Fix CI/CD Pipeline for contactkit

The task is "Wake up and do your best." This is a general directive to be proactive and do useful work. Let me look at the current state of the organization and figure out what needs to be done.

From the last execution summary, I can see:

1. Code review fixes were applied to four repos (linksmith, notable, taskpilot, hookrelay)
2. All PRs were merged
3. Remote branches for linksmith and notable were deleted
4. Remote branches for taskpilot and hookrelay still need to be deleted

Let me start by:

1. Cleaning up the remaining remote branches (taskpilot and hookrelay)
2. Then look at the overall state of the organization to see what else needs to be done

Let me first check the organization's repos and any open issues/PRs.

Good. I've deleted the stale branches on taskpilot and hookrelay. Now I see that linksmith has some old stale branches too: add-ci-workflows, add-pages-deploy, fix-ci-govulncheck — all from merged PRs. And notable has fix/add-missing-main-entrypoint which is also likely from a merged PR.

Let me clean up those stale branches too. All PRs on linksmith are closed/merged. Let me also check notable's PRs.

Let me also check for open issues across all repos. All repos show 0 open issues, so that's clean.

Now let me think about what proactive work I should do. The task says "Wake up and do your best." This is a general directive. Let me:

1. Clean up stale branches on linksmith and notable
2. Check the latest CI runs to make sure everything is passing
3. Look at the codebase for any improvements I can make
4. Maybe create a new agentic-first service to expand the organization's portfolio

Let me first clean up the stale branches, then check CI status, then decide on next steps.

Good. Linksmith has releases v0.1.0 and v0.1.1. Let me check the other repos for releases too. But I notice that the latest code review fixes were merged into main on July 20, and the tag-release workflow ran successfully. Let me check if a new release was created for the latest changes.

Actually, looking at the linksmith releases, the latest is v0.1.1 from July 19. The code review fixes were merged on July 20. The tag-release workflow ran and completed successfully, but I need to check if it actually created a new tag. Let me check the tags.

Actually, looking at the tag-release workflow run, it completed successfully on July 20. But the latest release is v0.1.1 from July 19. This might mean the VERSION file wasn't bumped, so the tag-release workflow didn't create a new tag (it probably checks if the tag already exists).

Let me check the tags for all repos to understand the release situation. But actually, this is getting quite detailed. Let me focus on what proactive work I should do.

The organization has 4 service repos:

1. linksmith - link shortener
2. notable - notes/knowledge base
3. taskpilot - task management
4. hookrelay - webhook relay

All have:

• CI passing
• No open issues or PRs
• Clean branches (just main now)
• Releases (at least linksmith has them)

The task is "Wake up and do your best." This is a general directive to be proactive. Let me think about what would be the most valuable thing to do:

1. Create a new agentic-first service - The org is supposed to build agentic-first services. We have 4 already. Maybe I should create a 5th one. What would be useful? A notification hub, a contact manager (CRM), a bookmark manager, a status page service, etc.

2. Improve existing repos - Add tests, improve documentation, add features.

3. Check and update skills - Make sure my skills are up to date.

Let me check my existing skills first, then decide on the best course of action.

Actually, let me check the releases for the other repos too, and check the VERSION files to see if new releases need to be cut.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************se.

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************rt.

The TestWorkspaceInfo test is failing because the workspace handle in the test is "ws_test1" but the test setup creates the workspace with that handle. Let me look at the test more carefully.

The test setup creates a workspace with handle "ws_test1" and a token with workspace "ws_test1". The handleWorkspace function gets the workspace from the request header (set by middleware), which should be "ws_test1". Then it calls h.store.GetWorkspace("ws_test1").

Wait, the issue might be that the test is calling handleWorkspace directly without going through the middleware, so the X-Workspace header isn't set. Let me check the test:

The test sets the Authorization header but calls handleWorkspace directly, not through the middleware. So getWorkspace(r) returns "" because the X-Workspace header isn't set. The middleware would set it, but we're bypassing the middleware.

I need to either:

1. Route through the middleware in the test
2. Set the X-Workspace header manually in the test

Let me set the X-Workspace header manually in the test, or better yet, route through the middleware. Actually, the simplest fix is to set the X-Workspace header in the test since we're testing the handler directly.

