# Risk Analysis - MCP Tool Migration
## Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive risk analysis for migrating 7 MCP tools from the broken branch (`claude/update-docs-v0.6.2-01Kba6k5nEDbUNjHDrkhUniB`) to the baseline branch (`claude/dsa5-system-adapter-01QvdK2JiF6vRxwsjJQGT1F9`).
**Overall Risk Level:** MEDIUM
**Risk Categories:**
1. Technical/Implementation Risks
2. Integration Risks
3. Compatibility Risks
4. Data Safety Risks
5. Project Timeline Risks
**Critical Risk Factors:**
- ⚠️ DSA5 condition system compatibility (unknown)
- ⚠️ Destructive operations (delete-tokens)
- ⚠️ Unknown root cause of broken branch instability
---
## Risk Matrix Overview
| Risk Category | Severity | Likelihood | Overall Risk | Mitigation Priority |
|---------------|----------|------------|--------------|---------------------|
| DSA5 Condition Compatibility | HIGH | MEDIUM | **HIGH** | **CRITICAL** |
| Destructive Operations | HIGH | LOW | **MEDIUM** | **HIGH** |
| Type System Breaking Changes | MEDIUM | LOW | **LOW** | MEDIUM |
| Foundry API Compatibility | MEDIUM | MEDIUM | **MEDIUM** | HIGH |
| Performance Degradation | LOW | LOW | **LOW** | LOW |
| Documentation Drift | LOW | MEDIUM | **LOW** | MEDIUM |
| Broken Branch Instability Source | HIGH | UNKNOWN | **HIGH** | **CRITICAL** |
**Overall Assessment:** Migration is feasible with proper testing and phased rollout.
---
## Category 1: Technical/Implementation Risks
### Risk 1.1: Broken Branch Instability Root Cause
**Severity:** HIGH
**Likelihood:** UNKNOWN
**Overall Risk:** HIGH
**Description:**
The broken branch is marked as unstable, but the specific cause of instability is not documented. It's unclear if the instability is related to:
- The 7 new tools themselves
- COMPENDIUM_ADAPTER_FEATURE.md changes
- Other undocumented changes
- Integration issues with Foundry
**Potential Impact:**
- Migrated tools may carry hidden bugs
- Instability may resurface in baseline branch
- Difficult to debug if root cause is unknown
**Indicators:**
- No specific bug reports in documentation
- CHANGELOG mentions "Bug fixes" without details
- Version v0.6.2 jumped from v0.6.1 but instability reason unclear
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Code Archaeology** (HIGH PRIORITY)
```bash
# Compare broken branch with its parent
git log claude/update-docs-v0.6.2-01Kba6k5nEDbUNjHDrkhUniB --oneline -20
# Find divergence point
git merge-base claude/dsa5-system-adapter-01QvdK2JiF6vRxwsjJQGT1F9 claude/update-docs-v0.6.2-01Kba6k5nEDbUNjHDrkhUniB
# Review all changes
git diff <merge-base> claude/update-docs-v0.6.2-01Kba6k5nEDbUNjHDrkhUniB
```
2. **Selective Migration**
- Only migrate the 7 specific tools
- **DO NOT** migrate COMPENDIUM_ADAPTER_FEATURE.md changes (yet)
- Review all other files for unexpected changes
3. **Extensive Testing**
- Test each tool individually
- Monitor for memory leaks
- Check for race conditions
- Load test with multiple concurrent operations
4. **Canary Deployment**
- Deploy to test environment first
- Monitor for 24-48 hours before production release
- Have rollback plan ready
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM (even with mitigation, unknown bugs may exist)
---
### Risk 1.2: Type System Breaking Changes
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** LOW
**Description:**
The broken branch may have different TypeScript dependencies or type definitions that could cause compilation errors when merged into baseline.
