Question: Is the guard daemon being used successfully by other users?

[conal]

We have been trying to use Cozempic for context management on a real project and have filed several issues (#8, #9, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16) along with PRs #10, #12, and #17.

While investigating #15 (guard prunes 0 bytes), we discovered that the guard daemon never imports the strategies package, so STRATEGIES is empty and every strategy is silently skipped. PR #17 fixes this. But the journey to that one-line fix took considerable debugging, and the number of issues we have filed makes us wonder whether we are the first users to run the guard daemon on a real session.

We want to understand:

1. Is the guard daemon tested end-to-end? Our experience suggests the treat/diagnose CLI path works (cli.py imports strategies) but the daemon path does not. Is there a test suite that exercises guard_prune_cycle with real session data?

2. What is the intended use case? Our sessions are moderate-sized (600-900 messages, 2-3MB). Cozempic diagnose correctly identifies 13-17% removable content, but we are not sure whether our sessions are representative of the target user. Are there known session characteristics where Cozempic works well?

3. Are other users running the guard successfully? We want to calibrate whether our difficulties are configuration issues on our end, or whether the guard path has not been exercised much yet.

We are happy to continue contributing fixes and diagnostics. This is meant as a constructive check-in, not a complaint -- we would like to invest our debugging effort where it is most useful.