refactor: refer to ASM programs by spec ID in runner config

[prajwolrg]

Description

The runner config repeated each ASM predicate up to three times: in [[execution.targets]], as execution.genesis_predicate, and in each [[orchestrator.asm_artifacts]] entry. An SP1 Groth16 predicate is about 1 KB of hex, so each copy was a chance to paste the wrong key.

The execution registry already maps each spec ID to exactly one predicate, so a spec ID is enough to refer to a program. This PR keeps the predicate only in [[execution.targets]]. Everything else now refers to programs by spec ID:

[execution]
genesis_spec_id = 0

[[execution.targets]]
predicate = "Sp1Groth16:…"
spec_id = 0

[[orchestrator.asm_artifacts]]
spec_id = 0
[orchestrator.asm_artifacts.source]
kind = "sp1"
elf_path = "/elfs/asm/asm.elf"

The ELF is still checked at boot. The loader derives the predicate from the ELF or signing key and compares it with the predicate of the matching target, so a wrong artifact still fails startup.

Type of Change

• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Refactor

Notes to Reviewers

This changes the config format. Any deployed runner config needs genesis_predicate replaced with genesis_spec_id, and predicate replaced with spec_id in each asm_artifacts entry.

genesis_spec_id stays a separate field on purpose. Once an upgrade adds a second target, nothing else says which spec the chain started under.

Validated with cargo clippy --all-features, unit tests for the worker, prover-worker and runner crates, and the fn_asm_block_test, fn_asm_proof_test and fn_asm_proof_follower_sync_test functional tests on the native backend.

Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• I have commented my code where necessary.
• I have updated the documentation if needed.
• My changes do not introduce new warnings.
• I have added tests that prove my changes are effective or that my feature works.
• New and existing tests pass with my changes.

Related Issues

None.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[github-actions]

Commit: e672f47
Baseline: #296 (af03330)
SP1 Execution Results

program	cycles	gas	Δ cycles	Δ gas
asm-stf	177,777,373	175,551,011	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
moho	5,193,682	5,504,558	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 95.45455% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
bin/asm-runner/src/bootstrap.rs	91.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
bin/asm-runner/src/config.rs	100.00% <ø> (ø)
crates/extensions/prover/worker/src/backend/mod.rs	81.81% <100.00%> (+0.56%)	⬆️
crates/extensions/prover/worker/src/config.rs	89.83% <ø> (ø)
crates/worker/src/registry.rs	98.07% <100.00%> (+0.02%)	⬆️
bin/asm-runner/src/bootstrap.rs	97.91% <91.66%> (+0.02%)	⬆️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-10-01T01:46:17.213854Z	64e37a9	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[github-actions]

🔒 AI Security Review (claude-opus-5-5)

✅ No security issues found.