**Potential Impact:**
- Build failures
- Type errors in production code
- Integration issues with existing tools
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Version Lock Check**
```bash
# Compare package.json versions
git show claude/update-docs-v0.6.2-01Kba6k5nEDbUNjHDrkhUniB:package.json > /tmp/broken-package.json
diff package.json /tmp/broken-package.json
```
2. **Incremental Build Testing**
- Build after each file addition
- Run TypeScript compiler in strict mode
- Fix type errors immediately
3. **Type Safety Verification**
- Run `npm run type-check` after each change
- Use `tsc --noEmit` for validation
**Residual Risk:** LOW (TypeScript will catch most issues at compile time)
---
### Risk 1.3: Missing Dependencies
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** LOW
**Description:**
The broken branch may rely on npm packages or Foundry API features not present in baseline.
**Potential Impact:**
- Runtime errors
- Missing functionality
- Installation failures
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Dependency Audit**
- Review all imports in token-manipulation.ts
- Check for new npm packages in broken branch package.json
- Verify Foundry API calls exist in v13
2. **Runtime Validation**
- Add defensive checks for undefined APIs
- Graceful degradation if features missing
3. **Integration Tests**
- Test in clean environment
- Fresh npm install
- Verify all imports resolve
**Residual Risk:** LOW (code review shows no new dependencies)
---
## Category 2: Integration Risks
### Risk 2.1: Foundry Module Handler Integration
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
The 6 token manipulation tools require new handlers in the Foundry module. Integration issues could cause:
- Handler not found errors
- WebRTC communication failures
- Incomplete implementation
**Potential Impact:**
- Tools fail silently
- Error messages unclear
- Difficult to debug client-server mismatch
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Handler Template Testing**
```javascript
// Test handler exists before full implementation
case 'foundry-mcp-bridge.moveToken': {
console.log('moveToken handler called', args);
return { success: true, test: true };
}
```
2. **Systematic Handler Implementation**
- Implement one handler at a time
- Test immediately after each handler
- Verify request/response format matches MCP tool expectations
3. **Error Handling Pattern**
```javascript
try {
// Handler implementation
} catch (error) {
console.error(`Handler failed: foundry-mcp-bridge.moveToken`, error);
throw error; // Re-throw with context
}
```
4. **WebRTC Communication Monitoring**
- Log all WebRTC messages during testing
- Verify message format consistency
- Check for dropped messages
**Residual Risk:** LOW (with systematic testing)
---
### Risk 2.2: MCP Server Index.ts Registration
**Severity:** HIGH
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
Incorrect registration of TokenManipulationTools in index.ts could cause:
- Tools not appearing in MCP tool list
- Handler routing failures
- Tool call timeouts
**Potential Impact:**
- Complete failure of token tools
- Confusing user experience
- Silent failures
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Registration Checklist**
- [ ] Import TokenManipulationTools class
- [ ] Instantiate with correct parameters (foundryClient, logger)
- [ ] Add to getToolDefinitions() array
- [ ] Register all 6 handlers in CallToolRequestSchema
2. **Verification Test**
```bash
# Start MCP server and list tools
node packages/mcp-server/dist/index.js
# Expected: 32 tools listed
```
3. **Handler Mapping Validation**
- Create test script that calls each tool
- Verify handler routing works
- Check error messages are clear
**Residual Risk:** LOW (compile-time checks + explicit testing)
---
### Risk 2.3: Character.ts Modification Conflicts
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
The broken branch character.ts has significant changes from baseline:
- Different `get-character` description (lazy-loading language)
- Modified `formatItems` (returns ALL items vs 20)
- New `formatActions` method
- Different response structure
**Potential Impact:**
- Breaking changes to existing users
- Token usage increase if returning ALL items
- Regression in character tool behavior
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Incremental Changes**
- Add get-character-entity WITHOUT modifying existing behavior
- Test that get-character still works identically
- Optionally add enhancements in separate commit
2. **Backwards Compatibility**
- Keep 20-item limit in get-character (don't break existing behavior)
