Swedish, plugin capabilities read where they live, dev tools as a property of a
role, a commander as a directory, and atomic uploads.
TWO schema changes and bun db:push can apply neither. Both drop a column while
adding others, which is the shape drizzle-kit cannot tell from a rename — it
asks, bails with no terminal to answer, and the wrapper still exits 0. The plan
carries both blocks, guarded and idempotent, tested against a scratch database:
they apply, re-apply cleanly once already applied, and the roles guard still
refuses a host where anything wrote a provisioning_script.
The command_hq block DELETES every commander rather than migrating one. That is
the owner's call and the plan says to tell people what was removed and put it in
the report — a commander is somebody's standing job, not a row.
Also carries a cleanup no plan format covers: three hosts hold a copy of gitea's
affordance published by the mechanism this release removes, and affordances are
deliberately not de-duplicated, so without the removal the agent reads the same
guidance twice.
The verification step is a conversation rather than a query. The capability
refactor's failure mode is an agent that quietly knows less, which no schema
check can see.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Officer-Session: 656f5c85-e49a-4f1f-b9f3-042a04b4d043
Carries the SQL, because bun db:push cannot apply this one and will not say so:
dropping provisioning_script while adding two columns makes drizzle-kit ask
whether it is a rename, and with no terminal it bails while the wrapper exits 0.
Tested against a scratch database — applies, re-applies cleanly once the column
is already gone, and refuses to drop a provisioning_script anything actually
wrote.
Also carries a one-off cleanup that no plan format covers. alpha, fofos and
production-pertento-bridge each hold capabilities/affordances/officerdev/gitea/,
a copy from the mechanism this release removes. The gitea plugin still ships that
affordance in its own directory and affordances are deliberately not
de-duplicated, so without the removal the agent reads the same guidance twice.
The verification step is a chat rather than a query, because the failure mode of
the capability refactor is an agent that quietly knows less rather than an error.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Officer-Session: 656f5c85-e49a-4f1f-b9f3-042a04b4d043
pastilhasandClaude Opus 5