1,111 messages across 66 sessions (171 total) | 2026-01-13 to 2026-02-18
At a Glance
What's working: You're effectively using Claude as a rapid shipping partner across a remarkable number of projects — from a Godot space game to Korean web apps to a live crypto trading bot — consistently getting features committed and deployed each session. Your iterative feedback style is a strength: you have a clear visual sense and you push back decisively when something's off, which ultimately lands you at polished results even when it takes a few rounds. Impressive Things You Did →
What's hindering you: On Claude's side, it too often chases the wrong fix hypothesis through multiple failed attempts before finding the real root cause, and it sometimes picks an initial architecture or tech stack that has to be scrapped mid-session (like the Tauri-to-Python pivot or misunderstood polarization feature). On your side, layout and UI tasks frequently spiral into 3-5 correction rounds because the initial request leaves room for Claude to interpret spatial details differently than you intend — and when you already have a diagnostic hunch about a bug, sharing it earlier could short-circuit a lot of wasted debugging. Where Things Go Wrong →
Quick wins to try: Try using Task Agents to parallelize exploration — for example, when you're evaluating stack options or debugging a tricky issue, let Claude spawn sub-agents to investigate different hypotheses simultaneously instead of going through them sequentially. You could also create Custom Skills (markdown prompt files) for your most repeated workflows like "commit, push, and create a GitHub release" or "run backtest and summarize results," turning multi-step sequences into a single `/command`. Features to Try →
Ambitious workflows: As models get more capable, expect to run parallel bug-fix agents that each test a different hypothesis and only surface the one that passes your build — eliminating those painful 5+ iteration debugging loops entirely. Your multi-file change sessions should also level up: imagine Claude executing large refactors in a sandboxed branch, running the full test suite, and only presenting you a clean diff for approval, turning those "mostly done" sessions into fully shipped ones without the mid-session pivots. On the Horizon →
1,111
Messages
+86,552/-6,014
Lines
826
Files
25
Days
44.4
Msgs/Day
What You Work On
Korean Group Ordering & Polling Web Apps~12 sessions
Development of Korean-language web applications including a coffee/group ordering app (Coppong) and a polling platform. Work spanned anonymous user access, group page features, favorites, SNS-style redesign, MBTI personality analysis, PWA management, in-app browser detection, and iterative UI refinements. Claude Code handled multi-file TypeScript/Next.js changes, git operations, and deployment workflows throughout rapid feature iteration cycles.
Godot Space Game (Stellar Pioneer)~10 sessions
Ongoing development of a Godot-based space exploration game covering economy rebalancing, ship slot/monetization design, star discovery via Observatory system, IAP/shop UI, launch scene fixes (rocket positioning, camera shake bugs), Gaia data integration planning, and visual polish like brightness tuning and launch pad visuals. Claude Code was used for iterative game logic fixes, scene debugging, game design document review, and planning future features like ad monetization.
ComfyUI RAW Image Processing Nodes~8 sessions
Building custom ComfyUI nodes for RAW image processing including pattern channel extraction, math operations, crop/flip, batch loading, statistics, spot-finding, and Bayer pattern separation. Claude Code implemented node files, ran tests, handled server restarts, and managed git operations. Sessions also included fixing broken UI interactions and developing a CrossMetrology measurement tool with drag-drop, auto-apply settings, and platform styling.
Development of a live crypto arbitrage and scalping trading system including signal filtering, rejection logging, strategy improvements (SL/TP, trend filters, cooldowns), parallelized backtesting with ~500x speedup via vectorization, and result visualization dashboards. Claude Code implemented multi-file strategy changes, ran backtests, cleaned up configurations, and helped design an auto-trading bot architecture with a Next.js web dashboard.
Work on VitePress documentation sites for an optical simulator (degree symbols, polarization options, sidebar reorganization, Macbeth ColorChecker), fullscreen dashboard layouts with spectrum charts and CIE diagrams, and auxiliary tools like a Remotion video project and an AXEL enhancement project with Gemini API integration. Claude Code performed iterative layout refinement, accessibility fixes, multi-file edits, automated screenshots, and deployment-related tasks including ads.txt verification.
