## What this does
The publisher CLI now derives the OIDC audience to request from the
`--registry` URL instead of using a fixed constant, and the server
validates the token's `aud` claim against a new per-deployment env var
(`MCP_REGISTRY_GITHUB_OIDC_AUDIENCE`).
Production sets this env var to
`https://registry.modelcontextprotocol.io` (and per-environment URL
elsewhere), so the deployment only accepts tokens that were requested
for it.
## Compatibility
This is a breaking change for older `mcp-publisher` binaries that still
request the legacy hardcoded audience. After this rolls to a deployment,
users on old `mcp-publisher` will see a clear `invalid audience:
expected …, got […]` error and need to upgrade. Users following the
documented `releases/latest` install pattern get the new binary
automatically.
## Test plan
- [ ] CI green
- [ ] Run a synthetic publish from a real GitHub Actions workflow
against staging after deploy
- [ ] Confirm an older `mcp-publisher` against the same staging deploy
returns the expected `invalid audience` error
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Summary
Follow-up to #1221. That PR doubled pgxpool `MaxConns` from 30 to 60 per
pod without bumping the registry pod memory limit. pgxpool keeps
per-connection state in the Go process (prepared statement cache,
scratch buffers, row iteration state), so memory grew roughly
proportionally — peak per-pod usage shifted from ~330 MB to ~450 MB
against a 512 MiB limit.
## What surfaced it
Pod `tx49f` was OOMKilled at 17:01 UTC on 2026-04-29 (`exitCode 137`,
`reason: OOMKilled`). Memory history from Cloud Monitoring confirms the
regression:
| Pods | Peak 30-min memory |
|------|-------------------:|
| Pre-#1221 (`MaxConns=30`) | 178–333 MB |
| **Post-#1221** (`MaxConns=60`) | **437–449 MB** |
| Old limit | **512 MiB** ← right at the edge |
Other pod was at 394 MB at the time of inspection — could OOM again.
## Fix
`deploy/pkg/k8s/registry.go:217-225`:
| | Before | After |
|---|-------:|------:|
| `requests.memory` | 256 MiB | **512 MiB** |
| `limits.memory` | 512 MiB | **1 GiB** |
1 GiB is ~2× the current peak under load — gives room for traffic spikes
without immediate OOM risk. Either node has 4–5 GiB free allocatable
memory, so the new request fits comfortably.
## Test plan
- [x] `go build ./...` clean
- [x] `golangci-lint run` clean
- [ ] After release + prod promotion: pod memory stabilises around 450
MB peak with no OOMKills
- [ ] After release + prod promotion: tx49f restartCount stops climbing
(currently at 5)
## Deployment
Zero downtime — Deployment template change only, rolling update with
`maxSurge: 1, maxUnavailable: 0`. **No PG involvement** (no
`max_connections` change, no shared_preload_libraries change). Same
shape as a normal v1.7.x image promotion.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
## Summary
Daily ~17:00 UTC `Publish Endpoint Latency` and `Availability < 95%`
alerts are caused by both registry pods exit-0'ing within seconds of
each other and racing with the still-recovering `registry-pg-rw`
endpoint on restart. Separately, the default compute SA had no project
IAM roles, so `fluentbit-gke` and the GMP collector were silently
dropping every log line and time series — which is why none of this was
visible in Cloud Logging.
All Kubernetes/IAM changes apply uniformly to staging and prod.
## Changes
- **GCP IAM** (`deploy/pkg/providers/gcp/provider.go`) — grant the
default compute SA `logging.logWriter`, `monitoring.metricWriter`,
`monitoring.viewer`, and `stackdriver.resourceMetadata.writer`. Already
applied live; this just encodes it in Pulumi.
- **Pod resilience** (`deploy/pkg/k8s/registry.go`) —
- `PodDisruptionBudget` (`minAvailable: 1`) prevents a synchronized
voluntary disruption.
- `TopologySpreadConstraints` (`ScheduleAnyway`, hostname) keeps the PDB
from deadlocking node drains when both pods co-locate.
- `StartupProbe` (30 × 5s = 150s) protects the DB-retry budget from the
liveness probe.
