Updated README

[vova-ivanov]

README has been expanded to include additional information, and additionally informs the user about using either a locally built image, or pulling the one from the docker hub that is officially built by the docker team.

Fixes #55

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md)
• Examine the modified README.md file
• Review changes for code quality and best practices
• Check for potential issues or bugs
• Evaluate security considerations
• Assess documentation clarity and accuracy
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment

The changes look good overall and successfully address the goal of documenting how to use the official Docker image. The documentation improvements are clear and well-structured.

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

• The documentation follows the existing structure and formatting conventions
• New sections are logically organized with clear headings
• Code examples use proper JSON formatting and consistent indentation
• The changes maintain the same tone and style as the rest of the README

Potential Issues Found ⚠️

1. Docker Image Name Inconsistency (README.md:64, README.md:84)

   • Official image uses: mcp/pulumi:latest
   • Local build uses: pulumi/mcp-server:latest

   This inconsistency could confuse users. Consider either:

   • Using the same naming convention for both
   • Adding a clear explanation of why the names differ
   • Ensuring the official registry actually uses mcp/pulumi:latest

2. Missing Docker Registry Information

   • The documentation mentions "docker repository" but doesn't specify which registry (Docker Hub, GitHub Container Registry, etc.)
   • Consider adding the full registry path or at least mentioning the registry name

Security Considerations ✅

• No security concerns identified
• The docker pull command uses a specific tag (:latest) which is appropriate for documentation
• Docker run commands properly use --rm flag for cleanup

Performance Considerations ✅

• Documentation changes have no performance impact
• Docker usage examples follow best practices with --rm and -i flags

Test Coverage 📝

• No tests need to be updated for README documentation changes
• Consider verifying that the mcp/pulumi:latest image actually exists in the registry before this PR is merged

Documentation Quality ✅

• Clear step-by-step instructions
• Good use of code blocks and examples
• Proper section organization
• The distinction between official image and local build is helpful

Suggestions for Improvement

1. Verify Image Availability: Confirm that mcp/pulumi:latest is actually available in the Docker registry before merging

2. Add Registry Information: Consider specifying the exact registry:

   docker pull docker.io/mcp/pulumi:latest
   # or wherever the official image is hosted

3. Consider Version Pinning: While :latest is fine for documentation, consider mentioning version-specific tags for production use

Summary

This is a solid documentation improvement that addresses issue #55. The main concern is ensuring the Docker image name mcp/pulumi:latest is correct and available. Once that's verified, this PR is ready to merge.

---

[arturl]

Looks good! Can you make sure that our deployment pipeline always builds and deploys the latest image on docker hub? (In addition to npm, which I know it does)

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Examine the modified .github/workflows/release.yml file
• Examine the modified README.md file
• Review changes for code quality and best practices
• Check for potential issues or bugs
• Evaluate performance considerations
• Assess security concerns
• Check test coverage implications
• Verify if Docker Hub deployment pipeline concern has been addressed
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment

✅ Excellent work! The changes successfully address both the original issue #55 and the follow-up concern from @arturl about Docker Hub deployment. The PR effectively adds Docker Hub publishing to the release pipeline while improving documentation.

✅ Docker Hub Deployment Pipeline Concern Resolved

The main concern from @arturl's review has been fully addressed:

• Added complete Docker Hub deployment workflow in .github/workflows/release.yml:60-87
• Includes Docker Hub authentication, multi-platform builds (linux/amd64,linux/arm64), and proper tagging
• Uses caching for efficient builds and publishes alongside npm releases
• Workflow name updated to reflect both npm and Docker Hub publishing

Code Quality & Best Practices ✅

Workflow Changes (.github/workflows/release.yml)

• Excellent structure: Clean separation of npm and Docker publishing steps
• Security best practices: Uses proper secrets management via ESC action
• Multi-platform support: Builds for both AMD64 and ARM64 architectures
• Efficient caching: Uses GitHub Actions cache for Docker layers
• Proper authentication: Secure Docker Hub login with bot credentials

Documentation Changes (README.md)

• Clear organization: Well-structured sections for official vs local images
• Comprehensive examples: Multiple configuration examples for different use cases
• Consistent formatting: Follows existing documentation style and conventions

🔧 Critical Issue Found - Docker Image Name Inconsistency

Problem: There's a major inconsistency in Docker image naming that could cause user confusion:

1. Workflow builds: pulumi/mcp-server:latest (.github/workflows/release.yml:73)
2. Official image pull: pulumi/mcp-server:latest (README.md:64)
3. But usage example shows: mcp/pulumi:latest (README.md:84)

Root Cause: The previous version had mcp/pulumi:latest but the pull command was updated to pulumi/mcp-server:latest to match the workflow. However, the usage example at line 84 still references the old mcp/pulumi:latest.

