Chainlink CRE workflow

Chainlink's network is the second opinion on every Moolam passport. When a creator registers an image on Monad, this workflow wakes up, downloads the picture the passport points at, recomputes the perceptual fingerprint itself, and writes the result back on chain as an attestation. Nothing in that chain of steps trusts Moolam's own servers: the nodes fetch the image and do the maths themselves. On Chainlink's network a quorum of nodes must produce the identical verdict before a report is signed, and since 2026-10-02 the workflow's verdict step runs there: the first network verdict is in "On Chainlink's network" below. Every re-check before it came from Chainlink's simulator with --broadcast, which is one machine and no consensus, and the passport page labels each one by the forwarder that delivered it. "What is on chain today" below has the transactions.

The workflow lives in packages/workflow/moolam-verifier/. A second workflow, moolam-sealed-verifier, re-checks sealed pictures from a private copy through a second receiver. It has its own section at the end of this page.

What runs, in order#

1. Trigger#

An EVM log trigger on the registry, filtered to topic 0 of PassportRegistered, on monad-mainnet (chain id 143). The address comes from config.json.

2. Read#

The workflow calls getPassport(bytes32) on the registry at the block the trigger log came from, and takes the stored fingerprint and the metadata URI from there. The event is only the alarm clock. A forged log carries no weight, because every value used is read back out of the registry. If that read comes back empty it is tried twice more, two seconds apart, and only then does the run fail. Each attempt is logged.

Why that block and not the finalized one: a log trigger fires at Chainlink's default confidence of SAFE, which is ahead of the last finalized block, so a read pinned to finality can go looking for a registration the finalized state does not hold yet. Reading at the log's own block also means every node reads the same state whatever height its own RPC has reached, which is what the retries are for: a node a block or two behind, not a chain that has changed its mind.

3. Fetch#

Inside node mode, each node reads the passport's metadata document, either an ipfs:// file through the gateway or an inline data:application/json, document, then downloads the thumbnail it names. Two HTTP requests per run, against a limit of five.

Only pinned content is fetched. The document and the picture must each be ipfs:// followed by a content id and nothing else, and the URL is always built on the configured gateway, so an http(s) address a registrant wrote on chain ends the run before any request is made. Only a 200 is read: the HTTP capability fails on a redirect by itself and any other status is refused, so no redirect is followed. The document is refused over 32,000 bytes and the picture over 60,000, the verify service's own ceiling for a thumbnail. The rule is one function, pinnedContentId in moolam-verifier/pinned.ts, shared by both workflows and copied byte for byte into the re-check runner.

4. Fingerprint#

decode.ts decodes the JPEG with jpeg-js, pure JavaScript because the sandbox is QuickJS on WebAssembly with no native modules. phash.ts recomputes the same 64-bit fingerprint the verifier stores: grey through linear light, 32 by 32, 2D DCT, the 8 by 8 block next to the DC term, one bit per coefficient above that block's average. The DCT runs in its separable form, once along each axis, which is 65,536 multiplications instead of 1,048,576 for the same result.

packages/verifier/test/workflow-phash.test.ts holds the two fingerprints against each other on 24 generated images: identical on 11 of them, never more than 2 bits apart, against a match threshold of 10. The same test proves the separable DCT gives the same 64 bits as the plain double sum it replaced.

5. Consensus#

The node function returns only { recomputed, distance, matched }, and consensusIdenticalAggregation requires a quorum of nodes to have produced the identical verdict. The image bytes never go through consensus, so a CDN serving a slightly different re-encode to one node is fine as long as every node lands on the same answer.

6. Write#

The verdict is ABI encoded, signed into a report, and delivered through a Chainlink forwarder to a receiver, which calls attest on the registry. On Chainlink's network the forwarder is the Keystone Forwarder, 0x76c9cf548b4179F8901cda1f8623568b58215E62, and the receiver is MoolamReceiver, 0x0d69055c43EAcb3B1ca687ca2263A049Bc7Eff04. In a run in Chainlink's simulator the forwarder is the simulator's MockKeystoneForwarder and the receiver is the public SimulationReceiver, 0x4aD66c77f961884E9e866EEEc3EafF1EdB5BAa95; "The receiver, and what a simulation needs" below says why that needs a receiver of its own.

