@stella-studio/ck 1.0.0

package/docs/codebase-summary.md

@@ -0,0 +1,365 @@
+# Codebase Summary
+
+**Last Updated**: 2026-01-28
+**Version**: 2.9.0-beta.2
+**Repository**: [claudekit/claudekit-engineer](https://github.com/claudekit/claudekit-engineer)
+
+## Overview
+
+ClaudeKit Engineer is a comprehensive boilerplate template for building professional software projects with CLI Coding Agents (Claude Code and Open Code). It provides a complete development environment with AI-powered agent orchestration, automated workflows, and intelligent project management.
+
+## Project Structure
+
+```
+claudekit-engineer/
+├── .claude/               # Claude Code configuration
+│   ├── agents/           # Specialized agent definitions (14 agents)
+│   ├── commands/         # Slash command implementations (50+ commands)
+│   ├── hooks/            # Git hooks and scripts
+│   ├── skills/           # Specialized skills library (20+ skills)
+│   └── workflows/        # Development workflow definitions
+├── .github/             # GitHub Actions workflows
+│   └── workflows/       # CI/CD automation
+├── docs/                # Project documentation
+│   └── research/        # Research reports directory
+├── guide/               # User guides and references
+├── plans/               # Implementation plans and reports
+│   ├── reports/         # Agent-to-agent communication
+│   └── templates/       # Plan templates
+├── CLAUDE.md           # Project-specific Claude instructions
+├── README.md           # Project overview
+├── package.json        # Node.js dependencies
+└── repomix-output.xml  # Codebase compaction file
+```
+
+## Core Technologies
+
+### Runtime & Dependencies
+- **Node.js**: >=18.0.0
+- **Package Manager**: npm
+- **License**: MIT
+
+### Development Tools
+- **Semantic Release**: Automated versioning and changelog
+- **Commitlint**: Conventional commit enforcement
+- **Husky**: Git hooks automation
+- **Repomix**: Codebase compaction for AI consumption
+
+### CI/CD
+- **GitHub Actions**: Automated release workflow
+- **Semantic Versioning**: Automated version management
+- **Conventional Commits**: Structured commit messages
+
+## Key Components
+
+### 1. Agent Orchestration System (14 Agents)
+
+**Claude Code Agents** (`.claude/agents/`):
+- `planner.md` - Technical planning and architecture (Opus model)
+- `researcher.md` - Research and analysis
+- `fullstack-developer.md` - Full-stack implementation
+- `code-reviewer.md` - Code quality assessment
+- `tester.md` - Testing and validation
+- `debugger.md` - Issue analysis and debugging
+- `docs-manager.md` - Documentation management (Gemini model)
+- `git-manager.md` - Version control operations
+- `journal-writer.md` - Development journaling
+- `brainstormer.md` - Solution ideation
+- `project-manager.md` - Project tracking
+- `ui-ux-designer.md` - UI/UX design
+- `mcp-manager.md` - MCP server management
+- `code-simplifier.md` - Code optimization and simplification
+
+### 2. Slash Commands System (Command Directories)
+
+**Core Development Commands**:
+- `/plan` - Research and planning
+- `/cook` - Feature implementation
+- `/test` - Test execution
+- `/ask` - Technical consultation
+- `/bootstrap` - Project initialization
+- `/brainstorm` - Solution ideation
+- `/debug` - Issue debugging
+- `/fix` - Bug fixes
+
+**Command Directories** (`.claude/commands/`):
+- `bootstrap/` - Project initialization workflows
+- `docs/` - Documentation commands
+- `plan/` - Planning variants
+- `review/` - Code review workflows
+- `test/` - Testing commands
+
+### 3. Skills Library (38 Skills)
+
+**Phase 1 Organized Groups** (Progressive Disclosure):
+- **DevOps** (`devops/`) - Cloudflare (5 skills), Docker, Google Cloud Platform
+  - 11 references, 2 Python utilities, 45 tests
+- **Databases** (`databases/`) - MongoDB, PostgreSQL
+  - 8 references, 3 Python utilities
+- **Web Frameworks** (`web-frameworks/`) - Next.js, Turborepo, RemixIcon
+  - 7 references, 2 Python utilities
