Files
platform/deploy
pastilhas be3139f97d release 2026.09.09.01
Twenty-seven commits and ten days. One new table, plugin_ports, which is a plain create — nothing
references it, so db:push has no ordering problem to get wrong. The marketplace's nullable release_tag
is deliberately out of scope: db:push covers officer_db, and the marketplace runs only on officer-dev,
which the rollout skips.

@anthropic-ai/sdk is new, so bun install is a step. The lockfile is committed and matches; a host that
cannot resolve from it is a finding, not something to force past.
2026-09-09 23:17:12 +01:00
..
2026-08-23 01:56:03 +00:00
2026-08-23 02:52:30 +00:00
2026-08-23 03:56:07 +00:00
2026-08-23 13:51:50 +00:00
2026-08-23 18:38:26 +00:00
2026-08-24 02:15:40 +00:00
2026-08-24 02:58:36 +00:00
2026-08-24 03:41:15 +00:00
2026-08-25 16:13:24 +00:00
2026-08-26 03:37:40 +00:00
2026-08-26 04:31:51 +00:00
2026-08-29 14:20:27 +01:00
2026-08-30 11:13:11 +01:00
2026-08-30 11:38:06 +01:00
2026-09-09 23:17:12 +01:00

deploy/

One file per release, and one report per release.

deploy/
├── 2026.08.21.01.md         the plan — what to run, in order, on which hosts
└── 2026.08.21.01.report.md  what actually happened, written by the commander

The plan is written by hand before the release commit. The report is written by the deploy commander afterwards and pushed back here.

A release is a tag, deploy/<version>, and nothing else triggers a deploy — not a commit message, not a branch. A tag cannot be written into prose by accident, which a code word can and which every document about deploying does.

What marks a release deployed is LOCAL: $OFFICER_ROOT/data/deploys/<version>.done. Not the report. If the lock were the pushed report, a failed push would mean the release looked undeployed and the next tick would roll it out again — and pushes here fail for unrelated reasons. So the report is an artefact, valuable and not load-bearing.

See prompts/deploy-commander.md.