(uint256 chainId, uint64 executedAt, bytes32 passportId, bool matched, uint16 distance, bytes32 recomputed)

chainId and executedAt are inside the signed payload because Chainlink's own guidance says a report can be replayed later or on another chain. The receiver rejects a wrong chain id and any timestamp that is not newer than the last one it recorded for that passport.

Configuration#

moolam-verifier/config.json:

The private key and the RPC URL come from the repository root .env (CRE_ETH_PRIVATE_KEY, MONAD_MAINNET_RPC_URL). Nothing sensitive is written inside the package.

Files#

Simulating a run#

Dry run, no transaction sent, against a real past registration:

cre workflow simulate moolam-verifier --target monad-mainnet --non-interactive \
  --trigger-index 0 --evm-tx-hash <tx that emitted PassportRegistered> --evm-event-index 0 \
  -e ../../.env

Add --broadcast to send the attestation for real. The transaction is paid for by the CRE wallet 0xC79620AF233a4434b03f6B57239F8A9E71B3C178.

The receiver, and what a simulation needs#

Chainlink's simulator does not deliver a report the way Chainlink's network does. A cre workflow simulate --broadcast run sends it through Chainlink's MockKeystoneForwarder at 0x9eF6468C5f37b976E57d52054c693269479A784d, which checks no signature and builds the workflow metadata (id, owner, name) from bytes the caller supplied. The id and owner the simulator stamps are the same for everyone who runs this public workflow. A receiver that trusted the forwarder and the metadata alone would trust anyone with the CLI.

Since 2026-09-26 simulated reports have their own receivers, one per workflow, both SimulationReceiver, and both listed in the policy since 2026-09-27 14:18 UTC. Each workflow's config.json sends its reports to its own:

Both listen to the mock forwarder, both carry the simulator's own stamps as their pins (author 0xaAaAaAaaAaAaAaaAaAAAAAAAAaaaAaAaAaaAaaAa, workflow id 0x11..11 and the workflow's name), which keep the other workflow out and nothing else, and both are bound to one sending wallet.

The sending-wallet rule. Each receiver holds SENDING_WALLET, the CRE wallet 0xC79620AF233a4434b03f6B57239F8A9E71B3C178, set in the constructor with no setter. The first check in _processReport is tx.origin == SENDING_WALLET, and anything else reverts WrongSendingWallet before a byte of the report is read. It reads tx.origin, the wallet that signed the transaction, because the mock adds a hop: msg.sender at the receiver is always Chainlink's public mock contract, and the metadata is whatever the caller typed. The signing wallet is the one value on that path an outsider cannot produce, so a copy of this workflow run from someone else's machine cannot write a verdict. The CRE wallet signs nothing but reports, because a contract it called could reach the receiver inside the same transaction and borrow that authority.

The mock never reverts. When a receiver refuses a report, the mock catches the refusal: the transaction succeeds with status 1 and its ReportProcessed event carries false. A report transaction's status therefore says nothing about whether a verdict landed. Success is judged by the registry's VerificationAttested log for that passport in the same receipt. The re-check runner checks for that log before it tells the queue a run is done, and the website shows a finished request as done only when the registry holds a re-check written at or after the request.

The one hour bound. A report's executedAt must be newer than the last one the receiver accepted for that passport, and at most one hour past the block's time (MAX_FUTURE_SKEW, 3,600 seconds). Without the upper bound, one report stamped far in the future would set a floor the honest workflow could never pass again. With it, the most any accepted report can do is hold a passport for an hour.

The kill switch. Taking a receiver off VerifierPolicy takes effect at once, with no wait:

cast send 0x54e8Ed8c2c3Cf2A36F8B3AC4c7f02acFD2455821 'removeReceiver(address)' <receiver>   --rpc-url "$MONAD_MAINNET_RPC_URL" --private-key "$DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY"

Only the policy's owner, the deployer wallet, can send it, and that key is never on the re-check machine. The registry refuses the removed receiver as soon as that transaction lands. Listing one again goes through the policy's public 24 hour queue.