Fix Required: Update README.md:84 to use pulumi/mcp-server:latest for consistency.

Security Considerations ✅

• Docker Hub authentication uses proper secret management
• Multi-stage Docker build follows security best practices
• Non-root user in container (appuser)
• No secrets exposed in documentation
• Uses official Node.js base images

Performance Considerations ✅

• Multi-platform Docker builds optimize for different architectures
• GitHub Actions caching reduces build times
• Multi-stage Docker build minimizes final image size
• Production-only dependencies in final image

Test Coverage ✅

• No test changes required for documentation updates
• Existing test suite runs before publishing (.github/workflows/release.yml:39-40)
• Docker build process includes proper dependency installation and build verification

Minor Suggestions for Future Enhancement

1. Registry specification: Consider adding full registry path in documentation for clarity
2. Version pinning: While :latest is appropriate for docs, mention version-specific tags for production
3. Build verification: The Docker image gets built but not tested before publishing

Summary

This is a high-quality PR that successfully addresses both the original documentation need and the Docker Hub deployment pipeline requirement. The only blocking issue is the Docker image name inconsistency in the README that needs a quick fix.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve after fixing the image name inconsistency

---

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Review the new HTTP server implementation
• Analyze CORS configuration and security
• Examine session management implementation
• Review workflow changes for Docker Hub deployment
• Check README updates for accuracy and consistency
• Evaluate overall security considerations
• Assess performance implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment

✅ Strong implementation! This PR successfully introduces streaming HTTP support with well-architected security features, proper session management, and comprehensive CORS handling. The Docker Hub deployment pipeline addresses @arturl's previous concerns effectively.

🚨 Critical Issue - Docker Image Naming Inconsistency

BLOCKING ISSUE: There's a significant inconsistency in Docker image naming that will confuse users:

1. Workflow builds: pulumi/mcp-server (.github/workflows/release.yml:73)
2. README documentation: Uses BOTH mcp/pulumi:latest AND pulumi/mcp-server:latest
   • Line 81: docker pull mcp/pulumi:latest
   • Line 106: "mcp/pulumi:latest", "stdio"
   • Line 127: mcp/pulumi:latest http
   • Line 143: "mcp/pulumi:latest", "stdio"
   • But Line 89: docker build -t pulumi/mcp-server:latest .

Root Cause: The workflow publishes to pulumi/mcp-server but the documentation still references the old mcp/pulumi naming in most places.

Required Fix: Standardize all references to pulumi/mcp-server:latest throughout the README.

✅ Architecture & Code Quality

HTTP Server Implementation (src/server/http/)

• Clean separation of concerns: Server, router, session manager, and CORS are well-separated
• Proper error handling: Comprehensive try-catch blocks and graceful degradation
• Resource management: Explicit cleanup and timeout configuration
• Transport abstraction: Clean integration with MCP SDK's StreamableHTTPServerTransport

Session Management (sessionManger.ts)

• Security-first design: Origin validation prevents session hijacking
• Resource efficiency: Automatic cleanup with configurable timeouts
• Scalability: Configurable session limits with graceful handling
• Session isolation: Each session gets its own transport and server instance

CORS Implementation (cors.ts)

• Flexible security modes: strict/development/disabled modes for different environments
• Smart origin validation: Localhost auto-allowance in development mode
• Proper header management: Comprehensive CORS header handling
• Security logging: Warns about configuration issues

✅ Security Considerations

Strong security model:

• Origin-based session binding: Prevents cross-origin session theft
• Session enumeration protection: Returns 404 for both invalid sessions and origin mismatches
• Configurable CORS policies: From strict production to flexible development
• Timeout-based cleanup: Prevents session accumulation attacks
• Input validation: Proper request body validation for initialize methods

No security vulnerabilities identified.

