fix(groomer): resolve LLM-emitted lane ids through laneAliases map before validation

[itsmiso-ai]

Bug

Nvidia model returns legacy lane IDs (normal, escalated) despite system prompt enumerating configured IDs (local, cloud, frontier, backlog). Live evidence: 4/4 dry-runs failed post PR #473 with invalid lane id: normal.

Fix

Route lane id through resolveLaneId() before validation in validateGroomerOutput(). This reuses the existing laneAliases map (e.g. { normal: "local", escalated: "frontier" }) so legacy LLM output is resolved to configured lane IDs.

Also mutates the input lane object with the resolved id so downstream consumers (the plan, the apply path, the audit log, the GroomingRun record) all see the configured lane id rather than the raw alias.

Changes

• src/lib/groomer/schema.ts — import resolveLaneId, resolve + validate lane id, mutate laneObj.id on success
• src/lib/groomer/schema.test.ts — 5 new tests: direct lane id pass-through, normal→local alias, escalated→frontier alias, bogus rejection, input mutation

Verification

• All 39 tests pass (34 existing + 5 new)
• Lint: clean
• Typecheck: clean
• Manual reproduction once deployed

[its-saffron]

AI Automated Review

Full PR review.

Analysis engine: MiniMax-M2.7@https://litellm.jory.dev/v1 (anthropic) — routed smart (risk match: db_or_migration_changes)

Recommendation: Approve

This is a clean, well-scoped bug fix that correctly resolves the reported issue where Nvidia model outputs legacy lane IDs (normal, escalated) that fail validation against the configured lane IDs (local, cloud, frontier, backlog).

Change Summary

src/lib/groomer/schema.ts

• Imports resolveLaneId from the existing lane-config library (consistent with repository patterns established in PR 454)
• Refactors lane validation to: (1) check if laneId is a string, (2) resolve through resolveLaneId(), (3) validate the resolved ID, (4) mutate laneObj.id to the resolved value so downstream consumers see the configured lane ID

src/lib/groomer/schema.test.ts

• Adds 5 focused tests covering: direct lane ID pass-through, normal→local alias, escalated→frontier alias, bogus lane rejection, and input object mutation verification

Required Checks

✅ review migration for data loss risk

Not applicable — no migration present.

This PR contains zero database changes. The diff touches only TypeScript validation logic in src/lib/groomer/schema.ts and its test file. There is no Prisma schema change, no migration file, and no SQL. Therefore, there is no data loss risk to assess.

✅ test migration on a copy of production schema

Not applicable — no migration present.

Same rationale as above: this PR introduces no database migrations. The lane alias resolution operates purely at the application validation layer, not the database layer. Repository history confirms the lane aliases feature was introduced in PR 454 (feat: 3-tier lane model (local/cloud/frontier) with backward-compat aliases) and migration-safe deployments in PR 434 (feat: support migration-safe custom lane deployments); this PR extends that alias resolution to the groomer schema validation path.

Standards Compliance

Convention	Status
Error handling (error instanceof Error pattern)	N/A — validation errors are structured array messages, consistent with existing validateGroomerOutput() design
No commit of secrets	✅ No secrets involved
Import from @/lib/lane-config	✅ Reuses existing resolveLaneId and isValidLane helpers
TypeScript types	✅ No type regressions
Input validation	✅ Bogus lane IDs are still rejected

Evidence Provider Findings

No evidence providers configured for this PR.

Tool Harness Findings

No tool harness findings — reviewing corpus directly.

CI Check Results

All checks passed successfully:

• Docker Build: ✅ completed
• Build: ✅ completed
• Tests: ✅ completed (39 tests, including 5 new)
• Typecheck: ✅ completed
• Lint: ✅ completed

Unknowns / Needs Verification

None. The PR is self-contained with clear bug evidence ("4/4 dry-runs failed post PR PR 473"), a correct fix pattern matching established alias resolution elsewhere in the codebase, and comprehensive test coverage.