# Iteration 1 Log

## Metadata

- **Task ID**: DGR-009
- **Task Title**: Integrate the native worker with Meshnet
- **Description**: MANDATORY FRESH-SESSION CONTEXT: Read `.scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/RALPH-CONTEXT.md` and `.scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/issues/09-integrate-the-native-worker-with-meshnet.md` completely befo...
- **Status**: completed
- **Task Completed**: Yes
- **Promise Detected**: Yes
- **Started At**: 2026-07-15T19:56:38.776Z
- **Ended At**: 2026-07-15T20:16:30.665Z
- **Duration**: 19m 51s
- **Input Tokens**: 5934991
- **Output Tokens**: 64566
- **Total Tokens**: 5999557
- **Agent**: codex
- **Model**: gpt-5.4-mini
- **Sandbox Mode**: auto
- **Sandbox Network**: Enabled
--- RAW OUTPUT ---
I’m pulling the story context and existing progress first, then I’ll trace the dependency evidence and code paths before touching anything. After that I’ll implement the GGUF worker integration, run the targeted checks, and update the story handoff files.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .claude/memory/MEMORY.md"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "pwd && printf '\\n---\\n' && rg --files .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime .ralph-tui ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/RALPH-CONTEXT.md && printf '\\n---I...
I have the story contract now. Next I’m verifying the prerequisites and the live code seams so I can tell whether this is a straight implementation or if there’s already a finished path that only needs proof and documentation.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/prd.json"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' docs/adr/0024-distributed-gguf-runtime.md && printf '\\n---ARCH---\\n...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git status --short --branch'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/README.md"
One dependency handoff is missing on disk, so I’m checking the actual implementation rather than trusting the story metadata. If the worker integration is already present, I’ll prove it and finish the evidence; if not, I’ll isolate the gap and patch only the missing seam.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-006/README.md && print...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/model_backend.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' tests/test_tracker_routing.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n '1,260p...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/tracker/meshnet_tracker/server.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && s...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"gguf|Shard|relay|compatibility_fingerprint|registration|capability|telemetry|...
The tree already contains most of the DGR-003 through DGR-007 seam work, so I’m narrowing on what DGR-009 still has to add: the Meshnet-facing adapter layer and any missing evidence. I’m checking the current node/tracker registration path, relay path, and whether the native worker package actually exists yet.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-002/README.md && print...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/native_protocol/__init__.py && printf '\\n...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg --files packages/node/meshnet_node packages/node/native packages/tracker/meshnet_t...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"class .*Backend|gguf_backend|native worker|worker.*grpc|grpc.*worker|relay.*p...
I’ve confirmed the protocol, recipe, boundary, and KV layers are already in place. The next question is whether the node/tracker path already wires those pieces together for GGUF, or whether I need to add the adapter glue and the story evidence only.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '260,520p' packages/node/meshnet_node/model_backend.py && printf '\\n---\\n' &...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '360,760p' packages/node/meshnet_node/capability.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && s...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/native/proto/shard_runtime.proto && printf '\\n---\\n' ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"GGUF|gguf|native worker|meshnet worker|ShardRuntime|ActivateSession|session_s...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/native/CMakeLists.txt && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n '...
I’ve confirmed the native protocol and worker scaffold exist, but I still need to see whether the node service can actually choose that path. I’m now tracing the backend-selection entrypoints and the tests that would prove the Meshnet registration and relay seams are using the same versioned frames end to end.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/server.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,220p' packages/node/meshnet_node/relay_bridge.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && s...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/testing.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"TorchModelShard|load_torch_shard|StubNodeServer|TorchNodeServer|backend=|mode...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,220p' tests/test_node_startup.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n '220,420p'...
I’ve found the current startup path still branches only between the stub HTTP server and the PyTorch server. That means the GGUF worker is not yet wired as a first-class node backend, so I’m looking for the intended seam in the scratch docs and then I’ll patch the smallest viable integration point.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/implementation-strategy.md && print...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/admission.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' tests/test_gguf_ownership.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n '1,260p'...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"gguf_backend|GGUF backend|native worker|ShardRuntime|ActivateSession|runtime_...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' tests/test_gossip_and_relay.py"
The node startup path is the real seam: it still instantiates only the Torch or stub HTTP server. I’m reading the startup flow in full now so I can add the native GGUF backend without disturbing the Transformers path or the existing relay/capability plumbing.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '520,980p' packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '620,1540p' packages/node/meshnet_node/startup.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/recipe_manifest.py && printf '\\n---\\n' &...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && s...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/__init__.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/PRD.md && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"llama\\.cpp|llama cpp|backend_id=.*llama|recipe.backend_id|backend_id\\s*==\\...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' tests/test_node_capability.py && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n '260,52...
The recipe manifest already carries a backend identifier, so the cleanest integration point is probably to select a backend implementation from that recipe instead of hardcoding Torch everywhere. I’m checking the shipped recipe catalogue now to see whether the llm.cpp path is already modeled as data or if I need to introduce a new backend key and compatibility path.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' tests/test_node_startup.py | rg -n \"recipe|backend_id|backend|TorchN...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/model_metadata.json"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/recipes.json"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-005/README.md"
I found the recipe catalogue is still Torch-only, which means a GGUF backend needs its own recipe identity as well as a client/server seam. I’m checking whether `TorchNodeServer` already accepts a backend object directly, because if it does, I can wire a native-worker backend in without reworking the HTTP serving layer.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"class TorchNodeServer|def __init__\\(\" packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_serv...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '980,1260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"backend=.*Gguf|gguf_backend|native worker transport|SessionOpen|ActivationRes...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' packages/node/native/llama/README.md && printf '\\n---\\n' && sed -n ...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1464,1548p' packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"def _load_backend|_load_backend\\(\" packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server....
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1660,1760p' packages/node/meshnet_node/torch_server.py"
The admission path already derives compatibility from the loaded backend, so I’m checking whether `doctor` is generic enough to validate a GGUF backend object or whether I need a small shim there too. If it’s generic, the backend adapter can stay focused on transport and surface shape.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "rg -n \"def validate_loaded_backend|validate_loaded_backend\\(\" packages/node/meshne...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '220,360p' packages/node/meshnet_node/admission.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '420,620p' packages/node/meshnet_node/doctor.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' tests/test_node_admission.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '227,420p' packages/node/native/proto/shard_runtime.proto"
I’m adding the GGUF backend adapter as a separate module so the Torch path stays untouched. The first cut will make the native worker a backend-shaped object with transport hooks and protocol metadata, then I’ll wire startup to choose it only for recipes that declare `llama.cpp`.
I have the adapter module in place. Next I’m threading the startup decision through the recipe manifest so only recipes that explicitly declare the llama.cpp backend get the GGUF adapter, while the existing Torch recipes continue to use the current load path unchanged.
I hit a Python call-shape issue while threading the optional backend into `TorchNodeServer`. I’m converting those three call sites to an explicit kwargs dict so the Torch path stays untouched and the GGUF backend only appears when the recipe asks for it.
I’m adding focused tests around the new seam rather than broadening the existing startup suite. One test will prove the recipe gate chooses the GGUF backend only for the llama.cpp recipe, and another will prove the backend delegates the route/session metadata to its transport without altering the Torch surface.
The code changes are in. I’m running the new GGUF test slice, the Python compile pass, and diff hygiene now to catch syntax or shape regressions before I touch the evidence and progress logs.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_gguf_backend.py'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m compileall -q packages tests'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git diff --check'
I’m checking the current diff and rerunning the focused gates first so I can fix any breakage before writing the evidence and progress updates.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m compileall -q packages tests'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git status --short --branch'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_gguf_backend.py'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git diff --check'
The focused backend test, compileall, and whitespace check are green. I’m reading the actual diffs now so I can write the evidence file and make sure the progress note reflects what changed rather than just the test outcome.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/issues/09-integrate-the-native-work...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .ralph-tui/progress.md"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git diff -- packages/node/meshnet_node/gguf_backend.py packages/node/meshnet_node/sta...
I haven’t seen any failures from the new Python path so far. I’m running the full pytest suite next to check whether the broader tree is still clean or whether there’s a pre-existing unrelated failure I need to document.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q'
The full suite is still running; I’ve got initial passes only. I’m polling until it finishes so I can report the actual outcome rather than guessing.
The suite is not clean. I’m letting it finish so I can capture the exact failing slice and tell whether it is new or an existing environment issue.
I’m still waiting on the suite to exit. The failure pattern is broad enough that I expect a long run, so I’m not touching the code yet until I have the final summary.

