chore(release): move the ORB target to 3.7.0 so the beta channel resumes

[JSONbored]

orb-v3.6.0 was promoted to stable, which by design halts the beta channel — due = commitsSinceLastTag.length > 0 && !targetAlreadyStable, and the manifest still targets the version that just went stable.

The due-check has been reporting:

"due": false, "manifestStale": true,
"latestStableTag": "orb-v3.6.0", "latestTag": "orb-v3.6.0",
"nextTag": "orb-v3.6.0-beta.1"

orb-v3.6.0-beta.1 would sort behind the stable release it follows, so nothing can ship until the target moves forward. That move is deliberately a human step (see orb-release-core.ts: "Nothing is due until a human moves the manifest target forward").

44 image-relevant commits have landed since orb-v3.6.0, including a feat (gate: guardrailEscalation.onCleanReview), so semver puts the next target at a minor bump.

Verified locally after the change:

ORB beta due: orb-v3.7.0-beta.1

Same one-line move as #9777 made for 3.6.0.

[loopover-orb]

Warning

⏸️ LoopOver review result - manual review recommended

_{Review updated: 2026-07-30 16:30:05 UTC}

1 file · 1 AI reviewer · 1 blocker · CI green · clean

⏸️ Suggested Action - Manual Review

Review summary
This is a one-line manifest bump (3.6.0 → 3.7.0) matching the exact mechanism described in orb-release-core.ts: since orb-v3.6.0 was promoted to stable, targetAlreadyStable would remain true and due would stay false until a human moves the manifest target forward. The PR verifies the fix locally (ORB beta due: orb-v3.7.0-beta.1) and cites 44 image-relevant commits including a feat, which per inferReleaseType correctly implies a minor bump, consistent with 3.7.0.

Nits — 2 non-blocking

• The PR description asserts '44 image-relevant commits' and a specific feat commit but the diff itself doesn't let a reviewer verify that count independently of trusting the author's local run.
• Consider linking the CI run or report output showing the recomputed due-check (as done in chore(release): move the ORB target to 3.6.0 so the beta channel resumes #9777) directly in the PR body for auditability.

Concerns raised — review before merging

• No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

📋 Copy for AI agents — paste into your coding agent

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

1. No linked issue detected: No closing reference or linked issue number was found in the PR metadata/body. — If this PR is intended to solve an issue, link it explicitly in the PR body.

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	✅ No-issue rationale	PR body explains why no issue is linked.
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: 9 registered-repo PR(s), 8 merged, 300 issue(s).
Contributor context	✅ Confirmed Gittensor contributor	JSONbored; Gittensor profile; 9 PR(s), 300 issue(s).
Improvement	ℹ️ Insufficient signal	risk: clean · value: insufficient-signal

Review context

• Author: JSONbored
• Role context: owner (maintainer lane)
• Public audience mode: oss maintainer
• Lane context: Repository is configured for direct PR review.
• Public profile languages: Python, TypeScript, Ruby, Go, MDX, Shell, Solidity, JavaScript
• Official Gittensor activity: 9 PR(s), 300 issue(s).
• PR-specific overlap: none found.

Contributor next steps

• Start here: Treat this as maintainer-lane context rather than normal contributor-lane activity.

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.

Decision record

• action: hold · clause: missing_linked_issue
• config: 4e41469ecc3fa16259291e67f0f987c871123550499b621288c720ae5aa1e847 · pack: oss-anti-slop · ci: passed
• record: d6aac005d1698a621878ff2348c31970a769fc46050eb482a42aa1ddd7e2b7c4 (schema v5, head 5e3f07c)

_{🟩 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