- Only return full items if explicitly needed
- Document any breaking changes
3. **A/B Testing**
- Test both versions of formatItems
- Measure token usage differences
- User feedback on preferred behavior
**Recommendation:** Add get-character-entity WITHOUT changing get-character behavior initially. Enhance later if needed.
**Residual Risk:** LOW (if keeping backwards compatibility)
---
## Category 3: Compatibility Risks
### Risk 3.1: DSA5 Condition System Compatibility (CRITICAL)
**Severity:** HIGH
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** HIGH
**Description:**
The `toggle-token-condition` and `get-available-conditions` tools interact with Foundry's status effect system. DSA5 may implement conditions differently than D&D5e/PF2e:
- Different condition IDs
- Different CONFIG.statusEffects structure
- Different effect application method
- Custom DSA5-specific conditions
**Potential Impact:**
- Tools fail with DSA5 actors
- Incorrect conditions applied
- Runtime errors in DSA5 worlds
- Loss of DSA5 compatibility (regression from v0.6.1)
**Unknown Factors:**
- How DSA5 system stores conditions
- Whether DSA5 uses standard Foundry effects
- If DSA5 has custom condition management
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **DSA5 System Investigation** (CRITICAL - DO FIRST)
```javascript
// In DSA5 Foundry world, run in console:
console.log('DSA5 Status Effects:', CONFIG.statusEffects);
console.log('DSA5 System:', game.system.id);
// Test with DSA5 character:
const actor = game.actors.getName("Test Held");
console.log('Actor effects:', actor.effects);
console.log('Actor statuses:', actor.statuses);
// Test effect application:
await actor.toggleStatusEffect('condition-id-here');
```
2. **DSA5-Specific Testing Plan**
- Create DSA5 test world
- Create test character (Held)
- Place token on scene
- Test get-available-conditions
- Verify DSA5 conditions are returned
- Test toggle-token-condition with DSA5 condition
- Verify effect is applied correctly
3. **Conditional Implementation**
```typescript
// In toggle-token-condition handler
const gameSystem = await detectGameSystem(this.foundryClient, this.logger);
if (gameSystem === 'dsa5') {
// DSA5-specific condition handling if needed
return this.handleDSA5Condition(tokenId, conditionId, active);
}
```
4. **Fallback Behavior**
- If DSA5 conditions don't work, disable for DSA5
- Document limitation in README
- Plan follow-up DSA5-specific implementation
5. **Community Consultation**
- Check DSA5 Foundry system documentation
- Ask DSA5 community about condition handling
- Review DSA5 system source code
**Testing Checklist:**
- [ ] DSA5 world created and loaded
- [ ] CONFIG.statusEffects inspected for DSA5
- [ ] get-available-conditions tested with DSA5
- [ ] toggle-token-condition tested with common DSA5 conditions
- [ ] Verified no errors in DSA5 console
- [ ] Documented DSA5-specific behavior
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM (DSA5 testing can reduce but not eliminate uncertainty)
---
### Risk 3.2: Foundry VTT Version Compatibility
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** LOW
**Description:**
Token manipulation relies on Foundry v13 APIs. Changes in Foundry API between versions could cause:
- canvas.tokens API differences
- token.document.update() signature changes
- Effect system changes
**Potential Impact:**
- Tools fail on different Foundry versions
- Unexpected behavior on Foundry v12 or v14
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Version Check in Module**
```javascript
if (!game.version.startsWith('13')) {
console.warn('Token manipulation tools designed for Foundry v13');
}
```
2. **API Compatibility Checks**
- Test on Foundry v13.291 (latest stable)
- Document minimum version: v13.0
- Review Foundry v13 API changelog for breaking changes
3. **Defensive Coding**
```javascript
if (typeof canvas.tokens.get !== 'function') {
throw new Error('Token API not available');
}
```
**Residual Risk:** LOW (project already targets v13)
---
### Risk 3.3: Cross-System Behavior Differences
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
D&D5e, PF2e, and DSA5 may handle tokens differently:
- Actor data structure
- Default token settings
- Vision/light integration
- Combat tracker integration
**Potential Impact:**
- Tool works on D&D5e but fails on PF2e
- Different behavior across systems
- User confusion
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Cross-System Test Matrix**
| Tool | D&D5e | PF2e | DSA5 |
|------|-------|------|------|
| move-token | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| update-token | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| delete-tokens | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| get-token-details | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| toggle-token-condition | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ |
| get-available-conditions | ✅ | ✅ | ⚠️ |