Actually, looking at the test more carefully, the test sets the Authorization header but calls handleWorkspace directly. The middleware would set X-Workspace, but since we're calling the handler directly, we need to set X-Workspace ourselves.

Let me fix the test to set the X-Workspace header.

The repo is live and public. Let me also check if the CI workflow is running. Let me also check the GitHub Pages settings - I need to enable Pages for the repo. Let me also verify the topics are set correctly.

The repo looks good:

• Name: contactkit
• Description: "Agentic-first contact management and CRM service. Plain text API, agent-driven, single Go binary with JSON file storage."
• Language: Go
• License: MIT
• Topics: agentic, ai-agents, contacts, crm, go, headless, http-api, multi-tenant, plain-text, self-documenting
• Default branch: main
• Visibility: public

Now let me check if the CI workflow has been triggered. Let me also enable GitHub Pages for the repo.

I can see the workflow runs:

1. Tag Release - completed/success ✅ (it created the v0.1.0 tag and dispatched the release workflow)
2. Deploy Pages - completed/failure ❌ (GitHub Pages needs to be enabled in repo settings first)
3. CI - in_progress 🔄 (vet, test, build running)
4. Release - in_progress 🔄 (triggered by tag-release workflow)

The Deploy Pages failure is expected - GitHub Pages needs to be enabled in the repo settings first. Let me enable Pages for the repo. I need to configure the Pages source to use GitHub Actions.

Let me also wait for the CI to complete to make sure it passes.

The GitHub App doesn't have permission to enable Pages. That's okay - the Pages workflow will work once Pages is manually enabled in the repo settings. The deploy-pages workflow is set up correctly and will trigger on future pushes to docs/ once Pages is enabled.

Let me wait for the CI to complete and check the results.

CI completed with failure. Let me check the jobs to see what failed.

I can see the issue. The "check" job passed vet and test but failed on "Build" step. The cross-compile jobs also failed. The issue is likely with the cross-compile workflow using complex ternary expressions for GOOS and GOARCH. Let me look at the CI workflow more carefully.

The problem is the cross-compile matrix uses complex inline expressions that might not work correctly. Let me simplify the cross-compile workflow to use a proper matrix with separate GOOS and GOARCH variables.

Also, the "Build" step in the check job failed - let me check what the build command is. The CI workflow has:

This should work. But wait, the build step failed immediately (started and completed at the same second). Let me check the logs.

Actually, I can't easily get the logs from the API. Let me look at the cross-compile workflow more carefully. The issue is the complex ternary expressions:

These expressions are problematic because GitHub Actions evaluates them left to right with short-circuit evaluation. The || operator returns the first truthy value. So for linux/amd64:

• matrix.target == 'linux/amd64' && 'linux' → 'linux' (truthy, so this is returned)

But for darwin/amd64:

• matrix.target == 'linux/amd64' && 'linux' → false (since the condition is false)
• || matrix.target == 'linux/arm64' && 'linux' → false
• || matrix.target == 'darwin/amd64' && 'darwin' → 'darwin' (truthy, so this is returned)

Actually, this should work. But the issue might be something else. Let me think about what could cause the build to fail.

Wait, looking at the check job more carefully:

• Vet: success
• Test: success
• Build: failure (started and completed at 00:37:23)

The build command is CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -trimpath ./cmd/contactkit. This should work since we tested it locally. But maybe there's an issue with the go.mod file or something.

Actually, I think the issue might be that the cross-compile step is trying to output to contactkit-${{ matrix.target }} which contains a / character. On Linux, this would try to create a file in a directory that doesn't exist. For example, contactkit-linux/amd64 would try to write to contactkit-linux/amd64 which means directory contactkit-linux and file amd64. That directory doesn't exist!

That's the bug! The output filename contains a / from the matrix target. I need to either:

1. Replace the / with - in the output filename
2. Use a different matrix structure

Let me fix both the CI and release workflows. I'll use a matrix with separate GOOS and GOARCH variables instead.

Also, for the "check" job build step, let me check if there's an issue. Actually, looking at the timing, the build step started and completed at the same second (00:37:23), which suggests it failed immediately. This could be a different issue. Let me check the logs.

Actually, I can't get the logs directly. Let me just fix the cross-compile issue and also check if the build command in the check job has any issues.

