Claude Code Insights

440 messages across 57 sessions | 2026-01-18 to 2026-02-10

At a Glance

What's working: You treat Claude as a true collaborator — pushing back when it's wrong, redirecting approaches, and iterating through dozens of rounds to get production-quality results (like your full website redesign to a Scandinavian aesthetic). You're also building genuinely advanced tooling with your Forge CLI and parallel agent skill system, which puts you well ahead of typical Claude Code usage. And you're not afraid to extend Claude beyond code into sysadmin territory, like diagnosing network issues from your terminal. Impressive Things You Did →

What's hindering you: On Claude's side, it too often picks the wrong approach first — wrong git strategies, misdiagnosed root causes, fixating on symlink issues — which burns your time and patience before you have to manually redirect it. On your side, you're interrupting Claude in a lot of sessions before it can deliver value, often because the initial prompt didn't constrain the task tightly enough, and your visual styling sessions tend to rely on Claude interpreting vague aesthetic intent rather than precise specs, leading to excessive back-and-forth. Where Things Go Wrong →

Quick wins to try: Try creating custom slash commands (/commands) for your most repeated workflows like code review and check creation — you've run these enough times that a reusable skill with baked-in context would eliminate the re-exploration that keeps getting interrupted. Also try headless mode for your Forge check runs, so they execute non-interactively and you review results after rather than babysitting the process. Features to Try →

Ambitious workflows: As models get more capable, your Forge code review system is a prime candidate for fully autonomous parallel agents — spawn one per check category, let them each iterate independently against your test suite, and collect a merged report without any intervention. Your feature-building sessions (VS Code extension, CLI commands) that currently stall from over-planning or scope drift could become single-shot autonomous runs where Claude scaffolds the feature, writes tests, iterates until they pass, and prepares a clean commit for your review. On the Horizon →

440

Messages

+10,429/-2,735

Lines

108

Files

Days

Msgs/Day

What You Work On

Forge CLI & Agent Skills Platform ~18 sessions

Building a CLI tool called 'forge' with a skill/check system for automated code review using Claude Code sub-agents. Work included creating YAML-defined checks, a parallel agent review workflow, an add-check wizard, and an interactive ask/accept flow for presenting findings. Claude was used heavily for implementation, but there was significant friction from repeated misunderstandings around scope, git strategies, and shell script path resolution.

Personal Website Design & Deployment ~8 sessions

Complete redesign of a personal website from a terminal theme to a minimalist Scandinavian aesthetic, plus iterative refinement of layout, typography, content, favicon, and a copy-to-clipboard install command section. Claude was used as a hands-on design-and-code partner through ~20+ rounds of feedback, handling everything from planning to production deployment via Turso and Vercel, including local SQLite setup and README documentation.

VS Code Extension Development ~5 sessions

Scaffolding and building a VS Code extension for the Forge platform, including sidebar UI customization, icon design, terminal session launching, and workspace management views. Claude was used for implementation planning and code changes, though sessions frequently ended with partially working features and unresolved UI issues, with friction around over-planning without writing code and incorrect debugging assumptions.

Developer Environment & Network Troubleshooting ~7 sessions

Diagnosing and resolving infrastructure issues including DHCP failures causing network outages (fixed via static IP), nvm/Node path errors, Chrome DevTools MCP configuration, and Claude Max subscription compatibility with third-party tools. Claude was used as a diagnostic assistant, though it sometimes pursued wrong root causes before the user redirected it toward the correct fix.

Architecture Research & Knowledge Questions ~9 sessions

Exploring architectural patterns around Claude Code sub-agents, context forking, and how tools like Conductor and Omnara build on Claude subprocesses, plus general knowledge questions about GitHub checks, file format choices for config definitions, and bicycle components. Claude provided explanations and comparisons, though it occasionally made unsupported claims and needed prompting to actually search the web rather than speculate.

What You Wanted

Visual Styling Tweaks

Debugging

Code Review

Build New Feature

Factual Question

Debug Fix

Top Tools Used

Bash

352

Read

262

Edit

236

Write

TaskUpdate

Glob

Languages

TypeScript

284

Markdown

128

JSON

Shell

YAML

CSS

Session Types

Iterative Refinement

Single Task

Exploration

Multi Task

Quick Question

How You Use Claude Code

You are a highly iterative, interrupt-driven developer who uses Claude Code as a hands-on collaborator across a sprawling TypeScript ecosystem — building CLI tools, VS Code extensions, personal websites, and an agent/skill framework called Forge. Over 57 sessions in just 24 days, you averaged fewer than 9 messages per session but accumulated nearly 300 hours of runtime, indicating you frequently launch long-running autonomous tasks and interrupt them when they veer off course. Your friction data tells a clear story: 30 instances of Claude taking the wrong approach and 11 instances of you outright rejecting actions. You don't hesitate to cut Claude off mid-tool-execution — multiple sessions show you interrupting file reads, code review checks, and even clarifying questions when you already know what you want. You'd rather redirect than wait for Claude to finish going down a wrong path, as seen when you interrupted Claude's codebase exploration to redirect it toward researching competitor streaming capabilities instead.

