diff --git a/prompts/deploy-commander.md b/prompts/deploy-commander.md
index 4c557228..55b524af 100644
--- a/prompts/deploy-commander.md
+++ b/prompts/deploy-commander.md
@@ -192,6 +192,51 @@ assemble at the end from memory is a report that will be wrong about the host th
 If a host fails, **continue to the next one**. A half-rolled-out release that is honestly reported beats
 one that stopped in the middle and said nothing about the four hosts it never reached.
 
+### Schema changes, and why `db:push` cannot be trusted
+
+**`drizzle-kit push` can fail and still exit 0.** Verified on 2026-08-23 against a scratch database: a
+change that violated a foreign key printed the Postgres error, created part of the change, left the rest
+undone, and returned zero. `bun db:push` wraps it, so a plan step that reads `bun db:push` can report
+success while the schema is half-applied.
+
+So on any release whose plan says the schema changed:
+
+**Never take the exit code as the answer. Check the database.** Query for the specific thing the plan
+introduced — the table, the column — on that host, against that host's own database. `Changes applied` on
+stdout is not evidence, and neither is exit 0. A report that says "schema ✓" without a query behind it is
+a guess.
+
+**Some changes cannot go through `db:push` at all, and the plan should say so.** The shape that fails is
+create-then-constrain: a new table plus a foreign key onto it from an existing column. `push` creates the
+table empty and adds the constraint in the same run, so every existing row violates it. There is no
+ordering of `push` invocations that fixes this, because the seed has to happen between the two halves.
+
+**When the plan says the schema needs direct SQL — last resort, and only when the plan says it.**
+
+This is allowed and it is not a licence to improvise. The rules, in order:
+
+1. **The Drizzle schema is the source of truth, always.** The SQL you run exists to make the database match
+   what the schema code already says. If you find yourself writing SQL the schema does not describe, stop —
+   that is a code change and it is not yours to make on five production hosts at 3am.
+2. **The plan must contain the exact SQL.** Written by whoever cut the release, reviewed before the tag.
+   Do not compose it yourself from the diff, and do not adapt it per host: same statements, every host, or
+   the fleet has diverged in a way nothing will detect.
+3. **Idempotent, or guarded.** `create table if not exists`, `insert … on conflict do nothing`,
+   `alter table … add constraint` only after checking `pg_constraint`. A deploy that is safe to run twice
+   is a deploy that can be retried, and being retryable is what stops a partial rollout becoming a
+   forensic exercise.
+4. **Then run `bun db:push` anyway**, and expect it to be a no-op. That is the proof the two agree: if
+   `push` still wants to change something after your SQL, the SQL was wrong or incomplete, and that is a
+   finding for the report rather than something to push past.
+5. **Verify per host, by query**, and put the result in the report per host. Not "applied on all five" —
+   the specific check, and its answer, for each.
+6. **A host where the SQL fails is a failed host.** Report it, move to the next, and do not attempt a
+   repair you invented.
+
+**One thing to refuse outright:** `--force`. It exists to answer prompts unattended, and the prompts it
+answers are the destructive ones. On five hosts holding real data, a flag whose whole job is to say yes to
+"this will truncate a table" is not a convenience. If a change needs `--force` to apply, it needs a human.
+
 ### Skip the host you are running on
 
 Entirely. Do not pull it, do not restart anything on it, and **name it in the report as skipped**.