Where it stands. Both were deployed on 2026-09-26 in blocks 108,102,667 and 108,102,676, verified through Sourcify, and put in the policy's queue. The listing ran on 2026-09-27 at 14:18 UTC, after the policy's public 24 hour wait, in the two transactions in the table above. The two MoolamReceiver contracts came off the policy on 2026-09-26, in the deploy run, and every verdict they wrote stays on chain under their addresses. The public one was listed again on 2026-10-02, as the receiver for Chainlink's network (see "On Chainlink's network" below). Both workflow configs name the new receivers for simulator runs. A receiver for Chainlink's network is a separate contract, which is why MoolamReceiver is the one back on the list: a SimulationReceiver has no switch that turns the sending-wallet rule off. The deploy record is simulation-receivers.txt, and the addresses and transactions are in packages/contracts/deployments/simulation-receivers-monad-mainnet.json.

Before 2026-09-26. The first two receivers, both MoolamReceiver, listened to Chainlink's production forwarder and were pinned to the workflow author and name. A simulated report cannot pass that pin, so every broadcast run took four steps from the deployer wallet: clear the pin, point the receiver at the mock forwarder, run the simulation, then put the production forwarder 0x76c9cf548b4179F8901cda1f8623568b58215E62 back and pin again. While a run was open, anyone with the simulator could have driven the receiver. Every verdict written that way stays on chain under the old receiver's address, and the passport page still names it.

A broadcast run on 2026-09-08 recomputed 0x233ccc7872442123 at distance 0 and wrote the report in transaction 0x3a814ab20ac8c2e1c8d46c944c612722c6878a80cd823235afd2434de88796a0. Reading the registry afterwards showed attestationCount of 1 for that passport, with the receiver, matched true and distance 0.

On Chainlink's network#

Since 2026-10-02 moolam-verifier also runs on Chainlink's network, where a quorum of nodes has to agree before a report is signed. The deployment of 2026-10-02 held the verdict step only: the fetch, the fingerprint, the consensus and the write. The look-alike step is in it from 2026-10-07.

The first verdict from the network:

To check it yourself, open the verdict transaction on MonadVision: its to is the Keystone Forwarder, not the simulator's mock, and the passport page says the same under the verdict.

Live from 2026-10-07:

• The look-alike step in the network workflow.
• The verify service's look-alike routes and its Google web check on the hosted service.
• The hosted index rebuild that lets the live site's marks and counts see the network flag. Before that rebuild the live site's index could not tell network verdicts from test runs.

What is on chain today#

The seventeen re-checks on the seventeen real pictures, counted on 2026-09-25 at index block 107,960,831 (seven on 2026-09-14, seven on 2026-09-17, one on 2026-09-23, and two on 2026-09-25, one of them by the private workflow through its own receiver, described below), were all written this way: cre workflow simulate --broadcast, the receiver pointed at the simulation forwarder 0x9eF6468C5f37b976E57d52054c693269479A784d for the run and put back on the production forwarder 0x76c9cf548b4179F8901cda1f8623568b58215E62 after it, by the four steps above. They are real transactions with real gas, and they prove the workflow code and every check the receiver makes. They are not runs on Chainlink's network: the workflow ran on one machine and no quorum of nodes agreed on the answer. The first network run came later, on 2026-10-02, and is described in "On Chainlink's network" above.

Since 2026-09-27 the re-checks after those come from the re-check runner, still cre workflow simulate --broadcast, through the two SimulationReceiver contracts and with no owner step at all. Its first two, written with nobody pressing anything, are 0x37717b0c…abe24b in block 108,499,297 and 0x35c1302e…4c1a in block 108,505,240, both matched.

The passport page does not take this on trust either. It reads the to address of each report transaction and prints which forwarder delivered it, so a simulation run says so under the verdict and a network run says so too, as the first one does. The transactions are listed in proofs/rechecks.txt.

What this does not prove#

• The gateway is a trust point, named out loud. The workflow asks the gateway for the bytes behind a content id. The content id is the hash of the content, so a gateway serving the wrong bytes would produce a fingerprint that disagrees with every honest node and consensus would fail, but the workflow does not verify the CID itself, and a gateway that is down means no attestation rather than a wrong one.
• Only JPEG thumbnails are decoded. A PNG or WebP thumbnail needs another decoder.
• The fingerprint catches re-encodes, resizes and metadata strips. It does not catch crops, rotations or mirrors, which sit 21 to 32 bits away, well past the threshold of 10. The verify service handles those with its eight variants; this workflow does not.
• A passport whose metadata names no image gets no attestation. The workflow refuses rather than guessing.