What You Wanted
Git Operations
34
Bug Fix
27
Feature Implementation
27
Ui Layout Restructuring
6
Git Push
5
Bug Fixing
5
Top Tools Used
Edit
1479
Bash
1451
Read
1404
Write
543
Grep
428
Glob
139
Languages
TypeScript
1344
Python
379
Markdown
279
HTML
196
JavaScript
112
JSON
66
Session Types
Multi Task
25
Iterative Refinement
17
Single Task
7
Quick Question
1
How You Use Claude Code
You are a prolific, multi-project power user who treats Claude Code as a near-constant development companion across an impressive breadth of work — from Godot space games and ComfyUI node development to Korean polling platforms, crypto trading bots, and optical simulation tools. Across 66 sessions and 287 commits in just over five weeks, you maintain a fast-paced, iterative refinement style: you give Claude a task, review the output quickly, and immediately course-correct or stack on the next request. You rarely write detailed upfront specifications; instead, you prefer to see results and react, which means sessions often involve multiple rounds of adjustment — like the fullscreen dashboard layout where Claude's chart placement and sizing choices repeatedly missed your vision, or the UFO positioning that needed two rounds of 20px tweaks. When Claude goes down the wrong path, you're quick to interrupt or revert (e.g., immediately removing swing arms from a launch pad, or reverting a stats section that was made too compact).
Your interaction pattern reveals someone who delegates aggressively and trusts Claude to handle multi-file changes — your top success pattern (36 instances of multi-file changes) and heavy use of Edit (1,479), Bash (1,451), and Read (1,404) tools confirm this. You often chain tasks within a single session: fix a bug, then push to git, then plan the next feature, then start implementing it. Git operations are your most common goal category (34 sessions), suggesting you use Claude not just for coding but as your end-to-end shipping pipeline — writing code, running tests, committing, pushing, and even creating GitHub releases. When friction arises, it's most often from Claude taking a wrong approach (19 instances) rather than misunderstanding your request, which makes sense given your terse, reactive prompting style. Notably, you called Claude out directly when it spent 5+ iterations on incorrect click-fix attempts before you yourself identified the browser storage root cause — you're clearly technically sharp and won't hesitate to step in when Claude is spinning.
You work across TypeScript (dominant), Python, HTML, Markdown, and JavaScript with occasional forays into Rust, Java, and CSS, reflecting genuinely diverse project types rather than a single codebase. Your satisfaction skews heavily positive (150 likely satisfied vs. 21 dissatisfied), and your outcomes cluster around "mostly achieved" (25) — a signature of someone who pushes sessions ambitiously far, often ending mid-plan or mid-implementation rather than stopping at a clean boundary. You treat Claude Code less like a careful consultant and more like a fast junior developer you're pair-programming with in real time, steering with quick corrections rather than lengthy briefs.
Key pattern: You are a rapid-iteration, multi-project power user who delegates aggressively, ships through Claude's git pipeline, and steers by reacting to outputs rather than writing detailed specifications upfront.
User Response Time Distribution
2-10s
28
10-30s
85
30s-1m
142
1-2m
170
2-5m
229
5-15m
181
>15m
90
Median: 137.5s • Average: 346.5s
Multi-Clauding (Parallel Sessions)
48
Overlap Events
49
Sessions Involved
30%
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)
185
Afternoon (12-18)
154
Evening (18-24)
654
Night (0-6)
118
Tool Errors Encountered
Command Failed
100
Other
51
User Rejected
13
Edit Failed
7
File Too Large
6
File Not Found
6
Impressive Things You Did
Over the past month, you've been an exceptionally prolific Claude Code user across 66 sessions spanning game development, trading bots, web apps, and image processing tools — with a strong track record of shipping real features and pushing code.
Rapid Multi-Project Full-Stack Shipping
You're juggling an impressive breadth of projects simultaneously — a Godot space game, a Korean polling/SNS platform, a crypto arbitrage bot, ComfyUI image processing nodes, and more — and you're consistently getting features committed and pushed in each session. With 287 commits across 66 sessions, you're averaging over 4 commits per session, showing you treat Claude as a true pair-programming partner for continuous delivery.