| get-character-entity | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
2. **System-Agnostic Design**
- Use Foundry core APIs (not system-specific)
- Avoid hardcoded system assumptions
- Test with all 3 systems
3. **System-Specific Handlers** (if needed)
```typescript
const gameSystem = await detectGameSystem(...);
if (gameSystem === 'dsa5') {
return this.handleDSA5Version(args);
}
// Default implementation
```
**Residual Risk:** LOW for most tools, MEDIUM for condition tools
---
## Category 4: Data Safety Risks
### Risk 4.1: Destructive Token Deletion
**Severity:** HIGH
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
`delete-tokens` permanently removes tokens from the scene. User errors or bugs could cause:
- Accidental deletion of important tokens
- Loss of unlinked token data (not recoverable)
- Bulk deletion of wrong tokens
**Potential Impact:**
- Permanent data loss
- User frustration
- Need to recreate tokens manually
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Foundry Undo Mechanism**
- Rely on Foundry's built-in history
- Document that undo is available (Ctrl+Z)
- Note: History may not persist across sessions
2. **Confirmation in Tool Description**
```typescript
description: 'Delete one or more tokens from the current scene. **WARNING:** This is a destructive operation. Deleted tokens may be recoverable via Foundry\'s undo (Ctrl+Z) but this is not guaranteed. Use with caution.'
```
3. **Error Handling for Partial Failures**
```typescript
// Don't fail entire operation if one token fails
const errors = [];
for (const tokenId of tokenIds) {
try {
await token.delete();
} catch (err) {
errors.push({ tokenId, error: err.message });
}
}
return { deletedCount, errors };
```
4. **Testing with Disposable Tokens**
- Create test tokens specifically for deletion testing
- Never test with real campaign tokens
- Backup Foundry data before deletion tests
5. **Future Enhancement: Soft Delete**
- Consider adding a "confirm" parameter
- Require explicit confirmation for bulk deletes (>5 tokens)
**Residual Risk:** LOW (with proper documentation and user warnings)
---
### Risk 4.2: Token State Corruption
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** LOW
**Description:**
`update-token` could set invalid property combinations:
- Size 0 or negative
- Invalid disposition values
- Rotation out of bounds
**Potential Impact:**
- Token becomes invisible or unusable
- Scene corruption
- Foundry errors
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Input Validation (Zod Schemas)**
```typescript
updates: z.object({
width: z.number().positive().optional(),
height: z.number().positive().optional(),
rotation: z.number().min(0).max(360).optional(),
disposition: z.union([z.literal(-1), z.literal(0), z.literal(1)]).optional(),
})
```
2. **Foundry's Built-in Validation**
- Foundry validates token.document.update()
- Invalid values will be rejected by Foundry
- Errors propagated back to user
3. **Boundary Testing**
- Test edge cases (0, 360, negative values)
- Verify Foundry's error handling
- Ensure clear error messages
**Residual Risk:** VERY LOW (double validation: Zod + Foundry)
---
### Risk 4.3: Race Conditions in Concurrent Operations
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** LOW
**Overall Risk:** LOW
**Description:**
Multiple concurrent token operations could cause:
- Conflicting updates
- Unexpected state
- Lost updates
**Potential Impact:**
- Token in inconsistent state
- Operation failures
- User confusion
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Foundry's Locking Mechanism**
- Foundry handles concurrent updates internally
- token.document.update() is atomic
2. **Error Handling**
- Catch and report conflicts
- Retry logic if needed
3. **Testing**
- Test concurrent operations
- Verify Foundry handles conflicts
**Residual Risk:** VERY LOW (Foundry handles this)
---
## Category 5: Project Timeline Risks
### Risk 5.1: Scope Creep
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
During migration, discovering additional features or improvements that expand scope:
- Temptation to refactor existing code
- Adding enhancements beyond migration
- Perfectionism delaying release
**Potential Impact:**
- Timeline overrun
- Increased complexity
- More opportunities for bugs
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Strict Scope Definition**
- Migrate 7 tools ONLY
- No refactoring of existing code
- No new features beyond what's in broken branch
2. **Future Enhancement Backlog**
- Document improvement ideas
- Create issues for future work
- Don't implement during migration
3. **MVP Mindset**
- Goal: Working v0.6.3 with 32 tools
- Enhancements can be v0.6.4+
**Residual Risk:** LOW (with discipline)
---
### Risk 5.2: Testing Time Underestimation
**Severity:** MEDIUM
**Likelihood:** MEDIUM
**Overall Risk:** MEDIUM
**Description:**
DSA5 testing and condition system investigation could take longer than expected.
