loopover-engine/test/**.
• Documented the root vitest mirror in packages/loopover-engine/README.md (also trips the engine CI path filter so this PR runs the unscoped suite — a test-only diff under scoped --changed currently writes empty lcov and fails validate-tests-merge).

Closes

Closes #8349

Verification

• npx vitest run test/unit/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts — 23 passed
• Coverage on packages/loopover-engine/src/reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts — 100% stmts/branches/funcs/lines
• Prior attempt (test(engine): cover reviewer-consensus-calibration under root vitest #8374) failed CI solely on the scoped-selection empty-lcov hole; this PR includes the README note so engine=true and the full suite runs.

[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 92.41%. Comparing base (ce5f5aa) to head (d0f29b4).
⚠️ Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8399      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.17%   92.41%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files         791      791              
  Lines       79249    79249              
  Branches    23947    23945       -2     
==========================================
+ Hits        73048    73238     +190     
+ Misses       5062     4868     -194     
- Partials     1139     1143       +4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	56.38% <ø> (+2.72%)	⬆️
shard-2	50.63% <ø> (-0.21%)	⬇️
shard-3	56.14% <ø> (-2.09%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 11:39:26 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 98/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This adds a root-vitest mirror test file (740 lines) for reviewer-consensus-calibration.ts, matching the existing package-local node:test suite plus adding branch-complete edge cases, and documents the Codecov-visibility pattern in the package README. No src/ or package-test changes are made, all assertions trace to real exported functions and match the barrel imports shown, and CI is fully green on this commit. The PR closes #8349 and follows the precedent of #6250/calibration-dashboard.test.ts for the same class of Codecov blind-spot.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• The file is a large, mechanical duplication of the existing packages/loopover-engine/test/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts suite — worth watching for future drift between the two copies if the source module changes and only one suite gets updated.
• test/unit/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts:1 imports directly from '../../packages/loopover-engine/src/index' rather than the package name '@​loopover/engine' — confirm this matches the established convention in calibration-dashboard.test.ts rather than introducing a new import style.
• Consider a lint rule or comment convention requiring the root mirror and package-local suite to be updated together, since nothing currently enforces they stay in sync (packages/loopover-engine/README.md:36-39 documents the pattern but doesn't enforce it).

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	#8349
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: 394 registered-repo PR(s), 251 merged, 92 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	claytonlin1110; Gittensor profile; 394 PR(s), 92 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR adds exactly the requested root-level vitest file test/unit/reviewer-consensus-calibration.test.ts, importing the four required functions from the engine barrel and mirroring/expanding the scenarios listed in the issue (config resolution precedence, opt-in/weight validation, ingestion rejection reasons, composite scoring including the all-zero-weights fallback per #6170, and markdown render

Review context

• Author: claytonlin1110
• 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: 394 PR(s), 92 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Keep the PR focused and include validation evidence before maintainer review.

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.