Iterative UI Refinement With Clear Direction
You have a strong visual sense and aren't afraid to push back when Claude's layout or design choices don't match your vision, whether it's dashboard layouts, game UI polish, or SNS-style app redesigns. This iterative feedback loop — where you clearly articulate what's wrong and what you want instead — consistently lands you at polished results, as seen in your CrossMetrology tool, VibePulse pages, and fullscreen dashboard work.
Strategic Planning Before Complex Implementation
You regularly use Claude to explore codebases, write detailed plan documents, and design systems before jumping into code — from your trading strategy improvement plans and game economy rebalancing to large-scale refactoring and feature roadmaps. Your use of TodoWrite (92 times) and TaskUpdate (83 times) shows you're leveraging structured task management to keep complex, multi-file implementations on track rather than just coding ad hoc.
What Helped Most (Claude's Capabilities)
Multi-file Changes
36
Good Debugging
5
Correct Code Edits
4
Proactive Help
3
Good Explanations
1
Outcomes
Not Achieved
1
Partially Achieved
9
Mostly Achieved
25
Fully Achieved
14
Unclear
1
Where Things Go Wrong
Your sessions frequently involve multiple correction rounds where Claude's initial implementations miss the mark, particularly around visual/UI work, debugging root causes, and architectural decisions.
Repeated UI/Layout Corrections Due to Underspecified Requirements
You often end up in multi-round back-and-forth cycles where Claude's visual and layout choices don't match your vision, costing significant iteration time. Providing wireframes, reference screenshots, or more precise specifications upfront (e.g., exact pixel values, component hierarchies, or mockup descriptions) could dramatically reduce these correction loops.
Your fullscreen dashboard layout required multiple correction rounds because Claude placed charts side-by-side with wrong grid units, when describing the exact arrangement and proportions upfront would have saved several iterations.
The CrossMetrology tool, brightness tuning, UFO positioning, and stats section compactness all needed 2+ rounds of adjustments where Claude's first guess didn't match your intent, suggesting a pattern of under-communicating visual expectations.
Misdiagnosed Root Causes Leading to Wasted Debugging Cycles
When you hit bugs, Claude often chases incorrect hypotheses through many failed attempts before finding the real cause, especially when the root issue is environmental or non-obvious. You could save time by sharing your own diagnostic suspicions earlier or providing more environmental context, since you sometimes already know the answer (as with the browser storage issue).
Claude spent 5+ iterations trying wrong fixes for broken UI clicks (route changes, locale files, frontend downgrade) before you identified browser storage as the root cause — intervening earlier with your hunch would have saved substantial time.
The rocket positioning bug went through an initial incorrect Y-coordinate fix before Claude discovered the real issue was shake code resetting X/Z to the origin, showing a pattern of surface-level fixes before deeper investigation.
Premature or Wrong Architectural Approaches Requiring Pivots
You've experienced several sessions where Claude chose an initial technical approach or architecture that failed, requiring costly pivots mid-session. When starting projects with infrastructure or stack decisions, asking Claude to evaluate tradeoffs and constraints (free tier limits, build tool requirements, SDK compatibility) before writing code could prevent these dead ends.
Your full-stack test platform went through three platform pivots (Supabase → Cloudflare → Vercel/Turso) due to free tier limits and compatibility issues, and still ended stuck on OAuth errors — an upfront constraints analysis could have avoided this.
The Claude monitoring widget app failed first with a Tauri/Rust approach due to missing build tools, then the Python fallback had threading crashes and never displayed data correctly — scoping technical prerequisites before implementation would have caught these blockers early.
Primary Friction Types
Wrong Approach
19
Buggy Code
15
Excessive Changes
3
External Service Issues
3
User Rejected Action
2
Needed Multiple Adjustments
2
Inferred Satisfaction (model-estimated)
Frustrated
2
Dissatisfied
21
Likely Satisfied
150
Satisfied
19
Happy
3
Existing CC Features to Try
Suggested CLAUDE.md Additions
Just copy this into Claude Code to add it to your CLAUDE.md.
Multiple sessions show repeated friction from Claude's layout choices not matching the user's vision, requiring 3-5+ correction rounds (dashboard layout, stats sections, component positioning).
In multiple sessions, Claude missed secondary pages (e.g., join page still showing login gate, hidden names also hiding order options), requiring user bug reports after the initial push.
Multiple sessions show Claude spending 5+ iterations on wrong debugging approaches (mouse click issue, Tauri/Python monitoring widget, rocket position bug) before finding root causes that were in completely different areas.