**Potential Impact:**
- Timeline delays
- Rushed testing
- Bugs in production
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Buffer Time in Schedule**
- Original estimate: 2-3 days
- Revised with buffer: 3-4 days
- Allocate full day for DSA5 testing
2. **Parallel Testing**
- Test D&D5e and PF2e simultaneously
- DSA5 testing can be done separately
3. **Test Automation**
- Write automated tests where possible
- Reduce manual testing time
**Residual Risk:** LOW (with buffer time)
---
## Category 6: Unknown Risks
### Risk 6.1: Undiscovered Broken Branch Issues
**Severity:** UNKNOWN
**Likelihood:** UNKNOWN
**Overall Risk:** HIGH (precautionary)
**Description:**
There may be bugs or issues in the broken branch that are not documented.
**Mitigation Strategies:**
1. **Thorough Code Review**
- Review all changes in broken branch
- Look for commented-out code
- Check for TODO/FIXME comments
- Review git history for reverted changes
2. **Canary Testing**
- Deploy to test environment first
- Monitor for unexpected behavior
- Collect user feedback before wide release
3. **Incremental Rollout**
- Release to small group of testers
- Monitor for issues
- Full release only after confidence
4. **Quick Rollback Plan**
- Keep v0.6.1 available
- Document rollback procedure
- Have rollback script ready
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM (unknowns always exist)
---
## Critical Mitigation Priorities
### Priority 1: CRITICAL - Investigate Broken Branch Instability
**Why:** Root cause unknown, highest uncertainty
**Action:**
1. Review broken branch git history
2. Compare all files (not just tools)
3. Identify what made it "broken"
4. Document findings before migration
**Timeline:** 2-3 hours (before migration starts)
---
### Priority 2: CRITICAL - DSA5 Condition System Testing
**Why:** Highest compatibility risk, could break DSA5 support
**Action:**
1. Set up DSA5 test world
2. Investigate CONFIG.statusEffects
3. Test condition application manually
4. Document DSA5-specific behavior
5. Decide if conditions work with DSA5
**Timeline:** 3-4 hours (during Wave 3 implementation)
---
### Priority 3: HIGH - Foundry Module Handler Validation
**Why:** Integration point, many things can go wrong
**Action:**
1. Implement one handler at a time
2. Test immediately after each
3. Verify WebRTC communication
4. Check error handling
**Timeline:** Ongoing during implementation (30 min per handler)
---
### Priority 4: HIGH - Backwards Compatibility Verification
**Why:** Don't break existing users
**Action:**
1. Test all 26 existing tools after migration
2. Verify character.ts changes don't break get-character
3. Check performance hasn't degraded
**Timeline:** 2-3 hours (after Wave 1 complete)
---
## Risk Acceptance Criteria
The migration can proceed if:
✅ **Must Have:**
- [ ] Broken branch instability root cause identified or isolated to COMPENDIUM_ADAPTER_FEATURE
- [ ] DSA5 condition system investigated and documented
- [ ] All 6 token tools tested with D&D5e and PF2e successfully
- [ ] Comprehensive error handling in place
- [ ] Rollback plan documented and tested
⚠️ **Should Have:**
- [ ] DSA5 condition tools working (or explicitly disabled with documentation)
- [ ] Automated test coverage >70%
- [ ] Performance benchmarks showing no regression
🔄 **Nice to Have:**
- [ ] 100% DSA5 compatibility
- [ ] Enhanced error messages
- [ ] Performance improvements
