fix(github): preserve legacy gate verdicts

[JSONbored]

Motivation

• Prevent a rebrand-era integrity hole where the old active required gate name (Gittensory Orb Review Agent) could be neutralized while the renamed authoritative check was only in_progress, potentially satisfying branch-protection rules that still required the old name.

Description

• When finalizing legacy check runs, compute a legacyConclusion that uses the authoritative check.conclusion for the old Orb gate name and neutral for other legacy names, and skip finalization if no terminal conclusion exists, so legacy Orb runs are not neutralized during the pending phase; this change is in src/github/app.ts.
• Update the GITTENSORY_LEGACY_ORB_GATE_CHECK_NAME comment to document that it was once an active required gate and must mirror the renamed gate's terminal verdict instead of being neutralized early in src/review/check-names.ts.
• Add regression tests exercising the migration cases (legacy Orb pending should not be neutralized; a failed renamed gate is mirrored to the legacy Orb name) in test/unit/github-app.test.ts.

Testing

• Ran the focused unit suite npx vitest run test/unit/github-app.test.ts --reporter=verbose and the file's tests passed (the targeted regression cases were added and passed).
• An attempted full coverage run (npm run test:coverage) was started but the full suite was interrupted by unrelated long-running/backfill tests, so end-to-end coverage gating was not completed in this session.
• npm run typecheck was attempted but blocked by pre-existing unrelated TypeScript resolution/implicit-any errors in other test files and packages, so no new type-errors were introduced by the change (typecheck failures are external to these edits).

---

Codex Task

[superagent-security]

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

[loopover-orb]

Warning

🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨🟨

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-13 12:06:25 UTC}

3 files · 2 blockers · readiness 89/100 · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.
• Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example Closes #123) before opening the PR.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

Fix the following blocker(s) from this PR review:

1. No linked issue detected — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

2. Maintainer requires a linked issue — Link the relevant issue (for example `Closes #123`) before opening the PR.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	No AI review summary
Linked issue	⚠️ Missing	No linked issue or no-issue rationale found.
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 (draft PR; no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 44 registered-repo PR(s), 36 merged, 330 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 44 PR(s), 330 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor — Code changes are accompanied by test evidence.

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, JavaScript, MDX, Shell, Solidity
• Official Gittensor activity: 44 PR(s), 330 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.
• Explain no-issue PR.
• Mark ready when done.
• Link the issue being solved, or explicitly explain why this is a no-issue PR.

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.

[BETA] Chat with Gittensory

Ask Gittensory a question about this PR directly in a comment — grounded only in the same cached, public-safe facts shown above, never a new claim.

• @gittensory ask <question> answers contribution-quality Q&A with source citations and freshness.
• @gittensory chat <question> answers in natural prose from cached decision-pack facts via local inference (maintainer/collaborator; read-only).
• A plain-language @gittensory mention with a real question is routed to the closest matching read-only command automatically -- no exact syntax required.

Full command reference: https://gittensory.aethereal.dev/docs/gittensory-commands

_{🟩 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

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 94.75%. Comparing base (09fd393) to head (4d3eedd).
⚠️ Report is 31 commits behind head on main.
✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #5552   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.75%   94.75%           
=======================================
  Files         564      564           
  Lines       44905    44907    +2     
  Branches    14675    14677    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits        42550    42552    +2     
  Misses       1621     1621           
  Partials      734      734           

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	43.68% <100.00%> (-0.62%)	⬇️
shard-2	35.44% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
shard-3	32.12% <100.00%> (+0.11%)	⬆️
shard-4	31.28% <100.00%> (-0.62%)	⬇️
shard-5	33.18% <100.00%> (+0.47%)	⬆️
shard-6	43.83% <100.00%> (+0.27%)	⬆️

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/github/app.ts	97.90% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/review/check-names.ts	100.00% <ø> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.