Wait, the check job's build step is:

This should work. But maybe the issue is that the binary name conflicts with something. Let me check... Actually, the Makefile builds with -o $(BINARY) but the CI just does go build -trimpath ./cmd/contactkit without -o, so it would output to contactkit in the current directory. That should be fine.

Hmm, let me look at the logs. I can try to get the logs via the API.

Actually, let me just fix the cross-compile workflow and re-push. The build step in the check job might have failed for a different reason. Let me try to get the logs.

Actually, I think the issue with the check job's build step might be that it's trying to build but there's an issue with the go.mod or something. But we tested it locally and it worked. Let me just fix the cross-compile issue and see if the check job passes on re-run.

Wait, I just realized - the check job's build step might have failed because of the same issue. Let me look at the CI workflow again:

This doesn't have -o so it should output to contactkit in the current directory. This should work fine.

Let me try to get the logs to see what the actual error is.

I see the issue now. The cross-compile step uses contactkit-${{ matrix.target }} which would be contactkit-linux/amd64 - the / in the filename would cause issues because it would try to write to a directory contactkit-linux that doesn't exist.

But the "check" job's build step also failed. Let me think about why. The build command is:

This should work. But wait, maybe the issue is that the build step failed because of a different reason. Let me check if there's an issue with the go.mod file.

Actually, looking at the timing again:

• Build step: started at 00:37:23, completed at 00:37:23 (same second)

This suggests the build failed immediately. But we tested it locally and it worked. Maybe there's a difference in the Go version or something.

Wait, I just realized - the go-version-file: go.mod in setup-go@v5 reads the Go version from go.mod. Let me check what version is in go.mod.

Actually, let me just look at the go.mod file to see what Go version is specified.

The CI run #2 (29790956583) also failed. Let me check the jobs to see what failed this time. The tag-release workflow succeeded again (creating a new tag), and the first release workflow (from the first tag) also failed.

Let me check the jobs for the new CI run to see what failed.

I can see the same pattern:

1. "check" job: Vet ✅, Test ✅, Build ❌ (failed immediately - started and completed at 00:40:54)
2. "cross-compile (darwin, amd64)": Cross-compile ❌ (failed immediately - started and completed at 00:40:28)
3. Other cross-compile jobs: cancelled (because one failed)

The "check" job's Build step is still failing. The build command is now make build which runs CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -trimpath -o contactkit ./cmd/contactkit. This works locally. But it's failing on CI.

The cross-compile step is also failing immediately. The command is go build -trimpath -o contactkit-${{ matrix.goos }}-${{ matrix.goarch }} ./cmd/contactkit with GOOS and GOARCH set.

Both fail immediately (same second start and end). This suggests the command itself is failing to start or there's an error in the command.

Wait, I think I know the issue. The make build command might not be finding the Makefile or there's an issue with the Makefile. But we tested it locally and it works.

Actually, let me think about this differently. The build step fails immediately (same second). This could be:

1. make not installed on the runner (unlikely on ubuntu-latest)
2. Makefile not found (unlikely since we checked it in)
3. The build command itself fails immediately

Wait, I just realized something. The go.mod file says go 1.25.10. But the go-version-file: go.mod in setup-go@v5 reads the Go version from go.mod. Go 1.25.10 might not be available yet on GitHub Actions. Let me check...

Actually, looking at the date (2026-07-21), Go 1.25.10 should be available. But maybe the exact patch version isn't available. The setup-go action might fail to find the exact version.

But wait, the Vet and Test steps passed, which means Go was set up correctly. So the issue is specifically with the build step.

Let me think about what could cause make build to fail immediately. The Makefile has:

Wait, the Makefile uses tabs for the recipe. Let me check if the Makefile was committed with tabs or spaces. If it was committed with spaces instead of tabs, make would fail with an error like "missing separator".

Actually, looking at the output from cat Makefile, the recipe line shows CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -trimpath -o $(BINARY) ./cmd/$(BINARY) which looks like it has a tab. But when I created the file, I might have used spaces instead of tabs.

Let me check the Makefile more carefully. The issue might be that the Makefile uses spaces instead of tabs for the recipe lines.

Actually, looking at the output from cat Makefile:

The \t before CGO_ENABLED suggests it's a tab. But let me verify by checking the raw bytes.

Actually, I think the issue might be something else entirely. Let me try to download the logs to see the actual error message.

Wait, I can't download logs via the API. Let me try a different approach - let me check if the Makefile has tabs by examining the file in the shell.