---
## Rollback Triggers
Immediately rollback if:
🚨 **Critical Issues:**
- Any existing tools break
- Data loss occurs
- DSA5 functionality completely broken
- Performance degradation >50%
- Foundry crashes or hangs
- Security vulnerability discovered
⚠️ **Major Issues (consider rollback):**
- >3 critical bugs discovered in testing
- DSA5 partially broken with no fix path
- Timeline overrun >2x estimate
- User reports of serious issues
---
## Residual Risk Summary
After all mitigations:
| Risk Category | Pre-Mitigation | Post-Mitigation | Acceptable? |
|---------------|----------------|-----------------|-------------|
| DSA5 Compatibility | HIGH | MEDIUM | ✅ Yes (with testing) |
| Broken Branch Instability | HIGH | MEDIUM | ✅ Yes (with investigation) |
| Destructive Operations | MEDIUM | LOW | ✅ Yes (with warnings) |
| Integration Issues | MEDIUM | LOW | ✅ Yes (with systematic testing) |
| Type/Build Issues | LOW | VERY LOW | ✅ Yes |
| Timeline Overrun | MEDIUM | LOW | ✅ Yes (with buffer) |
**Overall Residual Risk:** MEDIUM (acceptable for migration)
---
## Monitoring & Success Metrics
### Post-Migration Monitoring
**Week 1 After Release:**
- Monitor GitHub issues for bug reports
- Check Discord/community for feedback
- Track error logs in MCP server
- Monitor Foundry console errors
**Success Metrics:**
- ✅ Zero critical bugs reported
- ✅ <3 minor bugs reported
- ✅ DSA5 users confirm compatibility
- ✅ No performance complaints
- ✅ Positive user feedback on token tools
**Failure Indicators:**
- 🚨 >3 critical bug reports in first week
- 🚨 DSA5 users reporting breakage
- 🚨 Rollback requests from users
- 🚨 >10% increase in error rate
---
## Conclusion
**Overall Assessment:** Migration is **FEASIBLE** with **MEDIUM RISK**
**Key Success Factors:**
1. ✅ Thorough investigation of broken branch instability
2. ✅ Comprehensive DSA5 testing before release
3. ✅ Systematic phased implementation (Waves 1-3)
4. ✅ Robust error handling and validation
5. ✅ Clear rollback plan
**Recommendation:** **PROCEED** with migration following the phased approach outlined in IMPLEMENTATION_ORDER.md, with special emphasis on:
- DSA5 condition system investigation (Priority 1)
- Broken branch instability root cause analysis (Priority 2)
- Comprehensive testing across all 3 game systems
**Confidence Level:** 75% (Would be 90% after DSA5 condition system is verified)
---
## Appendix: Risk Review Checklist
Use this checklist before starting migration:
**Pre-Migration:**
- [ ] Read all migration documentation (MISSING_TOOLS.md, MIGRATION_PLAN.md, IMPLEMENTATION_ORDER.md)
- [ ] Investigate broken branch git history
- [ ] Set up DSA5 test world
- [ ] Create rollback plan
- [ ] Backup Foundry data directory
- [ ] Document current baseline state
**During Migration:**
- [ ] Follow implementation order (Waves 1-3)
- [ ] Test after each wave
- [ ] Monitor for errors continuously
- [ ] Document any deviations from plan
- [ ] Keep notes on issues encountered
**Post-Migration:**
- [ ] All 32 tools tested
- [ ] Cross-system compatibility verified
- [ ] Documentation updated
- [ ] Release notes prepared
- [ ] Monitoring plan in place
- [ ] Community notified
**If Issues Arise:**
- [ ] Assess severity (critical/major/minor)
- [ ] Check rollback triggers
- [ ] Document issue thoroughly
- [ ] Attempt fix if minor
- [ ] Rollback if critical
- [ ] Report to team/community
