diff --git a/.devagent/DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md b/.devagent/DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0cbc980
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.devagent/DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md
@@ -0,0 +1,1296 @@
+# Developer Guide: Spec-Driven Feature Implementation
+
+This guide walks you through implementing new features using the DevAgent workflow system. Follow these steps to go from idea to implementation with proper documentation and validation.
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. [Quick Start](#quick-start)
+2. [Workflow Overview](#workflow-overview)
+3. [Step-by-Step Process](#step-by-step-process)
+4. [Command Reference](#command-reference)
+5. [Example Interactions](#example-interactions)
+6. [Best Practices](#best-practices)
+
+---
+
+## Quick Start
+
+For a simple feature, the typical flow is:
+
+```bash
+# 1. Scaffold feature hub
+/new-feature "Add user profile editing"
+
+# 2. Research existing patterns
+/research "How do we handle form editing in this codebase?"
+
+# 3. Clarify requirements
+/clarify-feature
+
+# 4. Create specification
+/create-spec
+
+# 5. Plan implementation tasks
+/plan-tasks
+
+# 6. Generate task prompts
+/create-task-prompt
+
+# 7. Implement (using Cursor AI with task prompts)
+# 8. Validate code
+/validate-code
+```
+
+---
+
+## Workflow Overview
+
+The DevAgent system uses a structured workflow to ensure features are well-researched, clearly specified, and properly implemented. Here's how the pieces fit together:
+
+```
+Feature Idea
+    ↓
+[new-feature] → Scaffold feature hub
+    ↓
+[research] → Investigate technical patterns & constraints
+    ↓
+[clarify-feature] → Validate requirements with stakeholders
+    ↓
+[create-spec] → Write detailed specification
+    ↓
+[plan-tasks] → Break down into implementation tasks
+    ↓
+[create-task-prompt] → Generate AI-ready task prompts
+    ↓
+Implementation → Code using Cursor AI
+    ↓
+[validate-code] → Lint, typecheck, test
+    ↓
+Complete
+```
+
+**For complex features**, use the full workflow. **For simple enhancements**, you can skip directly to `research` → `create-task-prompt`.
+
+---
+
+## Step-by-Step Process
+
+### Step 1: Scaffold Feature Hub
+
+**Command:** `/new-feature`
+
+**When to use:** Start here for any new feature, even if it's just an idea.
+
+**Input:** Feature title or 1-2 sentence description
+
+**What it does:**
+- Creates feature hub at `.devagent/workspace/features/YYYY-MM-DD_feature-slug/`
+- Generates `AGENTS.md` with feature metadata
+- Creates empty folders: `research/`, `spec/`, `tasks/`
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /new-feature "Add datatable to view dataset data"
+
+AI: Creates .devagent/workspace/features/2025-11-06_simple-datatable-to-view-data/
+     with AGENTS.md and folder structure.
+     
+     Recommended next steps:
+     - /research "table components and data access patterns"
+     - /clarify-feature
+```
+
+**Output:** Feature hub directory with `AGENTS.md` tracking progress
+
+---
+
+### Step 2: Research Technical Patterns
+
+**Command:** `/research`
+
+**When to use:** Before writing specs, investigate existing code patterns, libraries, and constraints.
+
+**Input:** Research question or problem statement
+
+**What it does:**
+- Searches codebase for existing patterns
+- Reviews documentation and prior research
+- Synthesizes findings into actionable recommendations
+- Creates research packet in `research/YYYY-MM-DD_topic.md`
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /research "What table components exist in the codebase? 
+     How do we query organization database tables? 
+     What libraries are available for data tables?"
+
+AI: Investigates codebase, finds:
+     - Existing Table component in ai-elements
+     - TanStack Table v8 installed but unused
+     - Dataset access via getDatasetById() helper
+     - Organization databases accessed via Turso client
+     
+     Creates: research/2025-11-06_datatable-components-and-tanstack-table-research.md
+```
+
+**Output:** Research packet with findings, recommendations, and code references
+
+**⚠️ Handling Unclear Information in Research:**
+
+If research finds gaps or unclear information, the research packet will tag them with `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]`. Here's how to handle it:
+
+**Example: Research Finds Gaps**
+
+```
+You: /research "How do we handle real-time data updates in tables?"
+
+AI: Investigates codebase, finds:
+     - No existing real-time update patterns
+     - WebSocket infrastructure exists but unused
+     - [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Update frequency requirements?
+     - [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Should updates be push or pull?
+     
+     Creates: research/2025-11-06_realtime-updates-research.md
+     with open questions section
+```
+
+**What to do:**
+1. Review the research packet's "Risks & Open Questions" section
+2. For **clarifiable questions** (stakeholder decisions): Add to clarification packet
+3. For **researchable questions** (technical evidence): Run additional research
+4. Document assumptions if proceeding without answers
+
+**Example: Following Up on Research Gaps**
+
+```
+You: [Review research packet, see open questions]
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+     [Include research questions in input]
+
+AI: Adds research questions to clarification packet:
+     - "What is the required update frequency for real-time data?"