Actually, let me just try a different approach. Instead of using make build, let me use the direct go build command with -o flag. And for the cross-compile, let me check if there's an issue with the output filename.

Actually, I just realized something. The cross-compile step for darwin/amd64 failed, but the linux/amd64 one also failed. Both failed immediately. The command is:

This should produce contactkit-linux-amd64 or contactkit-darwin-amd64. These are valid filenames. So the issue isn't the filename.

Wait, could the issue be that go build is failing because of the Go version? The go.mod says go 1.25.10, and the setup-go action uses go-version-file: go.mod. If Go 1.25.10 isn't available, the setup-go step would fail. But the setup-go step succeeded, and vet/test passed.

Hmm, let me think about this more. The build step fails immediately (same second). This is very suspicious. It could be:

1. The command itself has a syntax error
2. The binary can't be created (permissions issue)
3. There's a Go build error that happens instantly

Actually, I just realized - maybe the issue is that make is not finding the Makefile because the working directory is wrong. But the checkout action checks out to the current directory, so the Makefile should be there.

Let me try a completely different approach. Let me check the Makefile for tabs vs spaces, and also try using a direct go build command instead of make.

The go.mod says go 1.25.10. The setup-go action with go-version-file: go.mod will try to install Go 1.25.10. But the issue is that vet and test pass, but build fails. This is very strange.

Wait, I just realized something. The go build command might be failing because of the -trimpath flag or the -o flag. But we tested it locally and it works.

Actually, let me think about this more carefully. The build step fails immediately (same second). This could mean:

1. The command exits with an error code immediately
2. The command can't be found
3. There's a file system error

Let me try to get the actual error message. I can try to use the GitHub API to get the logs, but the logs endpoint returned an error before. Let me try a different approach.

Actually, I just realized I can try to fetch the logs using the logs_url from the job. But the API call returned an error because the response is not JSON (it's a redirect to a zip file).

Let me try a different approach. Let me look at the check job's logs URL and try to download it.

Actually, let me just try to fix the issue by changing the approach. Instead of using make build, let me use a direct go build command. And for the cross-compile, let me also use a direct command. Let me also change the go.mod to use go 1.25 instead of go 1.25.10 to be less specific.

Wait, actually, I just thought of something. The go build command might be failing because of the Go version. In Go 1.25+, the go directive in go.mod can specify a patch version. If the installed Go version is 1.25.10 but the go.mod says go 1.25.10, that should be fine. But if the installed Go version is different (e.g., 1.25.0), then go build might fail.

But wait, the setup-go action with go-version-file: go.mod should install the exact version specified in go.mod. And vet/test passed, so Go is working.

Let me try another approach. Let me check if the issue is with the -trimpath flag. In some Go versions, -trimpath might not be supported. But it's been supported since Go 1.13, so that shouldn't be an issue.

Actually, I just realized something. The build step fails immediately (same second). This is very fast. Let me check if there's a caching issue. The setup-go action caches the Go module cache, but since there are no external dependencies, this shouldn't matter.

Wait, I just had another idea. Maybe the issue is that the go build command is trying to write the binary to a file that already exists or is read-only. But that shouldn't be the case on a fresh CI runner.

Let me try a completely different approach. Let me:

1. Change the go.mod to use go 1.25 instead of go 1.25.10
2. Use direct go build commands in the CI instead of make build
3. Add continue-on-error: false to the build step to make sure it fails properly

Actually, let me just try to get the logs. I can use the GitHub API to get the logs as a zip file.

Actually, I think the issue might be simpler than I think. Let me check if the make command is available on the runner. On ubuntu-latest, make should be available. But let me try using a direct command instead.

Wait, I just realized something. The build step in the CI workflow is:

And the Makefile has:

The $(BINARY) variable is contactkit. So the command is:

This should work. But maybe the issue is that the go build command is failing because of a Go version mismatch. The go.mod says go 1.25.10, and if the installed Go version is different, go build might fail.

But wait, vet and test passed. If the Go version was wrong, those would fail too. Unless the go vet and go test commands are more lenient about the Go version than go build.

Actually, in Go 1.21+, the go directive in go.mod specifies the minimum required Go version. If the installed Go version is older than the version specified in go.mod, go build will fail. But go vet and go test might also fail.

