[WRONG BRANCH] fix(lab): persist cursor-protobuf conformance evidence

[luvs01]

Motivation

• The closed protocol-to-adapter mapping caused valid MCP conformance scenarios that declare cursor-protobuf as their upstream protocol to throw during evidence persistence, preventing protocol conformance observations from being produced.

Description

• Add cursor-protobuf to the upstreamAdapter() mapping so cursor-protobuf execution contexts map to a valid effective adapter. (change in src/lab/observe/from-conformance.ts).
• Add a focused regression test that exercises the canonical mcp-core.protocol.namespace-mapping scenario and asserts the produced observation subject has effectiveAdapter and upstreamProtocol set to cursor-protobuf. (change in tests/lab-evidence-ledger.test.ts).

Testing

• ✅ Ran the focused tests via ./node_modules/.bin/bun test tests/lab-evidence-ledger.test.ts, and the modified/related tests passed.
• ✅ Ran type checking via bun run typecheck, which completed successfully.
• ⚠️ Attempted a full ./node_modules/.bin/bun run test; unrelated retained-root serialization races and management-editor timeouts were observed in the broader suite and are not caused by this small mapping change, so the focused affected suite was used as the verification signal.

---

Codex Task

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@luvs01, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 3 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: c7f216c4-1588-4fc4-9e9a-d35b69ebfeba

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 1193075 and 6eb3e1b.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

• src/lab/observe/from-conformance.ts
• tests/lab-evidence-ledger.test.ts

---

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[github-actions]

✅ Deterministic PR hygiene checks passed.

[github-actions]

⏳ DRAFT

• wrong target branch (main); retarget to dev.

What to do

• Retarget this PR to dev — all contributions go to dev.

Its title has been prefixed with [WRONG BRANCH].
This pull request was already a draft. Its draft status will be preserved after every issue above is resolved.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 6eb3e1b278

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Map the Cursor wire protocol to the Cursor adapter

When any mcp-core conformance result is persisted, this records both subject.effectiveAdapter and the fingerprint's wire.adapter as cursor-protobuf, but that is the wire protocol rather than a registered adapter: the runtime's canonical adapter identifier is cursor (src/server/adapter-resolve.ts:76). Consequently, the ledger attributes MCP evidence to a nonexistent adapter and produces incompatible subject/fingerprint metadata for actual Cursor routes. Return cursor here while retaining cursor-protobuf in upstreamProtocol, and update the new test accordingly.

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.