diff --git a/.changeset/redis-script-cache-recovery.md b/.changeset/redis-script-cache-recovery.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..256829d3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.changeset/redis-script-cache-recovery.md
@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+---
+"nostream": patch
+---
+
+test(redis): prove the relay keeps publishing after the cache loses its scripts
+
+Nothing is shipped in this change — it is coverage for #1002. The relay issues `EVALSHA`, and Lua scripts live in the cache's memory, so a Redis restart leaves every script call answering `NOSCRIPT`. The adapter's retry for that was added in #920 and had only a stubbed unit test: `evalSha` was mocked, which cannot catch a retry that stops working through the workers that actually call it.
+
+The new integration scenario publishes, runs `SCRIPT FLUSH` against the same Redis, then publishes twice more. `SCRIPT FLUSH` is the whole of a restart as far as the relay can tell, and it is deterministic — no container to restart and no reconnect to wait for. The scenario configures a message rate limit on purpose, because both limiters return early on an empty list and a scenario without one would pass whether or not the fallback existed.
diff --git a/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature b/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..35adf664
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature
@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+Feature: The relay recovers when the cache forgets its Lua scripts
+
+  A Redis restart empties the script cache, so every subsequent `EVALSHA` answers
+  `NOSCRIPT`. The relay calls `EVALSHA` for its rate limiters and its moderation
+  counters, which means the cache losing its scripts used to leave the relay
+  serving nothing at all: sockets stayed open, `HTTP` answered, and no event was
+  ever acknowledged again until the process was restarted (#1002).
+
+  `SCRIPT FLUSH` reproduces that state exactly, without restarting a container and
+  without waiting for a reconnect.
+
+  @script-cache
+  Scenario: A client publishes before and after the cache drops its scripts
+    Given someone called Alice
+    When Alice sends a text_note event with content "before the flush"
+    And the cache forgets its stored Lua scripts
+    And Alice sends a text_note event with content "after the flush"
+    And Alice sends a text_note event with content "and once more"
diff --git a/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature.ts b/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature.ts
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ba6473e8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/test/integration/features/redis-script-cache/redis-script-cache.feature.ts
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+import { After, Before, When } from '@cucumber/cucumber'
+import { assocPath, pipe } from 'ramda'
+import { createClient } from 'redis'
+
+import { Settings } from '../../../../src/@types/settings'
+import { getCacheConfig } from '../../../../src/cache/client'
+import { SettingsStatic } from '../../../../src/utils/settings'
+
+// One worker serves every scenario in this process, and controllers read
+// `SettingsStatic._settings` through `createSettings()` on each request, so a
+// mutation here would outlive the scenario and make whatever runs next depend on
+// test order. The tagged After below puts the previous object back.
+let settingsBefore: Settings | undefined
+
+// The relay only touches Lua when a rate limit is configured: both limiters
+// return early on an empty list. A scenario that never configures one would pass
+// whether or not the EVALSHA fallback exists, which is the definition of a test
+// that proves nothing. A generous limit keeps the window from tripping while
+// still forcing the script through `EVALSHA`.
+Before({ tags: '@script-cache' }, async function () {
+  settingsBefore = SettingsStatic._settings
+  SettingsStatic._settings = pipe(
+    assocPath(['limits', 'rateLimiter', 'strategy'], 'ewma'),
+    assocPath(['limits', 'message', 'rateLimits'], [{ period: 60000, rate: 100 }]),
+    assocPath(['limits', 'message', 'ipWhitelist'], []),
+  )(SettingsStatic._settings) as any
+})
+
+After({ tags: '@script-cache' }, async function () {
+  SettingsStatic._settings = settingsBefore
+})
+
+// `SCRIPT FLUSH` is the whole of a Redis restart as far as the relay can tell:
+// the script cache is memory-resident and empty, so the next EVALSHA answers
+// NOSCRIPT. Doing it this way keeps the scenario deterministic — no container
+// to restart, no reconnect to wait for, and it exercises the adapter's retry
+// rather than the client's reconnect logic.
+When(/^the cache forgets its stored Lua scripts$/, async function () {
+  const client = createClient(getCacheConfig())
+  await client.connect()
+
+  try {
+    await client.sendCommand(['SCRIPT', 'FLUSH'])
+  } finally {
+    await client.quit()
+  }
+})