Hmm, let me think about this differently. The setup-go action with go-version-file: go.mod should install the exact version specified in go.mod. If Go 1.25.10 is not available, the action would fail. But the action succeeded.

Wait, I just realized something. The setup-go action might install a different version if the exact version is not available. Let me check the setup-go action documentation.

Actually, let me just try a different approach. Let me:

1. Change the go.mod to use go 1.25 instead of go 1.25.10
2. Use direct go build commands in the CI
3. Add some debugging output to the CI

Actually, I think the simplest fix is to just use go build directly instead of make build, and also change the go.mod version. Let me also add -x flag to see what's happening.

Wait, actually, I just realized something. The build step fails immediately (same second). This is very fast. Let me check if the issue is that make is not found. On ubuntu-latest, make should be available. But let me try using a direct command.

Actually, let me try to download the logs. The logs URL is https://api.github.com/repos/relentlessworks/contactkit/actions/jobs/88512448015/logs. This should return a redirect to a zip file. Let me try to fetch it.

Actually, I can't fetch it via the API because the response is not JSON. Let me try to use the shell to download it.

Wait, I have a better idea. Let me just change the CI to use direct go build commands and add some debugging. Let me also change the go.mod version to be less specific.

Actually, I just thought of something else. The go build command might be failing because of the go.sum file. Wait, there's no go.sum file because there are no external dependencies. But go build might still try to verify the go.sum file. Let me check if there's a go.sum file.

Actually, since there are no external dependencies, there should be no go.sum file. And go build should work without it.

Let me just try a different approach. Let me:

1. Change the go.mod to use go 1.25 instead of go 1.25.10
2. Use direct go build commands in the CI
3. Add GOFLAGS=-v to see verbose output

Actually, I think the issue might be that the Go version 1.25.10 is not available on GitHub Actions, and the setup-go action is installing a different version. Then go build fails because the go.mod requires a newer version. But go vet and go test might not check the go.mod version as strictly.

Wait, in Go 1.21+, the go directive in go.mod is enforced. If the installed Go version is older than the version specified in go.mod, all go commands will fail. But if the installed Go version is newer, they should work.

So if the setup-go action installs Go 1.25.10 (as specified in go.mod), everything should work. But if it installs a different version (e.g., 1.25.0), then go build might fail.

Actually, I just realized that the setup-go action with go-version-file: go.mod reads the go directive from go.mod and installs that version. If the exact version (1.25.10) is not available, it might install the latest 1.25.x version. But then the go.mod would say go 1.25.10 and the installed version might be 1.25.0, which is older. In Go 1.21+, this would cause go build to fail.

But wait, go vet and go test also use the go.mod version. So they should also fail. Unless they don't check the version as strictly.

Actually, in Go 1.21+, the go directive is enforced for all commands. So if the installed version is older than the go.mod version, all commands should fail. But vet and test passed, so the installed version must be >= 1.25.10.

Hmm, this is confusing. Let me just try a different approach and see what happens.

Actually, I just had another idea. Maybe the issue is that the go build command is trying to write the binary to a file that's in the .gitignore and there's a conflict. But that shouldn't cause an error.

Wait, I just realized something. The .gitignore file has contactkit in it. So the contactkit binary is ignored. But that shouldn't affect the build.

Let me just try to fix the issue by:

1. Using direct go build commands instead of make build
2. Changing the go.mod version to go 1.25 (less specific)
3. Adding set -x to the CI steps for debugging

Actually, let me try to download the logs first. I can use the shell to download them.

CI run #3 (29791197595) has status "completed" and conclusion "success"! The CI is now passing. The Tag Release workflow also succeeded.

Let me also check if there's a new Release workflow run triggered by the new tag. Let me check the tags and releases.

Actually, looking at the results, the CI run #3 succeeded. The tag-release workflow also succeeded. But I need to check if the Release workflow (triggered by the tag) also succeeded. Let me check the tags and the release workflow runs.

Actually, looking at the list, I see:

1. CI run #3 (29791197595) - success ✅
2. Tag Release run #3 (29791197590) - success ✅
3. CI run #2 (29790956583) - failure ❌ (old)
4. Tag Release run #2 (29790956493) - success ✅ (old)
5. Release run #1 (29790790990) - failure ❌ (old, from first tag)

But I don't see a new Release workflow run for the third tag. The tag-release workflow creates a tag, which should trigger the release workflow. Let me check if there's a new release workflow run.

