fix(db): renumber the two newer 0134 migrations to resolve the 0134 collision

[davion-knight]

Three PRs each landed a migration numbered 0134, so check-migrations fails on main and every open contributor PR inherits the duplicate:

check-migrations: duplicate migration number 0134:
  "0134_pr_last_backlog_convergence_regated_at.sql",
  "0134_predicted_gate_calls.sql",
  "0134_review_targets_cadence_idx.sql".

Fix

Keep the earliest-merged file at 0134 (it pairs with 0135_backlog_convergence_fanout_marker.sql from the same PR) and renumber the two later ones to the next free numbers, preserving merge order:

was	now	migrated
0134_review_targets_cadence_idx.sql	0136_review_targets_cadence_idx.sql	CREATE INDEX on review_targets
0134_predicted_gate_calls.sql	0137_predicted_gate_calls.sql	CREATE TABLE predicted_gate_calls

Pure git mv renames — no SQL content changes (0 insertions / 0 deletions). The three migrations touch independent objects (a pull_requests column, a review_targets index, a new table), so ordering is unaffected. Same shape as the recent 0131 collision fix (#4554).

Validation

• npm run db:migrations:check → 140 migrations OK — contiguous 0001..0137, no new duplicates. Next free: 0138
• No duplicate numbers remain (only the pre-existing grandfathered 0015/0017/0074/0090).
• git grep confirms no code references either migration by filename; no migrations manifest to regenerate.
• npm run engine-parity:drift-check → ok (unaffected).

[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.
⚠️ Please upload report for BASE (main@f366b1d). Learn more about missing BASE report.
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #4578   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   94.12%           
=======================================
  Files           ?      429           
  Lines           ?    38131           
  Branches        ?    13905           
=======================================
  Hits            ?    35889           
  Misses          ?     1585           
  Partials        ?      657           

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥🟥

🛑 Gittensory review result - reject/close recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-10 05:32:40 UTC}

2 files · 1 AI reviewer · 2 blockers · readiness 93/100 · CI green · unstable

🛑 Suggested Action - Reject/Close

• 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.

Review summary
This PR is a pure `git mv` renumbering of two migrations that collided with an already-merged `0134_pr_last_backlog_convergence_regated_at.sql`, moving `0134_review_targets_cadence_idx.sql` → `0136` and `0134_predicted_gate_calls.sql` → `0137` with zero SQL content changes. The renamed files' full content confirms no D1-forbidden constructs (no CREATE TEMP, ATTACH/VACUUM/PRAGMA, no explicit transaction control) and both use idempotent `IF NOT EXISTS` guards, and the three original 0134 files touch independent objects (a `pull_requests` column, a `review_targets` index, a new `predicted_gate_calls` table) so the renumber doesn't change effective ordering or behavior. Validation output confirms contiguous 0001..0137 numbering with no new duplicates, which is exactly what `check-migrations` requires.

Nits — 3 non-blocking

• Since this PR only fixes the collision as of its branch point, another concurrently-open PR could independently grab 0136 or 0137 before this merges — worth a final `db:migrations:check` re-run right before merge to catch a fresh race.
• Nothing further needed for a pure-rename fix of this shape; the validation evidence (contiguous count, next-free number, no code references to the old filenames) is sufficient given zero content changes.
• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.

Why this is blocked

• 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.

Signal	Result	Evidence
Code review	❌ 2 blockers	1 reviewer
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 (no linked issue context).
Validation posture	✅ 25/25	PR body includes validation/test evidence.
Contributor workload	✅ 10/10	Author activity: 94 registered-repo PR(s), 57 merged, 3 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	davion-knight; Gittensor profile; 94 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
Gate result	❌ Blocking	Repo-configured hard blocker found.

Review context

• Author: davion-knight
• 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: 94 PR(s), 3 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Explain no-issue PR.
• 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.

_{🟩 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

[loopover-orb]

Gittensory is closing this pull request on the maintainer's behalf (No linked issue detected; Maintainer requires a linked issue). 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.