feat(registry): add SN62 Ridges public data artifact via TaoMarketCap

[dhgoal]

Summary

Appends exactly one data-artifact surface (sn-62-taomarketcap-data-artifact) to registry/subnets/ridges.json (SN62, Ridges). Strictly append-only — no reordering of existing top-level fields or surfaces; the diff is +19 / -0, the new object only.

Surface

• Netuid: 62
• Kind: data-artifact
• Public URL: https://api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62
• Source URLs:
  • https://api.taomarketcap.com/developer/documentation/
  • https://github.com/ridgesai/ridges
• Provider slug: taomarketcap

The TaoMarketCap developer API exposes a public no-auth GET /public/v1/subnets/{netuid} snapshot returning machine-readable JSON for on-chain subnet state, SubnetIdentitiesV3 metadata, economics, and dTAO market fields — verified live for netuid 62. Registered as a standing subnet-state data artifact for SN62.

Test plan

• npm run validate:surface -- registry/subnets/ridges.json — passed
• git diff is append-only (+19 / -0) — no existing content reordered
• Verified https://api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62 returns HTTP 200 with valid JSON (netuid: 62)
• Confirmed no existing registry surface url uses this endpoint

Closes #4069

[superagent-security]

🚨 Contributor flagged. Click here for more info: Superagent Dashboard

[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 97.94%. Comparing base (4c3dbbf) to head (07edc81).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4912   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.94%   97.94%           
=======================================
  Files         162      162           
  Lines       19425    19425           
  Branches     7349     7349           
=======================================
  Hits        19025    19025           
  Misses         53       53           
  Partials      347      347           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[gittensory-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-11 17:54:38 UTC}

1 file · 2 AI reviewers · 2 blockers · readiness 100/100 · CI pending · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• Subnet document appears to include secret, wallet, PAT, or private-key material.

Review summary
Appends exactly one data-artifact surface (sn-62-taomarketcap-data-artifact) to the existing ridges.json manifest for netuid 62, matching the linked issue's intent. The diff is strictly additive (+19/-0), no top-level metadata or existing surfaces are touched, and the pattern (same universal TaoMarketCap /public/v1/subnets/{netuid} feed already registered for other subnets like bitads.json and groundlayer.json) is consistent with established convention.

Blockers

• registry/subnets/ridges.json:99 classifies `https:​//api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62` as `kind: "data-artifact"`, but the same TaoMarketCap `/public/v1/subnets/{netuid}` REST feed is registered as `subnet-api` in the provided existing manifests, so this surface should use the API kind/id/name convention rather than misclassifying a callable endpoint as an artifact.

Nits — 5 non-blocking

• The url (https:​//api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62) and one source_url (https:​//api.taomarketcap.com/developer/documentation/) can't be independently verified from this diff alone — confirm the live probe returns netuid:62 and not a generic docs page.
• The second source_url (github.com/ridgesai/ridges) is redundant with the existing sn-62-ridges-source surface's source_urls and doesn't itself establish TaoMarketCap ownership of the data-artifact endpoint — it only supports subnet identity, which is fine but worth noting as weak signal.
• Contributor trust check failed in CI (contributor flagged for review) — not a code defect, but worth manual attention given the community-submitted authority and reviewer note.
• Manually re-probe the live URL and content-type before merge to confirm the JSON body actually names netuid 62 and isn't a generic/error payload, consistent with the trace-to-source rubric.
• Given the flagged-contributor CI signal, have a maintainer double check the submitted_by field and history before merge.

Why this is blocked

• registry/subnets/ridges.json:99 classifies `https:​//api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62` as `kind: "data-artifact"`, but the same TaoMarketCap `/public/v1/subnets/{netuid}` REST feed is registered as `subnet-api` in the provided existing manifests, so this surface should use the API kind/id/name convention rather than misclassifying a callable endpoint as an artifact.
• Registry surface review

Flagged checks (non-blocking)

• Contributor trust — Contributor flagged for review

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	2 reviewers, synthesized
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#4069
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: 101 registered-repo PR(s), 62 merged, 14 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	dhgoal; Gittensor profile; 101 PR(s), 14 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: dhgoal
• 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: 101 PR(s), 14 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.

[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 Gittensory, a quiet PR intelligence layer for OSS maintainers.

• Re-run Gittensory review

[gittensory-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (AI reviewers agree on a likely critical defect: registry/subnets/ridges.json:99 classifies `https:​//api.taomarketcap.com/public/v1/subnets/62` as `kind: "data-artifact"`, but the same TaoMarketCap `/public/v1/subnets/{netuid}` REST feed is registered as `subnet-api` in the provided existing manifests, so this surface should use the API kind/id/name convention rather than misclassifying a callable endpoint as an artifact.; Registry surface review). 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.