TypeScript type errors appeared in multiple sessions (i18n literal types, build errors after implementation) — the project is heavily TypeScript (1344 file touches) and build verification should be automatic.
One session completely failed because Claude lacked context from a previous session, and several 'continued session' workflows required extra ramp-up time.
Multiple Godot sessions hit type conversion errors (float to String, id/name mismatches) that could have been caught with basic verification.
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-commit or post-edit.
Why for you: You have frequent TypeScript build failures and type errors that slip through before commits. A pre-commit hook running `tsc --noEmit` would catch these automatically — this appeared in at least 4 sessions.
// Add to .claude/settings.json
{
"hooks": {
"pre-commit": {
"command": "npx tsc --noEmit 2>&1 | head -20",
"description": "Type-check before committing"
}
}
}
Custom Skills
Reusable prompts as markdown files that run with a single /command.
Why for you: You do git commit+push in 34+ sessions (your #1 goal category) and also frequently do review+plan workflows. Custom skills would eliminate repetitive instructions and standardize your git and planning workflows.
# Create .claude/skills/push/SKILL.md with:
# ## Push Workflow
# 1. Run the build command and fix any errors
# 2. Run tests if they exist
# 3. Stage all changes with `git add -A`
# 4. Write a conventional commit message summarizing changes
# 5. Push to the current branch
# Then just type /push in any session
Task Agents
Claude spawns focused sub-agents for complex exploration or parallel work.
Why for you: You work across many diverse projects (trading bots, Godot games, Korean web apps, ComfyUI nodes, VitePress docs) and often need codebase exploration before implementation. Sub-agents could explore and plan in parallel, especially for your multi-file refactoring sessions (36 multi-file change successes).
Try prompting: "Use an agent to explore the current authentication flow across all routes and list every page that checks login status, while I describe the feature I want to build."
New Ways to Use Claude Code
Just copy this into Claude Code and it'll walk you through it.
Front-load layout decisions with mockups
Describe your desired UI layout in structured detail upfront to avoid multi-round correction cycles.
Your sessions show a recurring pattern: you ask for a UI change, Claude implements its interpretation, you correct it, Claude re-implements, repeat 3-5 times. This happened with dashboard layouts, stats sections, sidebar positioning, and component sizing. By providing a structured description or ASCII mockup upfront, you can cut these iteration cycles by 60-70%. This is especially relevant for your dashboard, polling app, and game UI work.
Paste into Claude Code:
I want to restructure the layout. Before writing any code, show me a text-based mockup of the proposed layout with exact grid structure (rows, columns, relative sizes). I'll approve or adjust before you implement.
Request root-cause analysis before fix attempts
Ask Claude to diagnose before patching to avoid wasted iteration cycles on wrong approaches.
In several sessions, Claude jumped straight into fix attempts without proper diagnosis — spending 5+ iterations on the wrong area for click bugs, trying 3 different tech stacks for a monitoring widget, and misidentifying a camera shake issue as a position problem. Your 'wrong_approach' friction (19 occurrences) is your highest friction category. Forcing a diagnostic step first would save significant time across your bug_fix sessions (27+ sessions).
Paste into Claude Code:
Before making any changes, analyze the root cause. Read the relevant code paths, explain your top 2-3 hypotheses for what's causing this bug, and tell me which one you think is most likely and why. Don't edit any files until I confirm the diagnosis.
Use plan-then-implement for multi-feature sessions
Break long sessions into explicit plan approval gates to reduce rework and wrong approaches.
Your most successful sessions (fully_achieved) often involved clear single tasks like 'commit and push' or 'implement these 4 nodes.' Your partially_achieved sessions tend to be multi-feature marathons where scope creeps and Claude sometimes goes in wrong directions. Creating explicit checkpoints — especially for your trading bot improvements, game feature additions, and web app iteration sessions — would improve completion rates and reduce the 19 'wrong_approach' friction events.
Paste into Claude Code:
I have several things to do this session. Let's work through them one at a time. First, list what you think the tasks are based on what I've described. After each task is complete and pushed, we'll move to the next. Don't start the next task until I confirm.