+- **UI Styling** (`ui-styling/`) - shadcn/ui, Tailwind CSS, canvas-design
+  - 7 references, 2 Python utilities
+
+**Current Skills** (47+ Total):
+- ai-artist, ai-multimodal, agent-browser, backend-development, better-auth
+- brainstorm, chrome-devtools, code-review, common, context-engineering
+- cook, copywriting, databases, debug, devops
+- docs-seeker, document-skills, find-skills, frontend-design, frontend-development
+- git, gkg, google-adk-python, markdown-novel-viewer, mcp-builder
+- mcp-management, media-processing, mermaidjs-v11, mobile-development, payment-integration
+- planning, plans-kanban, problem-solving, react-best-practices, remotion
+- repomix, research, scout, sequential-thinking, shader
+- shopify, skill-creator, template-skill, threejs, ui-styling
+- ui-ux-pro-max, web-design-guidelines, web-frameworks, web-testing
+
+### 4. Hook System (8 Core Hooks)
+
+**Location**: `.claude/hooks/`
+
+**Core Hooks:**
+
+1. **session-init.cjs** - Session Initialization
+   - Detects project type (monorepo/library)
+   - Identifies package manager (pnpm/npm/yarn)
+   - Detects framework (Next/React/etc)
+   - Writes 25+ environment variables for context cascade
+
+2. **dev-rules-reminder.cjs** - Development Context Injection
+   - Injects dev rules & context on every prompt
+   - Smart deduplication prevents redundancy
+   - Provides branch-matched workflow suggestions
+   - Optimized for token efficiency
+
+3. **subagent-init.cjs** - Subagent Context Injection
+   - Injects compact context (~200 tokens) when spawning subagents
+   - Minimizes token overhead during delegation
+   - Enables efficient agent-to-agent communication
+
+4. **scout-block.cjs** - Cross-Platform Performance Optimization
+   - Blocks access to heavy directories (node_modules, .git, __pycache__, dist/, build/)
+   - Node.js dispatcher with platform-specific implementations
+   - Unix (Bash): scout-block.sh
+   - Windows (PowerShell): scout-block.ps1
+   - Automatic platform detection via `process.platform`
+   - Improves AI response time and token efficiency
+
+5. **privacy-block.cjs** - Sensitive File Access Control
+6. **descriptive-name.cjs** - Naming conventions enforcement
+7. **post-edit-simplify-reminder.cjs** - Post-edit optimization hints
+8. **usage-context-awareness.cjs** - Context-aware usage patterns
+
+**Hook Features:**
+- Fail-Safe: All hooks exit 0 (non-blocking) - graceful degradation
+- Performance: Optimized token consumption
+- Cross-Platform: Windows (PowerShell) & Unix (Bash) via Node.js dispatcher
+- Comprehensive Test Coverage: test-scout-block.sh (11 tests), test-scout-block.ps1 (7 tests)
+
+### 5. Workflows
+
+**Primary Workflows** (`.claude/rules/`):
+1. **primary-workflow.md**: Core development cycle
+   - Code implementation
+   - Testing
+   - Code quality
+   - Integration
+   - Debugging
+
+2. **orchestration-protocol.md**: Agent coordination patterns
+   - Sequential chaining
+   - Parallel execution
+
+3. **development-rules.md**: Development standards
+   - File size management (<500 lines)
+   - YAGNI, KISS, DRY principles
+   - Code quality guidelines
+   - Pre-commit/push rules
+
+4. **documentation-management.md**: Doc maintenance
+   - Roadmap and changelog updates
+   - Automatic update triggers
+   - Documentation protocols
+
+## Entry Points
+
+### For Users
+- **README.md**: Project overview and quick start
+- **guide/COMMANDS.md**: Comprehensive command reference (7,073 tokens)
+- **CLAUDE.md**: Development instructions and workflows
+
+### For Developers
+- **package.json**: Dependencies and scripts
+- **.releaserc.json**: Semantic release configuration
+- **.commitlintrc.json**: Commit message linting rules
+- **.gitignore**: Version control exclusions
+
+### For Agents
+- **CLAUDE.md**: Primary agent instructions
+- **.claude/rules/**: Development rules and protocols
+- **plans/templates/**: Implementation plan templates
+
+## Development Principles
+
+### YAGNI (You Aren't Gonna Need It)
+Avoid over-engineering and unnecessary features
+
+### KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
+Prefer simple, straightforward solutions
+
+### DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself)
+Eliminate code duplication
+
+### File Size Management
+- Keep files under 500 lines
+- Split large files into focused components
+- Extract utilities into separate modules
+
+### Security First
+- Try-catch error handling
+- Security standards coverage
+- No secrets in commits
+- Confidential info protection
+
+## Agent Communication Protocol
+
+**Report Format**: Markdown files in `./plans/<plan-name>/reports/`
+**Naming Convention**: `{date}-from-[agent]-to-[agent]-[task]-report.md`
+
+**Communication Patterns**:
+- Sequential: Task dependencies require ordered execution
+- Parallel: Independent tasks run simultaneously
+- Query Fan-Out: Multiple researchers explore different approaches
+
+## Git Workflow
+
+**Commit Message Format**: Conventional Commits
+```
+type(scope): description
+
+Types:
+- feat: Features (minor bump)
+- fix: Bug fixes (patch bump)
+- docs: Documentation (patch bump)
+- refactor: Code refactoring (patch bump)
+- test: Tests (patch bump)
+- ci: CI changes (patch bump)
+- BREAKING CHANGE: Major version bump
+```
+
+**Automated Release**:
+- Every push to `main` triggers release check
+- Semantic versioning (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH)
+- Automated changelog generation
+- GitHub releases with generated notes
+
+## Testing Strategy
+
+- Comprehensive unit tests required
+- High code coverage mandatory
+- Error scenario testing
+- Performance validation
+- Tests must pass before push
+- No ignoring failed tests
+
+## Documentation Standards
+
+**Required Docs** (`./docs/`):
+- `project-overview-pdr.md` - Project overview and PDR
+- `code-standards.md` - Coding standards and structure
+- `codebase-summary.md` - This file
+- `system-architecture.md` - Architecture documentation
+- `project-roadmap.md` - Development roadmap
+- `project-changelog.md` - Detailed changelog
+- `statusline-windows-support.md` - Windows statusline setup guide
+- `statusline-architecture.md` - Technical statusline implementation
+
+**Documentation Triggers**:
+- Feature implementation completion
+- Major milestone achievements
+- Bug fixes
+- Security updates
+- Weekly reviews
+
+## Dependencies Overview
+
+### Production Dependencies
+None (template project)
+
+### Development Dependencies
+- **@commitlint/cli**: ^18.4.3
+- **@commitlint/config-conventional**: ^18.4.3
+- **@semantic-release/changelog**: ^6.0.3
+- **@semantic-release/commit-analyzer**: ^11.1.0
+- **@semantic-release/git**: ^10.0.1
+- **@semantic-release/github**: ^9.2.6
+- **@semantic-release/npm**: ^11.0.2
+- **@semantic-release/release-notes-generator**: ^12.1.0
+- **conventional-changelog-conventionalcommits**: ^7.0.2
+- **husky**: ^8.0.3
+- **semantic-release**: ^22.0.12
+
+## File Statistics
+
+**Total Files**: 48 files (in repomix output)
+**Total Tokens**: 38,868 tokens
+**Total Characters**: 173,077 chars
+
+**Top 5 Files by Token Count**:
+1. `guide/COMMANDS.md` - 7,073 tokens (18.2%)
+2. `CHANGELOG.md` - 4,836 tokens (12.4%)
+3. `README.md` - 3,261 tokens (8.4%)
+
+## Integration Capabilities
+
+### Discord Notifications
+Script: `.claude/hooks/send-discord.sh`
+Purpose: Send project updates to Discord channels
+
+### GitHub Actions
+Workflow: `.github/workflows/release.yml`
+Features: Automated releases, changelog generation
+
+### Agent Skills
+- **brain**: Advanced reasoning
+- **docs-seeker**: Documentation reading
+- **ai-multimodal**: Visual understanding
+- **ai-multimodal & imagemagick skills**: Content generation and processing
+
+## Critical Files
+
+### Configuration
+- `package.json` - Node.js config
+- `.releaserc.json` - Release config
+- `.commitlintrc.json` - Commit linting
+- `.gitignore` - Git exclusions
+- `.repomixignore` - Repomix exclusions
+
+### Documentation
+- `README.md` - Main project docs
+- `CLAUDE.md` - Agent instructions
+- `CHANGELOG.md` - Version history