Your workflow is visually and experientially oriented — visual styling tweaks and UI work dominate your goals (17 sessions combined), and you tend to refine through many rounds of feedback rather than providing detailed specs upfront. The website redesign session with ~20 rounds of iteration is a perfect example: you steered Claude through layout, typography, content, and favicon changes until it matched your vision. Similarly, when building the Forge CLI skill system, you corrected Claude's misunderstandings about scope, git strategies, and argument passing across extensive back-and-forth. You also frequently use Claude for knowledge exploration and architectural understanding — asking about sub-agent patterns, OAuth blocking, file format tradeoffs, and bicycle components — but you hold Claude accountable, catching unsupported claims and pushing back when it guesses instead of searching. Your 23% dissatisfaction rate and 11 not-achieved outcomes reflect that you're pushing Claude into complex, novel territory (custom agent frameworks, real-time streaming, VS Code extension development) where it often struggles, but you keep coming back because when it works — debugging network issues, cleaning up test fixtures, refactoring scripts — it delivers real value.

Key pattern: You launch Claude on ambitious, loosely-specified tasks and aggressively interrupt and redirect when its approach diverges from your mental model, preferring rapid course-correction over upfront specification.

User Response Time Distribution

2-10s

10-30s

30s-1m

1-2m

2-5m

5-15m

>15m

Median: 63.8s • Average: 157.5s

Multi-Clauding (Parallel Sessions)

Overlap Events

Sessions Involved

40%

Of Messages

You run multiple Claude Code sessions simultaneously. Multi-clauding is detected when sessions overlap in time, suggesting parallel workflows.

User Messages by Time of Day

Morning (6-12)

Afternoon (12-18)

209

Evening (18-24)

215

Night (0-6)

Tool Errors Encountered

User Rejected

Command Failed

Other

File Not Found

Edit Failed

Impressive Things You Did

Over the past three weeks, you've been heavily building out a CLI tool ecosystem and personal site while leveraging Claude Code across 57 sessions with a strong emphasis on bash tooling and iterative refinement.

Full Website Redesign Through Iteration

You drove a complete website redesign from a terminal theme to a minimalist Scandinavian aesthetic through roughly 20 rounds of detailed feedback, covering layout, typography, content, and favicon details before deploying to production. This kind of high-fidelity, iterative design collaboration with Claude — treating it as a design partner you can push back on — is exactly how power users get production-quality results.

Building a Custom Agent Skill System

You've been architecting a sophisticated forge CLI with parallel code review sub-agents, an add-check wizard, and custom skill definitions in YAML. Despite friction along the way, you consistently course-corrected Claude's approach and built out a multi-layered tool system that orchestrates sub-agents — a genuinely advanced use of Claude Code that goes well beyond simple code generation.

Infrastructure Debugging Beyond Code

You used Claude to diagnose and fix real network infrastructure issues, including identifying a DHCP failure and resolving it by configuring a static IP. You knew to push back when Claude's initial suggestions didn't work, drawing on your own prior experience to guide it toward the right fix. This shows you're comfortable extending Claude's utility well beyond writing code into sysadmin and DevOps territory.

What Helped Most (Claude's Capabilities)

Good Explanations

Correct Code Edits

Good Debugging

Proactive Help

Multi-file Changes

Fast/Accurate Search

Outcomes

Not Achieved

Partially Achieved

Mostly Achieved

Fully Achieved

Where Things Go Wrong

Your sessions are heavily impacted by Claude taking wrong approaches that require correction, frequent interruptions of unproductive work, and struggles with iterative UI/styling tasks that burn through many rounds of feedback.

Wrong Diagnostic and Implementation Approaches

Claude frequently pursues incorrect strategies before landing on the right one, forcing you to intervene and redirect. You could reduce this friction by providing more upfront context about your environment and constraints, or by explicitly ruling out approaches you know won't work (e.g., 'this is a global issue, not project-level').