On the Horizon
Your 66 sessions across game dev, trading bots, web apps, and tooling reveal a power user ready to shift from interactive iteration to autonomous, multi-agent workflows that dramatically reduce friction and correction cycles.
Parallel Test-Driven Bug Fix Agents
Your highest friction sources—wrong approach (19 cases), buggy code (15 cases), and multi-iteration debugging like the 5+ attempt click fix—can be eliminated by spawning parallel agents that each propose a different fix hypothesis, validate against tests, and only surface the winning solution. Instead of sequential guess-and-check, three agents race to a green build simultaneously.
Getting started: Use Claude Code's subagent spawning or the Task tool to fork parallel investigation branches, each constrained to run tests before reporting back. Combine with TodoWrite for structured hypothesis tracking.
Paste into Claude Code:
I have a bug: [describe symptom]. Before attempting any fix, create a TodoWrite list of 3 distinct root cause hypotheses ranked by likelihood. Then for EACH hypothesis, use a separate Task subagent to: (1) write a failing test that would confirm the hypothesis, (2) attempt the minimal fix, (3) run the full test suite. Report back ONLY the hypothesis where all tests pass. Do NOT modify the main codebase until a winning hypothesis is confirmed. If no hypothesis works, synthesize what was learned and propose a new round.
Autonomous Multi-File Refactoring With Guardrails
Multi-file changes are your top success pattern (36 sessions), but wrong-approach friction (19 cases) often means Claude commits to a direction that needs reverting—like the Tauri-to-Python pivot or the polarization misunderstanding. An autonomous refactoring workflow can execute large-scale changes in a sandboxed git branch, run the full build and test suite, and only present the diff for approval if everything passes. This turns your mostly_achieved sessions into fully_achieved ones.
Getting started: Structure prompts so Claude creates a feature branch, implements changes incrementally with build validation at each step, and uses Bash to run your existing test/build commands as automatic gates before any commit.
Paste into Claude Code:
Implement the following refactoring plan autonomously: [describe changes]. Follow this workflow strictly:
1. Create a new git branch named 'refactor/[descriptive-name]'
2. Before ANY code changes, read all files you plan to modify and list them in a TodoWrite checklist
3. Make changes ONE file at a time, running the build after each file edit
4. If any build fails, revert that single file change and try an alternative approach
5. After all files are modified and building, run the full test suite
6. If tests fail, fix forward but NEVER skip tests
7. Once green, show me a complete `git diff main` summary organized by file with a 1-line explanation per file
8. Do NOT merge to main — wait for my approval
Start now.
Self-Validating UI Implementation With Visual Specs
Your layout and UI sessions consistently require 3-5 correction rounds because Claude's spatial interpretation diverges from your vision—dashboard sizing, compact stats reverts, chart placement. By front-loading a structured visual specification and having Claude validate each component against explicit constraints before moving to the next, you can collapse those iteration cycles into a single pass. Combined with screenshot tooling, Claude can even self-check its output.
Getting started: Use TodoWrite to decompose UI tasks into individually-verifiable components with explicit pixel/percentage constraints. Have Claude run the dev server and use Bash to capture screenshots or DOM measurements as validation checkpoints.
Paste into Claude Code:
I need a UI layout implemented. Before writing ANY code, interview me about the layout by asking specific questions about:
- Exact proportions (percentages or px) for each section
- Component priority order (what gets space first if viewport is tight)
- Specific things you should NOT do (e.g., no side-by-side charts, no fr units)
After I answer, write a TodoWrite spec with each UI component as a separate checklist item including its exact sizing constraints. Then implement ONE component at a time in this order:
1. Implement component
2. Run `npm run dev` and verify no build errors
3. Use Bash to check the rendered DOM measurements match specs (e.g., grep computed styles or use a headless browser)
4. Mark TodoWrite item complete
5. Move to next component
If at any point you're unsure about sizing or placement, STOP and ask rather than guessing. Show me the running result after every 2 components.
"Claude spent 5+ attempts fixing a broken mouse click bug — trying route changes, locale files, even a frontend downgrade — before the user finally figured out it was just browser storage"
During a ComfyUI development session, Claude went down a rabbit hole of increasingly desperate fixes for broken UI clicks, while the actual culprit was stale browser storage the whole time. The user had to explicitly call out the wild goose chase.