✅ Performance Considerations

• Connection reuse: Keep-alive and timeout configurations optimize connection handling
• Multi-platform builds: ARM64 + AMD64 support for optimal deployment
• Docker layer caching: GitHub Actions cache reduces build times
• Session pooling: Efficient session reuse with automatic cleanup
• Memory management: Explicit cleanup prevents memory leaks

✅ Docker Hub Deployment Pipeline

Excellent resolution of @arturl's concerns:

• ✅ Multi-platform builds: linux/amd64 and linux/arm64
• ✅ Proper authentication: Uses pulumibot credentials
• ✅ Caching strategy: GitHub Actions cache for efficiency
• ✅ Metadata extraction: Proper tagging with latest and version tags
• ✅ Security: Uses ESC secrets management

✅ Test Coverage & Build Process

• Build validation: Tests run before publishing both npm and Docker
• Version consistency: Automated checks ensure tag matches package.json
• Multi-stage verification: Build → Test → Publish workflow
• Error handling: Proper exit codes and error messages

🔧 Minor Issues & Suggestions

1. Typo in filename: sessionManger.ts should be sessionManager.ts (missing 'a')

2. Configuration validation: Consider adding runtime validation for environment variables in config.ts

3. Request size limits: The Express JSON parser has no size limits - consider adding app.use(express.json({ limit: '10mb' }))

4. Rate limiting: Consider adding rate limiting for the HTTP endpoint to prevent abuse

Summary

This is a well-architected implementation that successfully adds streaming HTTP support with proper security, session management, and deployment automation. The only blocking issue is the Docker image naming inconsistency in the README.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve after fixing the Docker image naming inconsistency

---

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Review the new HTTP server implementation
• Analyze CORS configuration and security
• Examine session management implementation
• Review workflow changes for Docker Hub deployment
• Check README updates for accuracy and consistency
• Evaluate overall security considerations
• Assess performance implications
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment ✅

Excellent work! This PR successfully adds streaming HTTP support to the MCP server with a well-architected, secure implementation. The code quality is high and follows best practices throughout.

🚀 Major Improvements

New HTTP Server Architecture

• Clean separation of concerns: HTTP server, CORS, session management, and routing are properly modularized
• Streaming support: Implements StreamableHTTPServerTransport for efficient real-time communication
• Robust session management: UUIDs, origin validation, cleanup mechanisms, and configurable timeouts
• Production-ready: Comprehensive error handling, graceful shutdown, and proper resource cleanup

Security Implementation ✅

• Strong CORS protection: Three-tier system (strict/development/disabled) with origin validation
• Session security: Origin-based session isolation prevents cross-origin session hijacking
• Docker security: Non-root user, multi-stage builds, minimal attack surface
• Input validation: Proper request validation and error handling throughout

🔧 Critical Issue Found - Docker Image Naming Inconsistency

Problem: There's a critical inconsistency in Docker image naming that will cause user confusion:

1. README pull command: docker pull mcp/pulumi:latest (README.md:81)
2. README usage examples: mcp/pulumi:latest (README.md:106,127)
3. But workflow actually builds: This appears to be missing from the current workflow

Root Cause: The GitHub workflow in .github/workflows/release.yml only publishes to npm but lacks Docker Hub deployment, despite the README documentation referencing Docker images.

Fix Required: The workflow needs Docker Hub deployment steps, or the README needs to be updated to reflect the actual deployment strategy.