Cost#

One attestation is one Monad transaction from the CRE wallet: about 267,000 gas measured on the receiver path in the contract tests, with attest itself at most 154,000 of that. The gas limit is capped at 1,000,000 in workflow.ts. The workflow's own compute, one JPEG decode and a 32 by 32 DCT, took about 550 ms in the simulator when the DCT still summed over both axes, so that figure is now an upper bound. Either way it is well inside the five minute execution budget, and the three retry attempts on the registry read can add at most four seconds to it.

Private re-checks: moolam-sealed-verifier#

A sealed picture is never published, so the workflow above has nothing to download. A creator who seals a picture can ask for a private re-check instead. The verify service then keeps one 512 pixel copy on Pinata's private storage, where no public gateway serves it, and a second workflow opens it. The second workflow uses Chainlink's Confidential Workflows: its handler is registered with handlerInTee(trigger, handler, {}), which on Chainlink's network would run it inside an enclave so that only the verdict leaves. Today it runs only in Chainlink's simulator, which says of itself "The simulator is not a real TEE". So every private re-check on chain so far ran on one machine, with no enclave and no network consensus.

The workflow lives in packages/workflow/moolam-sealed-verifier/. What it defends and how it was attacked is in the Threat model, section "The private re-check".

What it reads and writes#

1. Trigger. The same PassportRegistered log trigger as the public workflow.
2. Read. getPassport at the log's block, through runtime.usingTheDons(), with the same retries. Chain reads never run inside the enclave, and the only thing sent out is the passport id, which is public.
3. Document. The passport's public document, read through the configured gateway from an ipfs:// address and nothing else. An http(s) address or a data URI ends the run with no report.
4. The rule. privatelyRecheckable in private-copy.ts: sealed, asks for the private re-check, names no picture. It is the verify service's rule byte for byte. False ends the run.
5. The link. The secret SEALED_LINK_TOKEN is read from the runtime and sent in one POST to the verify service's /sealed/link with the passport id. The link that comes back is opened only if it is https:// on the configured private gateway host.
6. The bytes. One GET on the link. A status other than 200, an empty body, or a body over 60,000 bytes is refused before the decoder sees it. Its errors name the passport and a status, never the link or the token.
7. Fingerprint. The public workflow's decode.ts and phash.ts, imported rather than copied. Ten bits or fewer from the stored fingerprint is a match.
8. Write. One report over the same six fields, through usingTheDons(), to the sealed SimulationReceiver, with a gas limit of 1,000,000.

On chain it writes nothing else: the same six fields the public workflow writes, and no part of the picture.

The second receiver#

The receiver moolam-sealed-verifier sends to now:

Before it, private verdicts went through the older sealed MoolamReceiver 0x7b9eF7cD5e40Af9c29d8b7d0D22E54B80947E45A (off the policy since 2026-09-26): deployed in block 107,265,126, pinned to Chainlink's production forwarder, the CRE wallet as author and the same workflow name, listed on 2026-09-25 in transaction 0x79d34b81..., and taken off the policy on 2026-09-26. The first two private verdicts carry its address.

Why a second receiver rather than a second name on the first: the registry stores the receiver with every attestation. With one receiver per workflow, the chain itself says which workflow wrote each verdict, and neither receiver's pin has to be widened. The passport page reads that field to label a private verdict. The deploy record is packages/contracts/deployments/simulation-receivers-monad-mainnet.json, and the older receiver's is packages/contracts/deployments/sealed-receiver-monad-mainnet.json.

moolam-sealed-verifier/config.json:

The token's value is never in the package. secrets.yaml names CRE_SEALED_LINK_TOKEN, and the simulator reads it from the env file it is handed.

The three HTTP calls and their limits#

That is three calls a run, and at most seven with every retry, against CRE's limit of 15. The retries are there because Pinata's private gateway answered the first request on a fresh link in 6 to 12 seconds on 2026-09-25, past the 10 second limit per call, and every repeat in about one second. A retry is made only when a call does not answer at all; a status the server sends back is never retried into a different answer.

