I’ve been validating the resident/external-agent path against Buzz’s current relay subscription rules before opening any overlapping PR. I’m sharing the resulting branches here first so we can coordinate rather than compete with #2942/#2933.

The tested changes are split into three harness-neutral slices:

1. Identity/compact prerequisites — Lunar-Park:buzz-pr-identity (561add554, 341b37114)

   • buzz users me
   • compact pubkey/tags
   • subprocess proof that identity resolution performs no relay I/O and never prints the private key

2. Listen v1 contract — Lunar-Park:buzz-pr-listen (dbf564f2f, 7ce55d055)

   • one single-#h subscription per resolved channel, preserving the relay’s host/community security classification and live channel fan-out
   • mention-only channel discovery, aggregated EOSE, CLOSE on SIGINT/SIGTERM
   • retryable WebSocket transport failures are machine-classified as exit code 2; auth/config/protocol failures remain fatal
   • process tests for scoped multi-channel delivery, mention-only discovery, network refusal, and both shutdown signals

3. Executable conformance fixtures — Lunar-Park:buzz-pr-fixtures (dbfef894f, c723de94b)

   • exact normalization checks for schema, channel/thread validation, mentions, author policy, self-suppression, lifecycle ordering, malformed JSON, and replay deduplication

Validation on the full stack passes cargo fmt --all -- --check, cargo clippy -p buzz-cli --all-targets -- -D warnings, and cargo test -p buzz-cli (267 unit tests plus the identity, listen, and fixture process/contract tests).

Would you prefer these as suggested commits on #2942/#2933, a split of #2942 into the smaller identity/listen units, or another coordination path? I’ll hold off on opening a competing upstream PR until we agree on the cleanest route.