fix(openapi): document /v1/loop idea/task-graph routes in the public spec (#9309)

[andriypolanski]

Summary

• Closes openapi: /v1/loop/* idea/task-graph family (5 routes, excl. request-apr-transfer) missing from spec #9309
• Adds OpenAPI request + response schemas for the five /v1/loop/* idea/task-graph routes, mirroring each route's MCP tool input/output shape from src/mcp/server.ts.
• Registers all five paths in src/openapi/spec.ts (same pattern as GET .../gate-config/effective / OpenAPI spec is missing GET /v1/repos/{owner}/{repo}/gate-config/effective (documented sibling: live-gate-thresholds) #6611).
• Regenerates and commits apps/loopover-ui/public/openapi.json.
• Explicitly does not document POST /v1/loop/request-apr-transfer (out of scope).

Scope

• The PR title follows type(scope): short summary Conventional Commit format, for example fix(api): restore profile access checks.
• This PR is focused and does not mix unrelated backend, UI, MCP, docs, dependency, and deploy changes.
• This follows CONTRIBUTING.md and does not reintroduce GitHub Pages, VitePress, site/, or CNAME.
• I linked a currently open issue this PR resolves (e.g. Closes #123) — a linked open issue is required for every contributor PR.

Validation

• git diff --check
• npx vitest run test/unit/openapi.test.ts — 4 passed (includes openapi: /v1/loop/* idea/task-graph family (5 routes, excl. request-apr-transfer) missing from spec #9309 regression)
• npm run ui:openapi
• npm run ui:openapi:check
• npm run test:ci (full gate; run before push)
• New or changed behavior has unit/integration tests for new branches, fallback paths, and sanitizer boundaries

If any required check was skipped, explain why:

OpenAPI schemas + path registration + regenerated artifact + regression test complete. Full test:ci left for the opener.

Safety

• No secrets, wallets, hotkeys, trust scores, or reward values.
• Does not touch site/, CNAME, **/lovable/**, or root CHANGELOG.md.

UI Evidence

N/A — OpenAPI contract documentation only; no visible UI change.

Notes for reviewers / gate

• Routes covered: evaluate-escalation, results-payload, progress-snapshot, intake-idea, plan-idea-claims.
• Response component schema property keys match each MCP *OutputSchema in src/mcp/server.ts.

[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 75.52%. Comparing base (aad3f93) to head (cc33a8a).
⚠️ Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #9352      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   75.38%   75.52%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files         275      277       +2     
  Lines       58023    58365     +342     
  Branches     6181     6188       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits        43739    44080     +341     
  Misses      14014    14014              
- Partials      270      271       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	99.70% <100.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/openapi/schemas.ts	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/openapi/spec.ts	99.50% <100.00%> (ø)

[loopover-orb]

Tip

✅ LoopOver review result - approve/merge recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-27 14:00:33 UTC}

4 files · 1 AI reviewer · no blockers · readiness 95/100 · CI green · clean

✅ Suggested Action - Approve/Merge

• safe to merge

Review summary
This PR adds OpenAPI request/response schemas and path registrations for five /v1/loop/* routes (evaluate-escalation, results-payload, progress-snapshot, intake-idea, plan-idea-claims), regenerates openapi.json, and adds a regression test asserting each path exists with a response schema whose properties match the expected MCP tool output keys. The EvaluateEscalationRequestSchema aligns with the actual evaluateEscalation function signature shown in test/unit/loop-escalation.test.ts (runStatus required, others optional), which is a good sign the mirroring claim holds for at least that route. This is low-risk, additive documentation work with no runtime code path changes — the generated JSON, Zod schemas, and registry wiring are internally consistent in the diff shown.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• src/openapi/schemas.ts: PlanIdeaClaimsRequestSchema is a byte-for-byte duplicate of IntakeIdeaRequestSchema (same fields, same comment acknowledging it) — consider `export const PlanIdeaClaimsRequestSchema = IntakeIdeaRequestSchema.openapi("PlanIdeaClaimsRequest")` or a shared base schema instead of copy-pasting the object literal, so the two can't drift independently.
• Response schemas (EvaluateEscalationResponse, BuildResultsPayloadResponse, etc.) mark nearly every field `.optional()` rather than asserting `required` where the underlying MCP outputSchema guarantees a value — e.g. IntakeIdeaResponseSchema only requires `ok`, worth double-checking against the actual MCP outputSchema constants in src/mcp/server.ts (not shown in this diff) to confirm nothing is over-relaxed.
• `diffPreview`, `totals`, `taskGraph`, `claimPlan`, and `recentActivity` are typed `z.unknown()`/bare `nullable` — reasonable for opaque nested shapes, but worth a one-line comment noting these are intentionally left loose rather than under-specified.
• Consider factoring PlanIdeaClaimsRequestSchema from IntakeIdeaRequestSchema (src/openapi/schemas.ts:~2011) to avoid the duplicate-drift risk called out above.
• If src/mcp/server.ts's outputSchema constants have stricter `required` fields than what's reflected here, tighten the corresponding response schemas to match before merge.

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	#9309
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: 174 registered-repo PR(s), 113 merged, 22 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	andriypolanski; Gittensor profile; 174 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Addressed
The PR defines request/response schemas for all five /v1/loop/* routes mirroring the MCP output/input shapes, registers each as a component and registerPath entry in spec.ts following the gate-config/effective pattern, regenerates and commits openapi.json, and adds a regression test verifying paths and matching response schema keys while confirming request-apr-transfer stays excluded.

Review context

• Author: andriypolanski
• Role context: outside_contributor
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Rust, Cuda, JavaScript, Kotlin, MDX, Scala
• Official Gittensor activity: 174 PR(s), 22 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Triage stale or unlinked PRs.

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
/	desktop	before /	after /	—
/	mobile	before / (mobile)	after / (mobile)	—

Click any thumbnail to open the full-size screenshot. Before = production · After = this PR's preview deploy.

Scroll preview

Route	Before (production)	After (this PR's preview)
/	before / (scroll)	after / (scroll)

A short scroll-through clip (desktop) — click either thumbnail to open the full animation. Evidence for scroll-linked behavior a single screenshot can't show.

_{🟩 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]

This pull request changes UI/visual code but its screenshot evidence is incomplete. Every required viewport × theme combination needs its own before/after image pair in a labeled table row (e.g. "Desktop · Light | before | after"). Still missing: Desktop · Dark, Tablet · Dark, Mobile · Dark.

Please resubmit with the remaining rows filled in.

See https://github.com/JSONbored/loopover/blob/main/.claude/skills/contributing-to-loopover/SKILL.md for the exact format and examples. This is an automated maintenance action.

[andriypolanski]

Hi, @JSONbored
this issue does not require UI evidence, but closed pr, please review.

[andriypolanski]

Hi, @JSONbored
this issue does not require UI evidence, but closed pr, please reopen.