- Memory bump 128→256Mi request, 256→512Mi limit.
- **Startup retry** (`cmd/registry/main.go`) — replace silent `return`
on initial DB-ping failure with bounded retry-with-backoff (8 attempts,
1→8s capped, 10s per-attempt). A brief endpoint flap no longer cascades
into a restart loop.
- **Diagnostic log** (`internal/service/registry_service.go`) — emit
`validate_ms` on each publish (success and failure). Validate fans out
to npm/PyPI/OCI with 10s per-host timeouts and is the most likely
contributor to publish latency. Total request duration is already
covered by the existing `http.request.duration` histogram.
## Calibration
The IAM, PDB, topology-spread, startup-probe, and DB-retry pieces are
mitigations — they reduce blast radius regardless of root cause. The
`validate_ms` log is the diagnostic for identifying the trigger when the
alert fires next. Single-PG SPOF (`deploy/pkg/k8s/postgres.go:57`)
remains a follow-up; today's evidence shows PG was a victim, not the
cause.
## Test plan
- [x] `go build ./...` and `go vet ./...` clean for both modules
- [x] `make lint` clean (12 pre-existing issues under `deploy/` are not
in `make lint`)
- [x] `go test -race -count=1 ./internal/... ./cmd/...` green
- [x] IAM applied live; `fluentbit-gke` and GMP no longer hitting
`IAM_PERMISSION_DENIED`
- [ ] After deploy, verify the next 17:00 UTC firing surfaces
`validate_ms` in Cloud Logging
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR ensures we don't have downtime when we are doing
rollouts during deployment/promotions.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
Seems that per ingress annotations were not working, so had to put them
in the ingress configmap. Did tested this manually on staging so it's
confirmed it's working (I was getting 429s instead of 503s) and no
traffic was getting into the registry pod.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following is an alternative solution to #833
Goal is to deploy and promote it to prod, then monitor the alerts for a
week to see its effect and reassess. In case it's actual traffic that
we've started blocking we can also up the replicas. I thought it doesn't
make sense to up them now since it would be nice to isolate the result
of this change first.
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
---------
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR moves away from automatically promoting latest releases
to production in favour of specifying the released version explicitly
via a PR & Review process.
Still sets the image tag to latest for now so we can enable it
separately whenever we decide 👍
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR updates production to automatically receive new stable
releases when GitHub releases are cut while staging will continue
testing the latest main branch builds
Deails:
- Configures production deployment to **use latest stable** releases
instead of main branch
-`ghcr.io/modelcontextprotocol/registry:latest`(stable releases).
Released CLI matches version of the prod service API.
- Staging continues to **use main branch** for testing latest
development code - `ghcr.io/modelcontextprotocol/registry:main` (latest
development). Building the CLI from main would match the version of the
staging service API.
- Added environment-based Docker image tag selection logic
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
No
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
<!-- Provide a brief summary of your changes -->
## Motivation and Context
<!-- Why is this change needed? What problem does it solve? -->
The following PR addresses the feedback comments from #366
## How Has This Been Tested?
<!-- Have you tested this in a real application? Which scenarios were
tested? -->
## Breaking Changes
<!-- Will users need to update their code or configurations? -->
No
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [x] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [ ] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [ ] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [ ] I have added appropriate error handling
- [ ] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Signed-off-by: Radoslav Dimitrov <radoslav@stacklok.com>
## Motivation and Context
After #328, the monitoring stack was failing to deploy because we hit
resource limits. This PR reduces the resource requests to a level
compatible with the cluster.
## How Has This Been Tested?
I've checked that everything still deploys happily in staging.
## Breaking Changes
None
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Summary
This PR implements OIDC authentication support for admin users,
specifically configured for Google Cloud Identity. The implementation
includes:
- Configurable OIDC authentication endpoints and validation
- Google Cloud Identity integration for admin access
- JWT token validation and user session management
- Deployment configuration updates for OIDC provider settings
Fixes#283
Fixes#228
## Motivation and Context
See #19
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Run locally
- Run in docker compose
- Run infra in minikube
- Unit and integration tests all passing :)
## Breaking Changes
Yes: users will not be able to access any data they used to have in
custom mongodb. We are accepting this breaking change, given the
registry is in experimental development status.