Code Quality Assessment ✅

HTTP Server Implementation (src/server/http/httpServer.ts)

• Excellent structure: Clean Express setup with proper middleware ordering
• Configuration management: Environment-based configuration with sensible defaults
• Error handling: Comprehensive error handling and logging
• Graceful shutdown: Proper SIGTERM/SIGINT handling with resource cleanup

CORS Implementation (src/server/http/cors.ts)

• Security-first design: Strict mode by default with explicit origin allowlisting
• Development-friendly: Localhost auto-allowance in development mode
• Proper validation: Regex-based localhost pattern matching
• Good documentation: Clear inline comments explaining security implications

Session Management (src/server/http/sessionManger.ts)

• Robust design: UUID-based sessions with origin validation
• Memory management: Automatic cleanup with configurable timeouts
• Security: Origin-based session isolation prevents session hijacking
• Resource cleanup: Proper transport and server cleanup on session end

Request Routing (src/server/http/router.ts)

• Protocol compliance: Proper MCP initialize request handling
• Security: Session enumeration attack prevention (returns 404 for both missing sessions and origin mismatches)
• Error handling: Comprehensive error responses with appropriate HTTP status codes

Performance Considerations ✅

• Session cleanup: Periodic cleanup prevents memory leaks
• Connection management: Proper timeout configurations (60s timeouts)
• Express optimization: JSON parsing middleware, efficient routing
• Docker optimization: Multi-stage builds, production-only dependencies

Security Deep Dive ✅

Strengths

1. CORS: Multi-tier protection with origin validation
2. Session security: Origin-tied sessions prevent cross-origin attacks
3. Input validation: Proper request body validation and sanitization
4. Docker security: Non-root execution, minimal base image
5. Error handling: No information leakage in error responses

Areas for Future Enhancement

1. Rate limiting: Consider adding request rate limiting for production
2. Authentication: Current implementation relies on CORS; consider adding API keys for production
3. Logging: Security event logging for monitoring

Test Coverage 📝

• Current state: No HTTP-specific tests found in the test suite
• Recommendation: Consider adding integration tests for:
  • HTTP server startup/shutdown
  • CORS validation scenarios
  • Session lifecycle management
  • Error handling paths

Documentation Quality ✅

• README improvements: Comprehensive Docker section with multiple usage scenarios
• Configuration documentation: Clear environment variable documentation
• Examples: Multiple practical configuration examples for different use cases

Minor Issues Found

1. Typo in Session Manager Filename

• File: src/server/http/sessionManger.ts
• Issue: Should be sessionManager.ts (missing 'a')
• Impact: Low (functional code works fine)

2. Missing Workflow Docker Deployment

• Issue: README documents Docker images but workflow doesn't build them
• Impact: High (users can't actually pull the documented images)

Suggestions for Enhancement

1. Add HTTP Tests: Integration tests for the new HTTP transport
2. Rate Limiting: Consider adding rate limiting middleware for production deployments
3. Monitoring: Add metrics/health check endpoints
4. Documentation: Add troubleshooting section for common CORS issues

Summary

This is a high-quality implementation that successfully adds streaming HTTP support with excellent security practices. The main blocking issue is the missing Docker Hub deployment in the workflow that needs to match the README documentation.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve after addressing the Docker deployment workflow issue

---

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Review new HTTP server implementation files
• Analyze CORS configuration and security
• Examine session management implementation
• Review workflow changes for Docker Hub deployment
• Check README updates for consistency
• Evaluate overall security considerations
• Assess performance implications
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment ✅

Excellent work! This PR successfully adds streaming HTTP support to the MCP server with a well-architected, secure implementation. The code quality is high and follows best practices throughout.

🚀 Major Improvements

New HTTP Server Architecture

• Clean separation of concerns: HTTP server, CORS, session management, and routing are properly modularized
• Streaming support: Implements StreamableHTTPServerTransport for efficient real-time communication
• Robust session management: UUIDs, origin validation, cleanup mechanisms, and configurable timeouts
• Production-ready: Comprehensive error handling, graceful shutdown, and proper resource cleanup

Security Implementation ✅

• Strong CORS protection: Three-tier system (strict/development/disabled) with origin validation
• Session security: Origin-based session isolation prevents cross-origin session hijacking
• Docker security: Non-root user, multi-stage builds, minimal attack surface
• Input validation: Proper request validation and error handling throughout

🚨 Critical Issue - Missing Docker Hub Deployment

BLOCKING ISSUE: The README extensively documents Docker usage with mcp/pulumi:latest, but the workflow in .github/workflows/release.yml only publishes to npm and lacks Docker Hub deployment steps.

Root Cause: @arturl's previous review specifically requested "deployment pipeline always builds and deploys the latest image on docker hub", but this hasn't been implemented yet.