How a run is driven today#

Since 2026-09-26 nobody opens or closes a receiver around a run. Both SimulationReceiver contracts listen to the simulation forwarder 0x9eF6468C5f37b976E57d52054c693269479A784d all the time and accept a report only in a transaction signed by the CRE wallet 0xC79620AF233a4434b03f6B57239F8A9E71B3C178 ("The sending-wallet rule" above), so there is no window to open and no owner transaction per run. The policy has listed both since 2026-09-27 14:18 UTC, and both workflow configs send their reports to them.

The re-check runner in packages/recheck-runner drives the runs, on a small Linux machine that holds the CRE wallet's key and never the owner key. It is live, and passes every two minutes: its first verdict, for a picture drawn on 2026-09-27, landed through the public simulation receiver in block 108,499,297 a few minutes after the picture was registered. For a passport whose document asks for a private re-check, one run is four steps:

1. Claim. A queued passport is claimed with the runner's token (POST /recheck/claim); one the sweep found gets a request of its own first (POST /recheck/request). The verify service mints a link only under that claim.

2. Check the copy. GET /sealed/status/<id> is read just before the spend. Kept goes on; unknown means try again next pass with nothing spent.

3. Simulate.

   Copiar

   cre workflow simulate moolam-sealed-verifier --target monad-mainnet --non-interactive \
     --trigger-index 0 --evm-tx-hash <registration tx> --evm-event-index <n> -e <env file> --broadcast

   The env file carries CRE_SEALED_LINK_TOKEN beside the CRE wallet's key. The run is stopped after ten minutes, the same window the claim allows.

4. Answer. The run counts as done only when its receipt carries the registry's VerificationAttested log for that passport, and the claim goes back with POST /recheck/done whatever happens.

Every run is counted against the runner's caps before it spends: 40 reports a day, 5 a pass, and a 1.5 MON floor on the CRE wallet (packages/recheck-runner/README.md, "The guards"). If that machine or its key is ever in doubt, the owner sends "The kill switch" above from the deployer wallet and both receivers stop at once; the runner itself stops with systemctl stop moolam-recheck-runner on its machine.

The first two private re-checks, below, ran before this change, from a launch script on the operator's machine that opened and closed the older sealed MoolamReceiver around each run.

The first run#

On 2026-09-25, for the sealed passport 0x864c33c6806185d4dc7acd65f465fc4c3cb6b8faaa157c32880cbef9dd93fc09, which has never been published:

Afterwards the receiver read back on the production forwarder, pinned to the workflow author and moolam-sealed-verifier. The records are in sealed-passports.txt and rechecks.txt, and attack pass 4 reads the row back from the chain in pass-4.txt, attack 8d.

The second run, the same afternoon, was on Kanchipuram Silk Loom at First Light, a picture agent 10249 drew and its creator registered sealed with the private re-check: the 35,599 byte private copy recomputed to 0x85c0d272787e6e77, the stored fingerprint exactly, distance 0, matched, report 0xa38fd971..., block 107,834,613.

What the private re-check does not prove#

• No enclave, no consensus. The simulator is one machine and not a real TEE. A run proves the code's shape, that the confidential capability accepts it, and every check the receiver makes. It does not prove hardware isolation.
• It has not run on Chainlink's network. Only the public moolam-verifier has, since 2026-10-02, and only its verdict step. Deploying a confidential workflow needs access Moolam does not have.
• The logic is public, only the data is private. The workflow's code is in this repository. What an enclave would keep from its operator is the token, the link, the bytes and the values made from them.
• The handler logs. It logs the stored fingerprint, the size of the copy and the verdict, which the runner reads in simulation. A deployed confidential handler should log nothing, because a log leaves the enclave.
• Who can see the copy. Moolam's operator, Pinata as the storage provider and the machine running the simulator can all see the 512 pixel copy.
• The open window is closed, the key is not. Until 2026-09-26 the sealed receiver was pointed at the simulation forwarder for each run, and any simulator user could have driven it in that window. The sealed SimulationReceiver never opens: a report from any wallet but the CRE wallet reverts WrongSendingWallet. What is left is the key itself. Whoever holds the CRE wallet's key can write a verdict until the owner takes the receiver off the policy with "The kill switch" above, which takes effect at once.