When debugging your network connectivity issue, Claude first assumed it was a Chrome/DNS problem and suggested DHCP renewal and router restarts—approaches you'd already tried—before you had to push back and remind Claude that a static IP had worked before, wasting diagnostic time.
When building the forge CLI skill system, Claude repeatedly misunderstood the scope of changes (removing model from YAML spec entirely instead of just the wizard), used wrong git strategies like cherry-pick on uncommitted changes, and had persistent issues with shell script path resolution, requiring extensive corrections across the session.

Premature Interruptions Due to Slow or Unfocused Exploration

You interrupted Claude in at least 10 sessions because it was spending too long reading files, asking clarifying questions, or exploring the codebase without producing useful output. Consider giving Claude a tighter directive upfront (e.g., 'skip exploration and just create the file') or breaking tasks into smaller, more targeted prompts.

Across multiple code review sessions, Claude got stuck debugging symlink resolution, struggling to retrieve git diffs from worktrees, or slowly exploring the check execution pipeline—you interrupted at least 5 of these sessions before any review results were delivered.
When you asked Claude to create a simple 'hello world' check, it began exploring the codebase instead of just creating the file, and you interrupted multiple attempts before one finally succeeded on a later session.

Excessive Iteration on Visual and UI Styling Tasks

Visual styling tasks account for your largest goal category (17 sessions combining visual_styling_tweaks and ui_styling), and these sessions tend to require many rounds of back-and-forth correction on layout, alignment, and design details. You could reduce this by providing more precise specifications upfront—mockups, exact CSS values, or reference screenshots—rather than relying on Claude to interpret aesthetic intent.

During your website redesign to a Scandinavian minimalist style, you went through approximately 20 rounds of feedback on layout, typography, content, and favicon details—Claude misunderstood alignment requests (centered vs right-aligned), incorrectly made your photo greyscale, and didn't use the specified Twitter profile image URL.
When adding an install command section with copy-to-clipboard styling, Claude initially constrained the command box width with max-w classes that prevented content from fitting, requiring multiple rounds of user correction to get the sizing right.

Primary Friction Types

Wrong Approach

Misunderstood Request

User Rejected Action

Buggy Code

Excessive Changes

Verbose Response

Inferred Satisfaction (model-estimated)

Frustrated

Dissatisfied

Likely Satisfied

Satisfied

Existing CC Features to Try

Suggested CLAUDE.md Additions

Just copy this into Claude Code to add it to your CLAUDE.md.

When I interrupt you or cut you off, take the hint immediately. Don't ask clarifying questions when I'm trying to move fast—just execute with your best guess. If I interrupt a tool call, switch approaches rather than retrying the same thing.

Across 11+ sessions, the user interrupted Claude mid-task, and Claude often didn't adapt quickly enough or kept pursuing the same failing approach.

Never run sudo or commands requiring interactive password input via Bash. If root access is needed, tell me the exact command to run manually.

Claude attempted sudo commands that can't handle interactive prompts, causing friction in debugging/network sessions.

When debugging, check actual logs and error output first before making assumptions. Don't guess at causes—verify with evidence. If your first fix doesn't work, try a fundamentally different approach rather than iterating on the same idea.

In 30% of sessions Claude took the wrong approach (wrong_approach was the #1 friction type at 30 occurrences), often debugging by assumption rather than evidence, especially in VS Code extension and network debugging sessions.

Keep responses concise by default. Skip preamble and summaries unless I ask. For code changes, just show the diff or make the edit—don't explain what you're about to do and then also explain what you did.

User had to ask for more concise answers multiple times, and verbose responses were noted as friction; the user prefers action over explanation.

This is primarily a TypeScript project ecosystem. Use TypeScript idioms and types. When creating new files, default to .ts/.tsx unless otherwise specified. For config formats, prefer YAML for declarative definitions.

TypeScript dominates the codebase (284 file touches vs 2 JavaScript), and sessions involved debates about config formats—establishing defaults saves repeated discussion.

When working with git worktrees, diffs, and branch operations: always verify the current working directory and branch state before performing git operations. Don't assume which worktree or branch context you're in.

Multiple code review sessions failed because Claude couldn't correctly retrieve diffs in worktree contexts, wasting entire sessions on path resolution issues.

Just copy this into Claude Code and it'll set it up for you.

Hooks

Auto-run shell commands at specific lifecycle events like pre-edit or post-edit.

Why for you: Your #1 friction is wrong_approach (30 occurrences). A pre-tool hook that runs TypeScript type-checking after edits would catch buggy code immediately instead of letting errors compound across multiple rounds of iteration. This is especially valuable for your visual styling and UI work where you iterate 10-20 rounds.

// .claude/settings.json
{
  "hooks": {
    "postToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": "Edit|Write",
        "command": "npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | head -20"
      }
    ]
  }
}

Custom Skills

Reusable markdown prompts that run with a single /command.