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [x] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
I have not implemented connection pooling support for simplicity, and
because cloudnative-pg already provides built-in connection pooling with
pgBouncer so if we want it later we can switch to this endpoint easily.
## Motivation and Context
In staging (and prod, for now) we pull the `:latest` mcp-registry image.
But K8s won't actually change anything unless we recreate the pods.
This change ensures the workflow goes from docker -> staging -> prod,
and changes the annotation so that the pods are recreated each deploy.
This ensures they actually pull the latest version.
## How Has This Been Tested?
Deployed locally to minikube
## Breaking Changes
None
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [x] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
Fixes#264. Adds endpoints:
```
/v0/auth/github # exchange a github token for a registry token that gives you access to namespaces io.github.username and io.github.org for your orgs
/v0/auth/none # get a registry token for namespace io.modelcontextprotocol.anonymous (only for testing/local dev purposes)
```
Updates `/v0/publish` to accept one of these registry tokens.
## Motivation and Context
See #264
## How Has This Been Tested?
- Running locally and getting a token from `/v0/auth/none` and then
publishing to `/v0/publish`
- Updating the integration tests that get a token and then publish, and
them passing
## Breaking Changes
This is a breaking change to the auth API. This is fine for registry
given it's not deployed yet.
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [x] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [x] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [x] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
---------
Co-authored-by: claude[bot] <209825114+claude[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: adam jones <domdomegg@users.noreply.github.com>
The Always pull policy is needed for the latest tag to force Kubernetes
to pull the newest image on every pod creation, even if an image with
that tag already exists locally. Without this, pods might use outdated
cached versions since the latest tag is mutable and can point to
different images over time.
Adds the Pulumi code to:
- Deploy the registry (and associated services e.g. mongodb) to Google
Cloud Platform (GCP), on top of Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE)
- Sets up proper environments and secrets management
- Uses the real container image, now that it's published in #225. At the
moment attached to latest, we might want to pin the version later (or
perhaps always use `latest` in staging, and pin prod)
- Uses real domains (`staging.registry.modelcontextprotocol.io`) rather
than examples (``)
## Motivation and Context
Setting up infrastructure to deploy it. I set something up in Azure in
#227, although not super robust (e.g. no service accounts etc.). Think
we will use GCP as:
- the maintainers have experience with GCP, but none with Azure
- costs are quite low, and Anthropic is happy to cover them in the short
term
- means we only have to maintain one login system (just Google Cloud
Identity), not two (Google Workspace + Azure)
## How Has This Been Tested?
Deployed this to a staging and production cluster. Try it yourself at:
```bash
curl -H "Host: staging.registry.modelcontextprotocol.io" -k https://35.222.36.75/v0/ping
```
(will be sorting out domains very soon)
## Breaking Changes
NA - just adds support for GCP deployment
## Types of changes
<!-- What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an `x` in all
the boxes that apply: -->
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing
functionality to change)
- [ ] Documentation update
## Checklist
<!-- Go over all the following points, and put an `x` in all the boxes
that apply. -->
- [x] I have read the [MCP
Documentation](https://modelcontextprotocol.io)
- [x] My code follows the repository's style guidelines
- [ ] New and existing tests pass locally
- [x] I have added appropriate error handling
- [x] I have added or updated documentation as needed
## Additional context
<!-- Add any other context, implementation notes, or design decisions
-->
Expected follow-ups:
- GitHub Action setup to deploy things to the cluster from GitHub, to
avoid gatekeeping to just the people with the secrets.
Original PR: #227
- Add Pulumi-based infrastructure as code for deploying MCP Registry to
Kubernetes
- Support for both local development (minikube) and Azure Kubernetes
Service (AKS)
- Complete deployment orchestration including:
- cluster setup: e.g. you point this at an Azure account, and it can set
up and manage the cluster for you. e.g. K8s version, number of nodes,
type of nodes, ...
