Explains static contract crawling, required DOM IDs, local-only marker scanning, route and manifest checks, optional loopback probes, and separation from full browser execution.
Implementation evidence: this topic is grounded in the reviewed GGUF.MiRust.com source snapshot. It documents observed code and artifacts without claiming broad deployment, model quality, or production readiness.
Architecture topic: this page does not claim that the WordPress website implements or executes the described runtime behavior.
Static mode
The harness reads checked-in HTML, JavaScript, WASM source/export definitions, model files, and manifests. It verifies required UI identifiers, local route markers, expected WASM boundary calls, model/sidecar presence, and quality non-overclaim.
HTTP mode
Given a loopback URL, it parses the URL, rejects non-loopback targets, issues simple requests, validates status, and checks content types for app, CSS, JS, WASM, model, and manifest routes.
What it proves
The static product contract and local route surface are internally consistent enough to proceed to heavy browser automation.
What it does not prove
JavaScript execution, WebAssembly instantiation, visual layout, keyboard interaction, actual generation, memory behavior, performance, or browser engine compatibility. Those remain the role of headless and manual browser tests.
Scope
This starter page defines the questions, boundaries, evidence, and failure modes that should be recorded before a capability is presented as supported.
Engineering considerations
- Identify the source, version, target environment, and owner.
- Separate observed values from estimates and externally reported values.
- Record trade-offs, unsupported cases, and fallback behavior.
- Link performance statements to a compatible benchmark methodology.
Verification questions
- What exact artifact, revision, backend, and environment were reviewed?
- Which assumptions could change the result?
- Which data should be retained so another engineer can reproduce the conclusion?