Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

feat(trust): random re-execution audits of worker fragments (VRF-capable)

Open
  • Is something wrong?
#27 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

Nobody has claimed this yet.

Assessment

Difficulty
5/5
Estimated time
Over a week
Newbie friendliness
35/100
Issue type
Feature
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
python
Domain
backend, distributed-systems

Research direction

Start by reading marketplace_service.py for reputation and runtime/executor.py for fallback workers, then inspect the provenance work in issue #4. Define the audit and randomness interfaces, configurable rates and tolerances, and an integration test with a faulty worker. Done means mismatches are detected, audits are recorded in job provenance, and audit costs never double-charge the owner.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

agents chain-integration enhancement tier-2

Summary

Randomly pick completed fragments and re-run them on a second worker to detect cheating or faulty nodes, with a pluggable randomness source that can be Chainlink VRF.

Motivation

Workers are paid for results the coordinator cannot cheaply verify. Unpredictable audits make cheating unprofitable and feed reputation.

Current state in this repo

  • Workers report observed fidelity; reputation exists in marketplace_service.py; the runtime already supports fallback nodes (runtime/executor.py).

Proposal

  • Audit service: select a fraction of fragments by a randomness source and re-execute on a different eligible worker.
  • Compare results within a tolerance suited to the fragment type; mismatches flag both workers for review and adjust reputation or holds.
  • Randomness interface with a local CSPRNG default and a Chainlink VRF implementation as an option (the audit logic must work with no chain at all).
  • Record audits in the job's provenance (#4).

Acceptance criteria

  • Audit rate and tolerance are configurable.
  • A deliberately faulty test worker is detected in an integration test.
  • Audits never double-charge the job owner (cost is platform-borne or budgeted explicitly).

Out of scope

  • Slashing stakes (no staking exists yet).

Dependencies

  • #4

Testing plan

  • Fault-injection test with a simulated bad worker.

Verify before implementing

  • VRF availability on the chosen testnet if the on-chain option is built.

Part of ##1. Ground rules for all issues in this roadmap are listed there (testnet-first, no secrets in the repo, chain logic behind the registry, tests and docs with every PR).

Dominant language
Python
Stars
2
Forks
4
Avg merge
5h 19m
Merged PRs (30d)
11

Getting set up

  • Ships a Dockerfile or Docker Compose file
  • No pull request template
  • No contributing guide

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from QMeshPy/distributed-quantum

All issues in QMeshPy/distributed-quantum

Similar issues

More Python issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.