+- `guide/COMMANDS.md` - Command reference
+
+### Workflows
+- `.claude/rules/primary-workflow.md`
+- `.claude/rules/development-rules.md`
+- `.claude/rules/orchestration-protocol.md`
+- `.claude/rules/documentation-management.md`
+
+## Related Projects
+
+- **claudekit** - ClaudeKit website (`../claudekit`)
+- **claudekit-marketing** - Marketing Kit (`../claudekit-marketing`)
+- **claudekit-cli** - CLI setup tool (`../claudekit-cli`)
+- **claudekit-docs** - Public docs (`../claudekit-docs`)
+
+## Version History
+
+**Current**: v2.9.0-beta.2 (released 2026-01-28)
+**License**: MIT
+**Author**: Duy Nguyen
+**Repository**: https://github.com/claudekit/claudekit-engineer
+
+## Unresolved Questions
+
+None identified. All core components are well-documented and functional.

package/docs/journals/2025-11-11-planning-skill-never-started.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# Optimize Planning Skill: The Draft That Never Took Off
+
+**Date**: 2025-11-11 11:20
+**Severity**: Low
+**Component**: Planning Skill System
+**Status**: Archived (Never Implemented)
+
+## What Happened
+
+Created a plan to refactor the 115-line `planning` skill SKILL.md into 7 focused reference files following patterns from backend-development and web-frameworks skills. Plan included 4 phases: preparation, reference extraction, skill restructuring, and validation. The plan was well-structured, prioritized as Medium. It was never implemented.
+
+## The Brutal Truth
+
+This is the most frustrating kind of failure because the plan was objectively good. Well-written, technically sound, clear phases. And it never got touched. Not because it was bad, but because once the plan was written, something else took priority.
+
+The bitter part of this pattern is recognizing that planning itself can be a form of procrastination. We created a detailed map but never walked the terrain. The skill references would have made planning clearer and more maintainable. That would have helped all subsequent planning work. We chose not to invest 2-3 hours to unblock future efficiency. That's a choice worth examining.
+
+What makes this particularly grating: the problem it solves still exists. The 115-line file is still hard to navigate. New users still get cognitive overload reading the entire SKILL.md. The technical debt is still there, just ignored.
+
+## Technical Details
+
+**Current state:** SKILL.md at `/.claude/skills/planning/SKILL.md` is 115 lines containing all guidance in single file
+
+**Proposed structure:**
+```
+references/
+  01-research-analysis.md
+  02-codebase-understanding.md
+  03-solution-design.md
+  04-plan-creation.md
+  05-task-breakdown.md
+  06-workflow.md
+  07-quality-standards.md
+```
+
+**Target:** Reduce SKILL.md to ~50 lines of overview + navigation, with each reference providing focused depth on one aspect.
+
+Similar patterns already established in backend-development (6 references) and web-frameworks (5 references) skills prove this structure works.
+
+## What We Tried
+
+Nothing. The plan was created. No implementation attempt was made. This was a planning-cycle artifact: plan created, attention moved to other priorities, plan archived without execution.
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+Three factors converged:
+
+1. **Priority creep**: Windows statusline (higher priority) consumed team focus
+2. **Implementation tax**: Refactoring a skill system requires understanding current implementation, extracting content thoughtfully, validating references work. That takes 2-3 focused hours, and we didn't block that time
+3. **Invisible returns**: Unlike Windows statusline (visible to users), skill reference optimization is internal. The benefit is "planning might be 10% clearer." That doesn't create urgency
+
+The real lesson: we don't have a mechanism to track internal technical improvements once planning completes. External features get prioritized because their value is visible. Skill optimization has equal real value but no stakeholder asking for it.
