glm-5.3-flash
a628715106
The root question is 'does wasm make sense for alksocks?', not 'how do we get wasm': Case 1 (wasm wanted) -> fork-first, PR as courtesy, carry regardless; Case 2 (wasm unwanted) -> plain dependency on the router.rs native path, no fork (the alkhttp precedent, strictly better when its premise holds). Decision inputs written: (a) is there a planned sandboxed (wasm) consumer of the SOCKS5 service, (b) is the fork genuinely minimal (POC #4 checks). Fork-first is a conditional preference, not a general one — do not carry a fork for an invariant's sake. AGENTS.md conventions 4/17 aligned.