Add deployment-architecture review (Squid vs Octopus parity, post-1.6.9)
Summary
Comprehensive 383-line architecture audit at `docs/deployment-architecture-review-2026-05.md`. Three-axis comparison: Squid current state × Octopus local source × OctopusTentacle OSS.
Verdict (executive):
-
✅ Architecture is generic & sound — verified by source-level grep -
✅ Production-stability mechanisms extensive — 568 test classes, 12 EnforcementMode validators, 32 env-var escape hatches -
✅ Cross-platform tentacle coverage is real (Linux + Windows + K8s + SSH + OpenClaw) -
🟡 Wire-protocol layer is behind Octopus: 5🔴 -priority gaps + 5🟡 -priority gaps identified for 1.7.x -
🟡 `CLAUDE.md` "Deployment Pipeline" section drifted — 8 stale items found, separate cleanup PR
Bottom line: 1.6.9 is production-ready today. 1.7.x should focus on protocol hardening (versioned wire contracts, capability negotiation, agent state persistence, retry differentiation, backwards-compat decorators).
Sections: executive verdict (6-row scorecard), architecture map with file:line cites, stability catalog, cross-platform matrix, 20-dimension Octopus parity table, 10 actionable production-stability gaps with effort estimates, CLAUDE.md drift inventory, prioritized recommendations.
Test plan
-
Doc-only PR; no logic / test changes -
Architecture-team review of the prioritized gap list — confirm 1.7.x scope