Why for you: You already use custom skills (/review, /test-ask) but 7 of 8 code review sessions had friction—Claude got lost in worktree paths, couldn't find diffs, or misunderstood the check pipeline. A well-defined /review skill with explicit step-by-step instructions would eliminate the repeated failures. Similarly, a /deploy skill would help since deployment sessions kept ending incomplete.

# .claude/skills/review/SKILL.md
## Code Review
1. Run `git diff HEAD` to get current changes (if in worktree, use `git -C . diff HEAD`)
2. If diff is empty, try `git diff main` or `git diff dev`
3. List changed files with a 1-line summary each
4. Run any checks defined in ./checks/ that match changed file patterns
5. Present findings grouped by severity. Be concise.
6. Ask which fixes to apply. Apply them in a single batch.

Headless Mode

Run Claude non-interactively from scripts and CI/CD.

Why for you: You're building a 'forge' CLI with parallel code review agents and check systems. Instead of manually triggering reviews that get interrupted, you could wire headless Claude into your forge pipeline to run checks automatically and output structured results—fitting perfectly with the agent-checks architecture you're building.

# Run a code review check headlessly and capture results
claude -p "Review the git diff for TypeScript best practices. Output JSON with {file, line, severity, message} for each finding." --allowedTools "Bash,Read,Glob,Grep" --output-format json > review-results.json

# Or integrate into your forge check system
forge check run --check typescript-review --mode headless

New Ways to Use Claude Code

Just copy this into Claude Code and it'll walk you through it.

High interruption rate is killing session value

Front-load your intent with more specific initial prompts to reduce wasted exploration time.

11 of 50 sessions ended with not_achieved outcomes, and many were due to interruptions during Claude's exploration phase. When Claude spends time reading files and understanding context only to get interrupted, that's wasted compute and your time. Giving Claude a precise, scoped instruction upfront (e.g., 'edit file X, function Y, change Z') rather than open-ended tasks will dramatically reduce the need to interrupt. For exploration tasks, consider explicitly saying 'spend max 2 tool calls on research then propose a plan.'

Paste into Claude Code:

I need you to [specific change] in [specific file]. Don't explore the codebase first—I'll tell you what you need to know. Here's the context: [paste relevant code or describe the function]. Make the edit, then run the TypeScript compiler to verify.

Visual styling iterations need a faster feedback loop

Use screenshot-driven iteration with explicit acceptance criteria upfront.

Visual styling tweaks are your #1 goal category (12 sessions) plus another 5 for ui_styling, totaling 17 sessions—a third of all work. Sessions like the Scandinavian redesign took ~20 rounds. The friction often comes from misunderstood layout requests (centered vs right-aligned, photo positioning). Setting explicit design constraints upfront ('photo: right-aligned, 200px, full color, use URL X') and using a checklist format would cut iteration rounds significantly.

Paste into Claude Code:

Make these styling changes. Acceptance criteria:
- [ ] [specific visual requirement 1]
- [ ] [specific visual requirement 2]
- [ ] [specific visual requirement 3]
After making changes, verify each criterion is met before showing me. If any are ambiguous, make your best choice rather than asking me.

Leverage Task Agents for the exploration you keep interrupting

Delegate codebase exploration to sub-agents so you can keep working in the main session.

You already use TaskCreate (41 times) and TaskUpdate (73 times), which is great. But many interrupted sessions were Claude doing codebase exploration that you didn't want to wait for. When you need Claude to understand a complex system (like the forge check pipeline or streaming architecture), explicitly ask it to spawn a task agent for research while keeping the main conversation responsive. This prevents the pattern of 'Claude explores → you get impatient → you interrupt → nothing gets done.'

Paste into Claude Code:

Use a sub-agent to explore how the check execution pipeline works in this codebase—specifically trace from YAML check definition to execution output. Report back with: 1) the file path flow, 2) where the diff is retrieved, 3) where results are formatted. Meanwhile, I'll describe the change I want to make.

On the Horizon

Your 50 sessions reveal a developer building sophisticated multi-agent tooling (Forge, sub-agents, code review skills) who is still spending too much time babysitting Claude through iterative corrections—the next leap is letting autonomous workflows run to completion without interruption.

Autonomous Code Review with Parallel Agents

Your code review skill sessions show a pattern of interrupted runs and path-resolution bugs—30% of your friction comes from wrong approaches that compound across turns. Instead of sequential review, you could spawn parallel Claude sub-agents per check category (TypeScript best practices, security, performance) that each run independently, iterate against your test suite, and merge their findings into a single prioritized report. This would turn your 8+ fragmented review sessions into one fire-and-forget workflow.

