The operations section is organised by the incident or release decision, not by a catalogue of platform controls.

Choose a path

Know where to look when the site changes after launch

Choose the problem you own today: take one page through release and recovery, keep routes and runtime state healthy, or prove that account access, package changes, and public output remain separated. Each path names the checks and recovery owner.

Publishing workflow Use Core's event-sourced page history and rollback engine, then add Publishing Studio for the complete editorial workflow. Choose an operations path
Routine maintenance Keep routes, caches and runtime state healthy through deployment, and know which command restores each one. Choose an operations path
Security and governance Prove that account access, package changes and public output stay separated, with checks you can run yourself. Choose an operations path

Next step

Decide who answers when the site changes

Revision history and rollback are part of Capell Foundation. Coordinated review, scheduled release, and a stated support response belong to the paid tiers.

Price Capell operations

Role scenarios

What to inspect in the setup path

Checks for prerequisites, package selection, setup recovery, and a verifiable finish.

Role-based checks drawn from product capabilities and fit boundaries.

Site owner representing this editorial scenario.

Inspect Capell Installer from the site owner perspective

Choose packages in the web installer and inspect the resulting project. Composer dependencies and the Filament provider should be updated as source code, with the installer remaining available until a real site and admin exist.

It will not declare success on a half-built app: it self-deletes only after an admin exists and a real site is created, and otherwise stays put for a retry. This verifies a working baseline without relying on a wiki checklist.

Boundary of fit: It is not a no-code wizard, so budget for a Laravel developer to install and maintain it. A hosted website builder suits a buyer who wants to avoid developers entirely.

Laravel developer representing this editorial scenario.

Capell Installer: evidence for the Laravel technical lead role

Run the installer against a Filament provider that already contains method chains. Its AST patch should detect the existing structure, append only the needed calls and remain safe on a second run.

Evidence to request: Installer edits are discrete, re-runnable patches with pre- and post-status checks, closer to migrations than a one-shot script. Success remains unavailable until the admin, sites table and a real site prove the baseline is complete.

Alternative fit: If teams would rather never see a repo and just log into a hosted panel, this whole model is the wrong shape for teams. The upside is real ownership, and that comes with owning the setup too.

Content editor representing this editorial scenario.

It refused to call itself done until the site worked — what to verify

Interrupt installation before a site exists, then resume and complete it. The installer should remain available after the incomplete attempt and disappear only once an admin and usable site are verified.

A credible evaluation should confirm: The installer remains available for retry until an admin, the sites table and an actual site exist, then removes itself only after that state verifies. Interrupt setup once and confirm that recovery does not end at a blank screen.

When to look elsewhere: This gets the site standing, it does not replace a developer for real installs and upgrades. Editors still want someone technical for the parts under the hood, and teams should plan for that.

Manage cookie preferences

Know where to look when the site changes after launch

Decide who answers when the site changes

What to inspect in the setup path

Capell

How it works

Why Capell

Extensions

View all 78 extensions

Extensions

Extension suites