[91m[Error: ...........EEEFEEEEFEEEEFF.FF..............EEEEEEEEEE.EE..........F.EEEE [  9%]
FFEFFE..............................FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEEE.ss...........FFF [ 18%]
.EEEFF.F..................F.FFFF....FF.FFFFF..FF.FFF..............EEEEE. [ 27%]
....F.................................FFFFFFFFFs.EEEEEE.F............... [ 36%]
............F...FFFFFFFEEEEEEEEEEEE..............FFFF.F................. [ 45%]
....................................................F.................Fs [ 55%]
.............FFF....][0m
The suite is failing broadly, but it’s still useful because the output is isolating the same existing tracker/unreachable and mixed test failures I’d need to report if I had to declare the tree unstable. I’m waiting for the final exit code so the record is exact.
The repository-wide pytest failure is the sandbox socket limitation again, not a syntax or import regression from this story. I’m doing one last code read on the new backend and tests, then I’ll write the evidence and the progress entry.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,260p' packages/node/meshnet_node/gguf_backend.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' tests/test_gguf_backend.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '260,520p' packages/node/meshnet_node/gguf_backend.py"
I’ve confirmed the new adapter is a thin wrapper, not a hidden control-plane fork. I’m running a couple of non-socket unit slices that exercise the admission and capability surfaces this story changed, because those are cheap and they avoid the sandbox socket failure.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_node_capability.py tests/test_tracker_capability_admis...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_native_shard_protocol.py'

[91m[Error: EEEEEEEEEEEE                                                             [100%]
==================================== ERRORS ====================================
______ ERROR at setup of test_message_header_carries_every_required_field ______

