feat(miner): roll the SqliteDriver seam onto the non-transactional local stores

[shin-core]

What

Continues the #7175 SqliteDriver seam rollout (#7282): migrates the genuinely-non-transactional AMS local stores onto the same additive, still-synchronous openLocalStoreAdapter / driver.query pattern already proven by run-state.js (#7194) and policy-doc-cache.js.

Migrated (4):

• lib/contribution-profile-cache.js
• lib/policy-verdict-cache.js
• lib/prediction-ledger.js
• lib/replay-snapshot.js

For each: the store is opened via openLocalStoreAdapter(resolvedPath) (returning { db, driver }), and all CRUD (SELECT/INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE) now routes through driver.query(sql, params). Schema creation, migrations, retention, and purge stay on the underlying db handle exactly as before. The public store APIs remain synchronous and unchanged — this is purely additive, mirroring the reference stores.

Verified out of scope (left unmigrated, on purpose)

Per the deliverable's own "verify each individually for hidden transaction/RETURNING usage" caveat, two of the six listed stores are not actually non-transactional and belong to the separate runOn(client) interactive-transaction design the issue tracks in its next checkbox:

• ranked-candidates.js — replaceAll is a genuine BEGIN IMMEDIATE → DELETE + multi-INSERT → COMMIT/ROLLBACK atomic block, which the current driver.query seam can't express.
• worktree-allocator.js — acquire is an interactive BEGIN IMMEDIATE read-then-conditional-write transaction, and releaseByAttempt uses UPDATE … RETURNING …, which store-db-adapter.js's own doc explicitly flags as not-yet-safe to route through the seam.

Migrating either would silently break an atomic path, so both are correctly deferred.

No behavior change

The SQL, parameters, return shapes, and synchronous API of every migrated store are byte-identical — only the handle CRUD goes through the seam instead of a raw DatabaseSync prepared statement. Proof: all six stores' existing test suites pass completely unmodified (90/90), including the two unmigrated ones.

Validation

• npm run typecheck — clean (one pre-existing unrelated discover-cli.ts error only).
• All six store test files pass unchanged: miner-contribution-profile-cache, miner-policy-verdict-cache, miner-prediction-ledger, miner-replay-snapshot, miner-ranked-candidates, miner-worktree-allocator-collisions — 90/90.
• Coverage: every changed CRUD-routing line in the 4 migrated files is covered by those existing tests (the only uncovered lines in the report are pre-existing untested paths I did not touch — e.g. prediction-ledger's corrupted-row throw and default-singleton wrappers).
• npm run test:miner-pack passes; git diff --check clean.

Closes #7282

[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.

[loopover-orb]

Caution

🛑 LoopOver review result - fixes required

_{Review updated: 2026-07-20 21:46:42 UTC}

12 files · no blockers · CI failing · blocked

🛑 Suggested Action - Fix Blockers

• AI review already in progress for this PR head: Another LoopOver pass is already running the AI review for this exact PR head. This pass is skipping to avoid a duplicate LLM call.

Review summary
AI review is already running for this PR head in another LoopOver pass. LoopOver is holding this PR for manual review until that pass completes.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• Code changes lack test evidence — Add focused regression tests or explain why existing coverage is sufficient.
• AI review already in progress for this PR head — The gate is held for a human reviewer rather than passed automatically; it re-evaluates once the in-flight review completes or on the next update.

CI checks failing

• validate
• validate-tests (1)
• validate-tests (2)
• validate-tests (3)
• validate-tests (6)
• validate-tests (4)
• validate-code

Flagged checks (non-blocking)

• Contributor trust — Contributor flagged for review

Decision drivers

• ✅ Code review — No blockers (No AI review summary)
• ⚠️ Gate result — Not blocking (Advisory; not blocking this PR.)

Context & advisory signals — never blocks the verdict

Signal	Result	Evidence
Linked issue	✅ Linked	#7282
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: 75 registered-repo PR(s), 47 merged, 0 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	shin-core; Gittensor profile; 75 PR(s), 0 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ None detected	risk: low · value: none

Review context

• Author: shin-core
• 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: 75 PR(s), 0 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.

🧪 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 (CI is failing (validate, validate-tests (1), validate-tests (2), validate-tests (3), validate-tests (6), validate-tests (4), validate-code)). 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.