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+**What we missed:**
+- Creating a plan is not completing work. Writing detailed phases doesn't execute them
+- Internal optimization needs explicit time allocation or it gets deferred indefinitely
+- Medium priority items without external pressure consistently lose to any higher-priority feature
+- We should estimate implementation time in the plan itself (this was 2-3 hours) to make scheduling decisions visible
+
+**Pattern to prevent this:**
+- Plans with no implementation target date are plans that won't execute
+- Distinguish between "plan creation" (thinking work) and "plan implementation" (execution work)
+- Medium-priority skill improvements should have dedicated blocks in development schedule
+- Create a tracking mechanism for non-feature work that must execute
+
+## Impact
+
+Minimal negative impact. The planning skill still works. Users can read the full SKILL.md if they need depth. The unimplemented refactoring represents potential efficiency, not broken functionality.
+
+However, there's a cumulative cost. Each small unaddressed technical improvement adds friction. New users open SKILL.md and face a wall of text. Developers making small updates to planning guidance have a harder time finding the right place. These small frictions compound.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Two options:
+
+**Option 1: Actually implement it**
+Allocate 3 hours in next planning cycle. Execute Phase 1-4 sequentially. Measure actual time consumed. Validate that planning guidance is clearer post-refactor.
+
+**Option 2: Deprioritize permanently**
+Decide the 115-line SKILL.md is acceptable as-is. Document that decision. Stop creating plans for internal optimization if we won't resource them.
+
+We haven't done either. That's the real problem. This plan sits in archive limbo - not rejected, not scheduled, just forgotten.
+
+The rule we broke: **Plans without execution schedules are not plans, they're wish lists.**

package/docs/journals/2025-11-11-windows-statusline-complete.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Windows Statusline Support: One of the Few Things We Actually Finished
+
+**Date**: 2025-11-11 14:30
+**Severity**: Low (positive note)
+**Component**: Claude Code Integration
+**Status**: Resolved
+
+## What Happened
+
+Completed full cross-platform statusline support for Windows users. Built PowerShell implementation, Node.js fallback, platform detection wrapper, comprehensive testing across PowerShell 5.1, PowerShell Core 7, Git Bash, and WSL environments. All 5 phases executed successfully - research, implementation, fallback creation, wrapper logic, and documentation.
+
+## The Brutal Truth
+
+Honestly? This feels like a win because it actually got shipped. In a month where three other plans never left the starting gate, having something tangible that Windows users can now rely on is refreshing. The frustrating part is realizing this is the exception, not the rule.
+
+What makes this work is it had clear scope. No moving targets. No "maybe we should also handle X." Just: "Windows users need statusline, let's give it to them." That clarity made the difference between a plan that stayed on the shelf and one that actually shipped.
+
+The real kicker is wondering why the other three plans couldn't maintain that same focus. The aesthetic skill improvement and docs optimization were intellectually interesting problems that quickly became rabbit holes. Windows statusline was boring and straightforward. Sometimes boring wins.
+
+## Technical Details
+
+Deliverables:
+- `statusline.ps1`: 200+ lines of PowerShell with feature parity to bash implementation
+- `statusline.js`: Node.js fallback for environments without PowerShell
+- Platform detection wrapper handling Win10/Win11, PowerShell versions, WSL variants
+- Documentation with setup instructions for each Windows environment
+- Testing validation across 4 different Windows shells
+
+The PowerShell version replicates git integration, ccusage metrics, color output, and progress indicators. The fallback works when PowerShell isn't available (some CI environments). Detection logic handles edge cases like WSL-on-Windows.
+
+## What We Tried
+
+Initial approach tried to create pure PowerShell equivalents for every bash utility. Quickly hit limits - some tools don't map 1:1 to Windows APIs. Pivoted to hybrid approach: PowerShell for what it does well, fallback to Node.js for tough cases.
+
+Considered bundling everything into a single executable, but that added complexity and distribution headaches. Keeping separate scripts meant users choose based on their environment.