Getting started: Use Claude Code's task orchestration (TaskCreate/TaskUpdate, which you already use heavily) combined with your Forge skill system to define isolated sub-agent workspaces per review concern, each with its own git worktree.

Paste into Claude Code:

I want to build an autonomous parallel code review system using my Forge skill framework. Here's the architecture: 1) A parent agent reads the current git diff and categorizes changes by concern (type safety, security, performance, style). 2) For each concern, spawn a sub-agent in its own worktree using TaskCreate. Each sub-agent runs the relevant checks from my YAML check definitions, attempts auto-fixes, and validates fixes against `npm run typecheck && npm test`. 3) Sub-agents report back findings with severity, file, line, and proposed patch. 4) Parent agent deduplicates, ranks by severity, and presents an interactive accept/reject flow. Start by reading my existing check YAML files and forge skill definitions to understand the current system, then refactor it into this parallel architecture. Write tests for the orchestration layer first.

Self-Healing Debug Loops Against Test Suites

14 of your sessions involved debugging or fix workflows, and 11 ended with 'not achieved'—often because Claude went down wrong paths (DHCP misdiagnosis, symlink rabbit holes, wrong git strategies). An autonomous debug loop that runs your test suite, reads failures, generates hypotheses, applies fixes, and re-runs tests until green would eliminate the back-and-forth where you have to manually redirect Claude's approach. With your TypeScript-heavy codebase, type errors alone could be resolved in zero-interaction cycles.

Getting started: Structure a Claude Code prompt that establishes a strict loop: run tests → parse failures → form hypothesis → apply minimal fix → re-run tests. Combine with your existing Bash tool usage (352 calls) to execute test commands automatically.

Paste into Claude Code:

I need you to operate in an autonomous debug loop. Here are the rules: 1) Run `npm run typecheck` and `npm test` to get the current failure state. 2) Parse every error message and stack trace carefully. 3) For each failure, read the relevant source files and test files. 4) Form a specific hypothesis about the root cause before making any edit. State the hypothesis explicitly. 5) Apply the MINIMAL fix—change as few lines as possible. 6) Re-run the failing test(s) only. 7) If the fix works, move to the next failure. If it doesn't, REVERT your change immediately, form a NEW hypothesis, and try again. Never try the same approach twice. 8) After 3 failed hypotheses on one issue, write a diagnostic summary of what you've learned and move on. 9) Continue until all tests pass or you've triaged every failure. Do NOT ask me questions—make your best judgment and keep going. Start now.

Full-Stack Feature Scaffolding with Verification

You have 8 'build new feature' sessions averaging only 'partially achieved,' often because Claude over-plans without writing code or loses track of scope across files. With 284 TypeScript and 128 Markdown tool interactions, your codebase is large enough that a structured autonomous scaffolding workflow—where Claude generates the feature, writes integration tests, iterates until tests pass, updates docs, and prepares a clean commit—could compress a multi-session feature build into a single autonomous run. Your VS Code extension and Forge CLI work are perfect candidates.

Getting started: Leverage Claude Code's multi-file editing capabilities (you already average 236 Edit + 84 Write calls) with an explicit contract: define the feature spec upfront, let Claude write tests first, then implement until tests pass.

Paste into Claude Code:

Build this feature end-to-end autonomously using test-driven development. Feature: [DESCRIBE FEATURE]. Follow this exact workflow: 1) Read the existing codebase structure—explore relevant directories, types, and patterns using Glob and Grep before writing anything. 2) Write a feature spec as a markdown file in docs/ summarizing what you'll build, which files you'll create or modify, and the public API. 3) Write integration tests FIRST that define the expected behavior. Tests should initially fail. 4) Implement the feature across all necessary files (routes, components, types, utilities). Follow existing patterns in the codebase exactly—match naming conventions, file structure, and error handling style. 5) Run `npm run typecheck && npm test` after implementation. Fix any failures by iterating (apply fix → re-run → repeat). 6) Update the README.md with any new setup steps or commands. 7) Run `git add -A && git diff --cached --stat` and show me a summary of all changes. Do not ask me questions during implementation—use your best judgment based on existing code patterns. If you hit an ambiguous design decision, document your choice in the spec file and keep going.

"User asked Claude to browse Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace to find longboard surfboard deals — Claude couldn't access Facebook and accidentally recommended a soft-top board the surfer definitely didn't want"

In a session where Claude was enlisted as a personal surfboard shopping assistant via Chrome DevTools, it partially delivered ranked deals but committed the cardinal sin of recommending a soft-top to a longboarder. Facebook Marketplace access was a total bust. The session ended before a final ranking was even produced.

Clawsights