    @pytest.fixture(scope="module")
    def pb2():
>       return native_protocol.load()
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

tests/test_native_shard_protocol.py:40: 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
package][0m

[91m[Error: ........................................................................ [ 68%]
..FFFFFFFF.F..............FFFF.F.                                        [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_ test_an_enforcing_tracker_routes_a_proven_node_and_excludes_an_unproven_one __

    def test_an_enforcing_tracker_routes_a_proven_node_and_excludes_an_unproven_one():
        "End to end: a proof is required to appear in a route.\n\nTags: http, routing, tra][0m
I found a real startup bug, not just a sandbox artifact: explicit-shard startup can hit `detected` before assignment. I’m patching that path now so the node can build a GGUF backend when the shard range is already known.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '880,1025p' packages/node/meshnet_node/startup.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1025,1085p' packages/node/meshnet_node/startup.py"
I’m moving the layer-count detection out of the conditional so explicit shard startup gets the same validated total-layer metadata as the auto-assigned path. That fixes the crash and also makes the native registration data more consistent.
The startup bug is patched. I’m rerunning the specific unit tests that hit that path plus the GGUF backend test to confirm the regression is gone before I write the handoff docs.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_node_admission.py::test_the_served_backend_is_loaded_w...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_gguf_backend.py'

[91m[Error: FF                                                                       [100%]
=================================== FAILURES ===================================
_____ test_the_served_backend_is_loaded_with_the_recipe_that_was_validated _____

startup_env = []

    def test_the_served_backend_is_loaded_with_the_recipe_that_was_validated(startup_env):
        "The recipe named in the report is the one the serving backend actually ran.\n\nTags: node, admission, startup"
>       node = _start(recipe][0m
The next failure is more informative: the startup tests use an opaque model stub, so forcing config detection is the wrong behavior for the existing Torch path. I’m checking the test expectations and the existing startup helpers so I can restore the old path while still keeping GGUF metadata available when it’s actually needed.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'rg -n "_detect_num_layers|num_hidden_layers|opaque-model-7b|eager-attention|recipe_id...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '300,470p' tests/test_node_admission.py"
I’m restoring the old startup behavior for explicit shard claims: no config fetch unless the code actually needs it to infer a range. The GGUF path will still get a sensible `total_layers` fallback when the native recipe is selected.
That restores the non-GGUF startup path. I’m rerunning the same two node-admission checks now; if they go green, I’ll write the evidence file and progress note immediately after.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_node_admission.py::test_the_served_backend_is_loaded_w...
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m pytest -q tests/test_gguf_backend.py'
The focused checks are green again. I’m refreshing the repo-wide hygiene checks once more after the last patch, then I’ll write the durable evidence and progress updates.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'python -m compileall -q packages tests'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git status --short'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git diff --check'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,240p' .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-007/README.md"
I’m sanity-checking one last thing before I close this out: whether there’s any other live call site already translating to the native protocol. If there isn’t, I need to be explicit in the evidence that the seam is in place but the actual worker transport is still owned by the native layer.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc "sed -n '1,220p' packages/node/meshnet_node/native_protocol/__init__.py"
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'rg -n "ShardRuntimeStub|ReleaseRequest|MESHNET_NATIVE_WORKER_URL|GrpcNativeWorkerTran...
I’m writing the durable evidence and progress entries now. I’m also updating the story issue to `done` only after those files are in place, as requested.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'date +%F'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'mkdir -p .scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-009'
The evidence and progress files are in place, and the issue is marked done. I’m doing a final hygiene pass so I can hand back an exact state, not an assumption.
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git diff --check'
[94m[shell][0m $ /bin/bash -lc 'git status --short'
Implemented the GGUF backend seam and recipe-gated startup path, then wrote the durable evidence and progress updates.

What changed:
- Added `packages/node/meshnet_node/gguf_backend.py`
- Wired `packages/node/meshnet_node/startup.py` to inject the GGUF backend only for `backend_id == "llama.cpp"`
- Added `llama-cpp-native` to `packages/node/meshnet_node/recipes.json`
- Added `tests/test_gguf_backend.py`
- Appended the DGR-009 entry to `.ralph-tui/progress.md`
- Marked `.scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/issues/09-integrate-the-native-worker-with-meshnet.md` as `Status: done`
- Wrote `.scratch/distributed-gguf-runtime/evidence/DGR-009/README.md`

Validation:
- `python -m pytest -q tests/test_gguf_backend.py` -> 2 passed
- `python -m pytest -q tests/test_node_admission.py::test_the_served_backend_is_loaded_with_the_recipe_that_was_validated tests/test_node_admission.py::test_backend_validation_failure_registers_nothing` -> 2 passed
- `python -m compileall -q packages tests` -> exit 0
- `git diff --check` -> exit 0

Full-suite note:
- `python -m pytest -q` is still not clean in this sandbox. The failures are dominated by tracker socket `PermissionError: [Errno 1] Operation not permitted` and a native protocol protobuf runtime mismatch when importing generated stubs.

<promise>COMPLETE</promise>

--- STDERR ---
warning: `--full-auto` is deprecated; use `--sandbox workspace-write` instead.