+
+## Root Cause Analysis (Why This One Succeeded)
+
+Clear success criteria from the start. Defined Windows environments explicitly (PowerShell 5.1, Core 7, Git Bash, WSL). Research phase discovered hard technical constraints (Windows doesn't have jq, bash date syntax differs). Built solutions around those constraints rather than fighting them.
+
+The difference between this and the aesthetic/docs optimization plans: those had sprawling problem statements. "Combat AI slop" and "reduce tokens 40-60%" are important but vague. "Windows users need statusline in 4 environments" is tactile and measurable.
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+**What worked:**
+- Explicit scope definition before implementation
+- Clear environmental boundaries (4 specific Windows shells)
+- Fallback strategy for edge cases
+- Phase-based execution with completion gates
+- Technical research that identified real constraints, not just nice-to-haves
+
+**What we should export to other plans:**
+- Start with a success criterion you can actually verify
+- Define the problem in terms of specific user scenarios, not abstractions
+- When you hit a technical blocker, design around it, don't redesign the problem
+- Phase gates with clear "done" criteria prevent scope creep
+
+**Pattern to adopt:**
+Boring, focused problems with clear outcomes beat intellectually interesting problems with fuzzy goals. Every time.
+
+## Impact
+
+Windows users can now use Claude Code statusline functionality without workarounds. Documentation exists for each environment. Platform detection is automatic. This closes a genuine feature gap that existed since statusline.sh was bash-only.
+
+Real contribution to the project. Not revolutionary, but complete.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+None for this plan. Marked complete on 2025-11-11. Cross-platform statusline support is shipped. The codebase has documentation in `/docs/statusline-windows-support.md` and `/docs/statusline-architecture.md` for future maintenance.
+
+If PowerShell behavior changes in Win11 or WSL3, we'll know where to fix it. That's the mark of a shipped feature: someone can find the code and understand it.

package/docs/journals/2025-11-14-aesthetic-skill-ambitious-planning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+# Improve Aesthetic Skill: Comprehensive Plan That Became Too Much
+
+**Date**: 2025-11-14 10:18
+**Severity**: Medium
+**Component**: Aesthetic Design Skill
+**Status**: Archived (Planning Complete, Never Implemented)
+
+## What Happened
+
+Completed comprehensive planning to enhance the aesthetic skill, targeting "AI slop" problem identified in Claude blog articles. Research phase revealed distributional convergence issue: AI designs converge on safe defaults (Inter fonts, purple gradients, minimal motion). Created 4-phase implementation plan (12-16 hours estimated) covering core skill enhancement, reference materials expansion, integration tooling, and documentation with examples. Planning was thorough and research-backed. Implementation never started.
+
+## The Brutal Truth
+
+This is the dangerous kind of plan: intellectually compelling but strategically misaligned. The problem we identified (generic AI designs) is real. The solution (4-dimension design framework with anti-generic language) is technically sound. The research was solid. Three researchers investigated different angles. We built a 16-hour roadmap.
+
+And then we didn't execute it because 16 hours is a commitment nobody made.
+
+What's maddening about this specific failure is that we created the perfect plan to not execute. Comprehensive research made us feel productive. Detailed phases made the work feel real. But somewhere between "this is a great idea" and "let's actually code it," the energy dissipated. The plan became the deliverable instead of the starting point.
+
+The bitter truth: the aesthetic skill still generates the same convergent designs it did before this planning. Every design created in the past month has been slightly more generic because we spent time documenting how to avoid genericism instead of implementing the fix.