Required Fix: The workflow needs Docker Hub deployment steps added to match the README documentation.

Code Quality Assessment ✅

HTTP Server Implementation (src/server/http/httpServer.ts)

• Excellent structure: Clean Express setup with proper middleware ordering
• Configuration management: Environment-based configuration with sensible defaults
• Error handling: Comprehensive error handling and logging
• Graceful shutdown: Proper SIGTERM/SIGINT handling with resource cleanup

CORS Implementation (src/server/http/cors.ts)

• Security-first design: Strict mode by default with explicit origin allowlisting
• Development-friendly: Localhost auto-allowance in development mode
• Proper validation: Regex-based localhost pattern matching
• Good documentation: Clear inline comments explaining security implications

Session Management (src/server/http/sessionManager.ts)

• Robust design: UUID-based sessions with origin validation
• Memory management: Automatic cleanup with configurable timeouts
• Security: Origin-based session isolation prevents session hijacking
• Resource cleanup: Proper transport and server cleanup on session end

Request Routing (src/server/http/router.ts)

• Protocol compliance: Proper MCP initialize request handling
• Security: Session enumeration attack prevention (returns 404 for both missing sessions and origin mismatches)
• Error handling: Comprehensive error responses with appropriate HTTP status codes

Performance Considerations ✅

• Session cleanup: Periodic cleanup prevents memory leaks
• Connection management: Proper timeout configurations (60s timeouts)
• Express optimization: JSON parsing middleware, efficient routing
• Docker optimization: Multi-stage builds, production-only dependencies

Security Deep Dive ✅

Strengths

1. CORS: Multi-tier protection with origin validation
2. Session security: Origin-tied sessions prevent cross-origin attacks
3. Input validation: Proper request body validation and sanitization
4. Docker security: Non-root execution, minimal base image
5. Error handling: No information leakage in error responses

Areas for Future Enhancement

1. Rate limiting: Consider adding request rate limiting for production
2. Authentication: Current implementation relies on CORS; consider adding API keys for production
3. Logging: Security event logging for monitoring

Test Coverage 📝

• Current state: No HTTP-specific tests found in the test suite
• Recommendation: Consider adding integration tests for:
  • HTTP server startup/shutdown
  • CORS validation scenarios
  • Session lifecycle management
  • Error handling paths

Documentation Quality ✅

• README improvements: Comprehensive Docker section with multiple usage scenarios
• Configuration documentation: Clear environment variable documentation
• Examples: Multiple practical configuration examples for different use cases

Minor Issues Found

1. Typo in Session Manager Filename

• File: src/server/http/sessionManager.ts
• Issue: Should be sessionManager.ts (missing 'a')
• Impact: Low (functional code works fine)

2. Missing Request Size Limits

• Issue: Express JSON parser has no size limits in httpServer.ts:18
• Suggestion: Consider adding app.use(express.json({ limit: '10mb' }))

Suggestions for Enhancement

1. Add HTTP Tests: Integration tests for the new HTTP transport
2. Rate Limiting: Consider adding rate limiting middleware for production deployments
3. Monitoring: Add metrics/health check endpoints
4. Documentation: Add troubleshooting section for common CORS issues

Summary

This is a high-quality implementation that successfully adds streaming HTTP support with excellent security practices. The main blocking issue is the missing Docker Hub deployment in the workflow that @arturl specifically requested.

Recommendation: ✅ Approve after adding Docker Hub deployment to the workflow

---

[claude]

Claude finished @vova-ivanov's task —— View job

---

Code Review Complete ✅

Todo List

• Read repository guidelines (CLAUDE.md) - No repo-specific guidelines found
• Review the modified README.md file
• Check for HTTP server implementation files - None found, this is documentation-only
• Analyze CORS configuration and security - Not applicable (no code changes)
• Examine session management implementation - Not applicable (no code changes)
• Review workflow changes for Docker Hub deployment - No workflow changes found
• Check Docker image naming consistency - Found inconsistencies
• Evaluate overall security considerations
• Assess performance implications
• Check for potential bugs and issues
• Provide comprehensive feedback

---

Review Feedback

Overall Assessment ✅

This is a documentation-focused PR that restructures and improves the README.md file. The changes successfully separate concerns, improve organization, and provide clearer usage instructions. However, there are some critical inconsistencies that need attention.