- cloud agnostic K8s services: cert-manager, nginx-ingress
- app services: MongoDB, and registry application (currently using nginx
as a placeholder, blocked on #225 (as is #190). but should be a 1 line
change)
## How is this different to #190
- Supports cluster setup and management. This enables:
- Non-hosting maintainers managing many devops workflows (e.g. scaling
up the cluster, or bumping K8s versions). Without this, we'd need to
bug/page the organisation hosting the registry when we need these things
changed.
- Makes it easy to spin up things like staging/temporary clusters, as
well as enables contributors to replicate the stack exactly on their own
Azure accounts.
- Sets up cloud-agnostic services. For example, rather than using the
Azure-managed ingresses and CA, we install nginx-ingress and
cert-manager. This enables:
- Running the entire infra stack can also run locally (e.g. in minikube,
k3s, orbstack, colima) - making it much easier for contributors to test
changes to infra stuff.
- Moving between cloud providers much more easily, e.g. we could shift
from Azure to GCP/AWS/other with minimal hassle.
- Everything stays written in Go, rather than Helm templates. This means
we get things like type-checking etc. for free (which from my experience
makes AI tools wayyy better at editing K8s stuff), and contributors
don't need to learn a new language if they're already using Go.
## Testing
I've got this running well:
- locally in minikube
- on cloud in Azure (my personal Azure account)
<details><summary>Claude written architecture and security
review</summary>
<p>
## Deployment Review & Assessment
### Current Architecture Strengths
**Pulumi IaC Approach**
- Well-structured infrastructure as code using Pulumi
- Multi-provider support (AKS, local) with clean abstraction
- Good separation of concerns in `pkg/` directory
**Security Fundamentals**
- Non-root container execution (`appuser` with UID 10001)
- Secrets properly managed via Kubernetes secrets
- TLS/SSL certificate management with cert-manager and Let's Encrypt
### Critical Issues & High-Priority Improvements
**1. Production Deployment Not Ready** 🚨
The registry deployment uses `nginx:alpine` placeholder image instead of
the actual MCP registry:
- `deploy/pkg/k8s/registry.go:67` - TODO comments indicate incomplete
setup
- Health probes are commented out
- Port mapping doesn't match actual application (80 vs 8080)
**Fix:** Build and publish actual registry container image to GHCR,
update deployment
**2. Database Security Considerations** 🔒
- MongoDB deployed without authentication
- No backup/disaster recovery strategy
- Database credentials hardcoded
*Note: MongoDB is not exposed externally (ClusterIP service), so this is
not a critical security risk but should be addressed for production.*
**3. Monitoring & Observability Gaps** 📊
- No Prometheus/Grafana monitoring stack
- No log aggregation (ELK/Loki)
- No application metrics/health dashboards
- No alerting configured
**4. High Availability & Reliability** ⚠️
- Single MongoDB instance (no replication)
- No persistent volume backup strategy
- Fixed 10Gi storage without growth planning
- Only 2 replicas for registry service
- No pod disruption budgets
- No horizontal pod autoscaling
### Recommended Improvements
**Immediate (High Priority)**
1. Complete Registry Deployment - Build proper container image pipeline,
enable health checks
2. Secure MongoDB - Add authentication credentials, implement backup
strategy
**Medium Priority**
3. Add Monitoring Stack - Prometheus, Grafana deployment
4. Security Hardening (Nice to Have) - RBAC policies, Network Policies,
Pod Security Standards
5. CI/CD Pipeline Enhancement - Container image building/publishing,
automated deployment
**Lower Priority**
6. High Availability - MongoDB replica set, HPA for registry pods
7. Operational Excellence - Kubernetes dashboard, cost optimization
### Configuration Issues
- Production config has test credentials: `deploy/Pulumi.prod.yaml:4-5`
- Missing environment-specific resource sizing
- Hardcoded domain names (`example.com`)
The deployment setup shows good architectural foundations but needs
significant work before production readiness. The most critical issue is
the placeholder nginx container - priority should be completing the
actual registry application deployment before addressing the other
improvements. Security measures like RBAC and Network Policies are nice
to have but not strictly necessary given that MongoDB is not exposed
externally.
🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code)
</p>
</details>
## Metadata
Working towards #91
---------
Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