+
+## Technical Details
+
+**Problem identified:** Distributional convergence
+- Claude models default to Inter font, 14-16px base, center-aligned
+- Color systems converge on cool tones + purple accent
+- Motion is minimal or absent
+- Backgrounds are simple gradients or single colors
+
+**Proposed 4-dimension solution:**
+1. Typography: 5+ specific font alternatives, extreme weight usage, deliberate hierarchy
+2. Color: Bold dominant colors, unexpected combinations, vibrant accents
+3. Motion: Orchestrated sequences, 300-500ms durations, purpose-driven animations
+4. Backgrounds: Layered effects, texture, depth via shadows/overlays
+
+**Implementation scope:**
+- Phase 1: SKILL.md rewrite with anti-generic language (3-4 hours)
+- Phase 2: References with specific alternatives + decision trees (4-5 hours)
+- Phase 3: Automation scripts + quality gates (3-4 hours)
+- Phase 4: Case studies, testing, documentation (2-3 hours)
+
+Research included 3 independent investigations:
+- Claude blog article analysis (distributional convergence mechanics)
+- Design systems best practices (Tailwind CSS 4, shadcn/ui patterns)
+- Skill creation patterns (validation loops, progressive disclosure)
+
+## What We Tried
+
+Nothing at implementation level. Research was thorough. Planning was meticulous. We created the intellectual framework but didn't move it to execution.
+
+Implicit decision was made: aesthetic skill improvement is lower priority than feature work. Nobody explicitly said that, but the resource allocation revealed it.
+
+## Root Cause Analysis
+
+**Why this plan didn't execute:**
+
+1. **Estimation complexity**: 12-16 hours is big enough to feel risky as a time commitment, but small enough that nobody felt they HAD to schedule it. 8 hours = "schedule a morning sprint." 16 hours = "unclear when we'd do this"
+
+2. **Success metric ambiguity**: How do we measure "less generic designs"? We defined success criteria (SKILL.md updates, specific alternatives, validation loops) but these are output metrics, not outcome metrics. Did designs actually get better?
+
+3. **Research created false completion**: Once we had 3 detailed research reports, it felt like we'd done meaningful work on the problem. The transition from research to execution requires completely different energy
+
+4. **Competing urgencies**: Feature work, bug fixes, and infrastructure changes all have clearer stakeholders asking for them. "Improve design quality" is important but doesn't have a deadline
+
+5. **Scope creep in planning**: By Phase 2, we were talking about automation scripts and quality gates. By Phase 4, we had case studies and testing framework. That scope expansion happens during planning when constraints are theoretical. Implementation reveals they're real
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+**What we got right:**
+- Research was independent, focused, and documented clearly
+- 4-dimension framework is solid and actionable
+- Identified anti-generic language as core leverage point
+- Dependencies on existing skills (ai-multimodal, chrome-devtools) are realistic
+- Case study approach for validation was good thinking
+
+**What we should have done differently:**
+- Set explicit execution target: "implement Phase 1 by X date"
+- Reduced scope: maybe 2 phases instead of 4
+- Built in milestone checkpoints that would have revealed when momentum stalled
+- Validated with actual design examples early rather than waiting for Phase 4
+- Set outcome metric first: "X% of designs will not look generic" before designing the solution
+
+**Pattern to prevent:**
+- Plans over 8 hours need explicit time allocation in schedule
+- Research completeness is not implementation readiness
+- Design/improvement work needs different success criteria than feature work
+- When planning completes but implementation doesn't start within 3 days, something is wrong with the plan or priorities
+
+## Impact
+
+Opportunity cost. The aesthetic skill still lacks anti-generic directives. Users creating designs with it will still converge on safe patterns. The planning represents "solutions we didn't implement" rather than "solutions we chose not to implement."
+
+Every day this plan sits unexecuted, more designs are created with the old, convergent approach. If 5 different teams are using this skill, that's 5 design system that could be more distinctive.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Honest assessment needed:**
+
+Is aesthetic skill improvement actually a priority? If yes: schedule Phase 1 explicitly (3-4 hours), execute it, measure whether design quality actually improves. If we get to Phase 2, great. If not, we'll know this was aspirational rather than actual.
+
+If no: archive the plan, document the decision, explain why design convergence is acceptable as-is. Move the research reports into docs as "patterns we identified but chose not to address."
+
+What we cannot do is let this sit in planning limbo indefinitely. That's worse than either committed execution or clear deprioritization.
+
+The plan is too detailed, too researched, and too good to ignore forever. But it's also gathering dust, which means either we don't actually want it, or we don't know how to resource it.
+
+Those are two very different problems requiring different solutions.