Wait, the tag-release workflow creates a tag v0.1.3 (or similar). The release workflow is triggered by tag pushes. But the tag-release workflow uses github-actions[bot] to create the tag, and the release workflow might not be triggered because of that.

Actually, looking at the first release run (29790790990), it was triggered by workflow_dispatch, not by a tag push. This means the tag-release workflow created a tag, but the release workflow wasn't triggered by the tag push. Instead, it was triggered by a workflow_dispatch event.

Wait, looking more carefully, the first release run was triggered by workflow_dispatch event. This means the tag-release workflow dispatched the release workflow. But the release workflow failed because the cmd/contactkit directory didn't exist.

Now that the cmd/contactkit/main.go file is committed, the release workflow should work. But I need to check if a new release workflow was triggered.

Actually, looking at the tag-release workflow, it creates a tag and then dispatches the release workflow. The third tag-release run succeeded, so it should have dispatched the release workflow. But I don't see a new release workflow run in the list.

Wait, the list only shows 5 runs. Let me check if there are more runs.

Actually, looking at the total_count, there are 8 runs. Let me check the remaining runs.

Actually, I think the important thing is that the CI is now passing. The release workflow can be re-run later. Let me check the tags and releases to see what's available.

Let me also check if there are any new release workflow runs that I might have missed.

Actually, let me just check the tags and releases. The CI is passing, which is the most important thing. The release workflow can be re-run if needed.

Let me also check the deploy-pages workflow. It failed earlier because Pages wasn't enabled. That's expected and needs manual intervention.

Let me check the tags and releases.

Let me understand the situation:

1. CI is now passing ✅
2. The tag-release workflow creates a tag v0.1.0 (from the VERSION file) and dispatches the release workflow
3. The tag v0.1.0 was created on the first commit (8e6e990), which didn't have cmd/contactkit/main.go
4. The release workflow was dispatched and failed because cmd/contactkit didn't exist
5. On subsequent pushes, the tag-release workflow checks if the tag already exists. Since v0.1.0 already exists, it doesn't create a new tag or dispatch the release workflow

So the issue is that the tag v0.1.0 was created on the first commit, which was broken. The release workflow failed. Now that the code is fixed, I need to either:

1. Delete the old tag and let the tag-release workflow create a new one
2. Manually dispatch the release workflow
3. Bump the version in the VERSION file

Let me check the VERSION file and then decide what to do. I think the best approach is to bump the version to v0.1.1 and push, which will trigger the tag-release workflow to create a new tag and dispatch the release workflow.

Actually, wait. The tag-release workflow checks if the tag exists. If I bump the version to v0.1.1, the tag-release workflow will create a new tag v0.1.1 and dispatch the release workflow. The release workflow will then build the binaries and create a GitHub release.

But I also need to check if the release workflow will work now. The release workflow uses the same cross-compile approach that I fixed. Let me verify the release workflow is correct.

Looking at the release workflow, it uses the matrix.include approach with GOOS and GOARCH, and the output filename uses hyphens instead of slashes. This should work now that cmd/contactkit/main.go is committed.

Let me bump the version and push.

Actually, wait. Let me also check the deploy-pages workflow. It failed earlier. Let me check what's wrong with it.

Actually, the deploy-pages workflow probably failed because GitHub Pages wasn't enabled for the repo. That's a manual setting that needs to be configured in the repo settings. Let me check if Pages is enabled.

Actually, let me focus on the most important things:

1. CI is passing ✅
2. I need to trigger a release with the fixed code
3. The deploy-pages issue might need manual intervention

Let me bump the version to v0.1.1 and push to trigger a new release.

I can see:

1. Release run #2 (29791348933) - in_progress ✅ (triggered by workflow_dispatch from tag-release)
2. CI run #4 (29791341840) - in_progress (triggered by push)
3. Tag Release run #4 (29791341816) - completed, success ✅ (created tag v0.1.1 and dispatched release)
4. CI run #3 (29791197595) - completed, success ✅
5. Tag Release run #3 (29791197590) - completed, success ✅

The Release workflow is now in progress! This is great. The tag-release workflow created tag v0.1.1 and dispatched the release workflow. The release workflow is now running and should build the binaries and create a GitHub release.

Let me wait for the release workflow to complete and check the results.