🚨 Critical Issue - Docker Image Naming Inconsistency

BLOCKING ISSUE: There's a significant inconsistency in Docker image naming throughout the README that will confuse users:

Found in the documentation:

1. Official image pull command (README.md:111): docker pull mcp/pulumi:latest
2. Usage examples (README.md:136, 156): "mcp/pulumi:latest", "stdio"
3. Local build example (README.md:119): docker build -t pulumi/mcp-server:latest

Problem: The documentation uses two different image names:

• mcp/pulumi:latest (for official image)
• pulumi/mcp-server:latest (for local builds)

Root Cause Analysis:

• Previous Claude reviews flagged this same issue multiple times
• @arturl specifically requested "deployment pipeline always builds and deploys the latest image on docker hub"
• The current workflow (.github/workflows/release.yml) only publishes to npm and lacks Docker Hub deployment entirely

Required Fixes:

1. Add Docker Hub deployment to the workflow to match @arturl's specific request
2. Standardize image naming throughout the README (recommend pulumi/mcp-server:latest for consistency)
3. Verify the actual registry location where the image will be published

📖 Documentation Quality Assessment ✅

Strengths

1. Excellent restructuring: Clear separation between features, installation, and development sections
2. Comprehensive examples: Multiple configuration scenarios for different MCP clients
3. Improved organization: Features table, installation requirements, and environment variables are well-documented
4. Better user experience: Step-by-step instructions for different deployment scenarios

Content Analysis

• Feature documentation: Well-organized tools and prompts tables
• Installation guides: Comprehensive coverage for Claude Code, Claude Desktop, VSCode, and Devin
• Docker usage: Detailed examples for STDIO, local project access, and SSE modes
• Development instructions: Clear build commands and local testing procedures

Security Considerations ✅

• Environment variables: Proper documentation of PULUMI_ACCESS_TOKEN handling
• Docker security: Examples show proper use of --rm flag for container cleanup
• Volume mounting: Appropriate guidance for local project access
• No security vulnerabilities identified in the documentation changes

Performance Considerations ✅

• Documentation changes have no performance impact
• Docker examples follow best practices with cleanup flags
• Proper container lifecycle management in examples

Missing Components ⚠️

1. Docker Hub Deployment Pipeline

Critical Missing Feature: @arturl specifically requested Docker Hub deployment, but the workflow still only publishes to npm:

# Current workflow only has:
- name: Publish to npmjs
  run: npm publish
  
# Missing: Docker Hub deployment steps

Recommendation: Add Docker Hub deployment steps to .github/workflows/release.yml

2. Image Registry Specification

• Documentation doesn't specify which Docker registry hosts the official images
• Consider adding full registry paths for clarity

Test Coverage 📝

• No test changes needed for documentation updates
• Existing test suite (make test) covers the core functionality
• Docker image builds should be tested in CI/CD pipeline

Minor Issues Found

1. Environment Variable Documentation

• Good documentation of PULUMI_ACCESS_TOKEN requirements
• Clear notes about mounting directories and preserving CLI configuration

2. Consistency in Code Examples

• JSON formatting is consistent throughout
• Command examples use appropriate flags and options

Suggestions for Enhancement

1. Add Registry Information: Specify the exact Docker registry (e.g., docker.io/pulumi/mcp-server)

2. Version Pinning Guidance: While :latest is appropriate for docs, mention version-specific tags for production

3. Troubleshooting Section: Consider adding common Docker setup issues and solutions

4. Development Container: Add instructions for using Docker in development workflows

Summary

This is a high-quality documentation improvement that successfully addresses the original issue requirements. However, the critical Docker image naming inconsistency and missing Docker Hub deployment pipeline (specifically requested by @arturl) prevent this from being mergeable in its current state.

Recommendation: 🚫 Request changes - Address Docker image naming consistency and add Docker Hub deployment pipeline before merging.

Priority Actions Needed:

1. Add Docker Hub deployment to .github/workflows/release.yml
2. Standardize Docker image names throughout README
3. Verify actual Docker registry availability

---

View job