fix(notifications): render the dormant maintainer-recap section builders in the digest

[xfodev]

Summary

The maintainer recap digest has four dedicated "content slice" section builders (buildCalibrationRecapSection #2243, buildGateOutcomesRecapSection #2242, buildPerRepoRecapSection #2241, buildDriftRecapSection #8214) — all fully built and unit-tested — but formatMaintainerRecap never called any of them, instead hand-rolling an inline, uncapped, unsorted per-repo block. So a maintainer running the live recap never saw the Calibration, Gate-outcomes, properly-capped Per-repo, or config-drift sections. (Same bug shape as closed #6636.)

• Per-repo: replaced the inline perRepoLines block with buildPerRepoRecapSection({ windowDays, repos }) — now capped/sorted with the (+N more) remainder the inline version lacked — rendered under the same ## Per-repo header via recapSectionLines/redactRecapLine.
• ## Calibration (new, unconditional): via buildCalibrationRecapSection({ windowDays, totals }).
• ## Gate outcomes (new, unconditional): via buildGateOutcomesRecapSection({ windowDays, totals }).
• Config drift plumbing: threaded an optional configDrift through runMaintainerRecap to formatMaintainerRecap, so a caller holding a DriftRecapSection actually renders it. No live drift is sourced here (a comment notes maintainer-recap-wire.ts, the cron caller, supplies none yet, so its live digests stay unchanged).
• Section order: Summary, Totals, Per-repo, Calibration, Gate outcomes, Config drift (optional, last). RecapReport shape unchanged; buildTopContributorsRecapSection untouched (needs a contributors list not on RecapReport).

Tests

test/unit/maintainer-recap-format.test.ts + test/unit/maintainer-recap.test.ts (all maintainer-recap suites green, 109): assert the rendered digest now contains ## Calibration + ## Gate outcomes with the builders' content, that ## Per-repo renders via the capped builder (a 10-repo case shows top-8 + (+2 more)), the empty-window fallbacks, and both sides of the runMaintainerRecap configDrift forward (present → ## Config drift appears; absent → it does not).

Validation

• tsc --noEmit clean (changed files); all maintainer-recap test files green.
• Rebased on latest main; no base conflict.
• No RecapReport shape change; every rendered line still goes through redactRecapLine; no secret/wallet/hotkey/trust/reward terms.

Closes #8372

[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 89.60%. Comparing base (12f2e14) to head (01c9e85).
⚠️ Report is 29 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #8507       +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage   79.32%   89.60%   +10.28%     
===========================================
  Files         791       98      -693     
  Lines       79329    22781    -56548     
  Branches    23963     3893    -20070     
===========================================
- Hits        62929    20414    -42515     
+ Misses      13499     2187    -11312     
+ Partials     2901      180     -2721     

Flag	Coverage Δ
shard-1	73.33% <66.66%> (+15.56%)	⬆️
shard-2	96.00% <100.00%> (+48.68%)	⬆️
shard-3	4.00% <0.00%> (?)

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

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/services/maintainer-recap.ts	97.33% <100.00%> (+20.77%)	⬆️

... and 693 files with indirect coverage changes

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-24 16:52:45 UTC}

3 files · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

Review summary
This PR wires the three previously dormant recap section builders (Per-repo, Calibration, Gate outcomes) into formatMaintainerRecap and threads an optional configDrift parameter through runMaintainerRecap, replacing the hand-rolled uncapped per-repo block. The change is small, additive, and well-tested — the diff shows corresponding test updates asserting the new section headers, the capped/sorted per-repo output with '(+N more)', and both drift-present/absent arms. The builder imports (buildPerRepoRecapSection, buildCalibrationRecapSection, buildGateOutcomesRecapSection) are consistent with the PR's stated intent of activating already-built, already-tested code paths.

Nits — 4 non-blocking

• src/services/maintainer-recap.ts: Calibration and Gate outcomes sections are now unconditional (always rendered even for an all-zero window), which changes the digest's byte shape for every existing recipient — worth calling out explicitly in the PR description as a behavior change, not just an activation of dormant code.
• test/unit/maintainer-recap.test.ts: the new configDrift test doesn't assert on `withDrift.formatted` ordering relative to the new Calibration/Gate-outcomes sections, only presence — a minor coverage gap for section ordering guarantees.
• Consider a short migration note in the PR description clarifying that live digests will grow two new unconditional sections after this ships (Calibration + Gate outcomes), since that's a visible behavior change for anyone already consuming the recap output.
• src/review/maintainer-recap-wire.ts's runMaintainerRecapJob still doesn't pass a configDrift value — if there's a follow-up issue to wire that in, link it in the description for traceability.

Why this is blocked

• Linked issue does not appear to be satisfied: AI assessment: this PR does not appear to satisfy its linked issue's scope. The linked issue asks for resolveDispositionReason (in outcomes-wire.ts) to be wired into the Discord/Slack disposition-notification code path in the action executor, but this PR instead wires unrelated maintainer-recap section builders (calibration, gate-outcomes, per-repo, drift) into formatMaintainerRecap — a completely different file and feature area. — Confirm this PR actually addresses the linked issue's scope, or link the correct issue.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. Linked issue does not appear to be satisfied: AI assessment: this PR does not appear to satisfy its linked issue's scope. The linked issue asks for resolveDispositionReason \(in outcomes-wire.ts\) to be wired into the Discord/Slack disposition-notification code path in the action executor, but this PR instead wires unrelated maintainer-recap section builders \(calibration, gate-outcomes, per-repo, drift\) into formatMaintainerRecap — a completely different file and feature area. — Confirm this PR actually addresses the linked issue's scope, or link the correct issue.

Decision drivers

• ❌ Code review — 1 blocker (1 reviewer)
• ❌ Gate result — Blocking (Repo-configured hard blocker found.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#6636, #8372
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 (2 linked issues).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 67 registered-repo PR(s), 30 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	xfodev; Gittensor profile; 67 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	✅ Minor	risk: clean · value: minor · LLM: moderate

Linked issue satisfaction

Not yet addressed
The linked issue asks for resolveDispositionReason (in outcomes-wire.ts) to be wired into the Discord/Slack disposition-notification code path in the action executor, but this PR instead wires unrelated maintainer-recap section builders (calibration, gate-outcomes, per-repo, drift) into formatMaintainerRecap — a completely different file and feature area.

Review context

• Author: xfodev
• 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: 67 PR(s), 0 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.

_{🟩 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 (Linked issue does not appear to be satisfied). 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.