+     - "Should updates use WebSocket push or polling?"
+
+You: [Meet with stakeholders, get answers]
+
+You: /research "WebSocket vs polling performance for 1000+ concurrent users"
+
+AI: [Provides technical evidence for decision]
+```
+
+---
+
+### Step 3: Clarify Requirements
+
+**Command:** `/clarify-feature`
+
+**When to use:** When requirements are unclear or you need stakeholder validation.
+
+**Input:** Feature concept (can reference feature hub)
+
+**What it does:**
+- Validates requirements across 8 dimensions:
+  1. Problem Statement
+  2. Success Criteria
+  3. Users & Stakeholders
+  4. Constraints
+  5. Scope Boundaries
+  6. Solution Principles
+  7. Dependencies
+  8. Acceptance Criteria
+- Creates clarification packet in `clarification/YYYY-MM-DD_initial-clarification.md`
+- Identifies gaps requiring stakeholder input
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: Reviews feature hub and research, creates clarification packet.
+     Identifies gaps:
+     - Success metrics not defined
+     - Performance benchmarks missing
+     - Timeline unclear
+     
+     Creates: clarification/2025-11-06_initial-clarification.md
+     
+     Next: Schedule stakeholder meeting to fill gaps
+```
+
+**Output:** Clarification packet with validated requirements and identified gaps
+
+**⚠️ Handling Clarification Gaps:**
+
+The clarification packet will show completeness scores (e.g., "4/8 dimensions complete") and identify gaps. Here's how to handle them:
+
+**Example: Clarification Identifies Missing Requirements**
+
+```
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: Creates clarification packet with:
+     ✓ Problem Statement: Complete
+     ⚠️ Success Criteria: Partial (missing metrics)
+     ✓ Users & Stakeholders: Complete
+     ⚠️ Constraints: Partial (timeline unclear)
+     ⚠️ Scope Boundaries: Partial (MVP vs full scope unclear)
+     ✓ Solution Principles: Complete
+     ⚠️ Dependencies: Partial (API availability unknown)
+     ⚠️ Acceptance Criteria: Partial (edge cases missing)
+     
+     Completeness: 3/8 dimensions complete
+     Status: More Clarification Needed
+     
+     Creates: clarification/2025-11-06_initial-clarification.md
+```
+
+**What to do next:**
+
+**Option A: Fill Gaps with Stakeholders (Recommended)**
+
+1. Review the clarification packet's "Gaps Requiring Research" and "Gaps Requiring Clarification" sections
+2. Prepare specific questions for stakeholders
+3. Schedule clarification session or async Q&A
+4. Update clarification packet with answers
+
+**Example: Filling Clarification Gaps**
+
+```
+You: [Review clarification packet, see gaps]
+
+You: [Email stakeholder with specific questions]
+     "Hi [Stakeholder],
+     
+     I'm clarifying requirements for the datatable feature. 
+     Need your input on:
+     
+     1. Success Metrics: What % of users should use this feature?
+        (Current: Not defined)
+     
+     2. Timeline: Is this needed for V1 launch or can it be post-launch?
+        (Current: Unclear)
+     
+     3. Performance: What's acceptable load time for first page?
+        (Current: No benchmark)
+     
+     See full clarification packet:
+     .devagent/workspace/features/.../clarification/2025-11-06_initial-clarification.md
+     "
+
+[Stakeholder responds with answers]
+
+You: [Update clarification packet manually or re-run clarify-feature with new info]
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+     [Include stakeholder answers in input]
+
+AI: Updates clarification packet with new information:
+     ✓ Success Criteria: Complete (50% adoption target)
+     ✓ Constraints: Complete (Post-V1 launch acceptable)
+     ✓ Scope Boundaries: Complete (MVP scope defined)
+     
+     Completeness: 6/8 dimensions complete
+     Status: Ready for Spec (with assumptions)
+```
+
+**Option B: Proceed with Assumptions (For MVP)**
+
+If stakeholders are unavailable or timeline is tight:
+
+1. Document assumptions explicitly in clarification packet
+2. Mark assumptions with "Validation Required: Yes"
+3. Proceed to spec with clear assumption log
+4. Schedule follow-up validation
+
+**Example: Proceeding with Assumptions**
+
+```
+You: [Review clarification packet, stakeholders unavailable]
+
+You: [Edit clarification packet manually, add assumptions section]
+
+You: "Assumptions (to be validated):
+     - Success metric: 50% adoption (assumed, needs validation)
+     - Timeline: Post-V1 acceptable (assumed, needs validation)
+     - Performance: < 3s load time (assumed, needs validation)
+     "
+
+You: /create-spec
+     [Include note about assumptions]
+
+AI: Creates spec with assumptions clearly documented in Risks section
+```
+
+**Option C: Escalate Mission Conflicts**
+
+If requirements conflict with product mission:
+
+```
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: Identifies mission conflict:
+     "Feature requires real-time updates, but product mission 
+     emphasizes simplicity and low infrastructure costs.
+     
+     [ESCALATION NEEDED] Mission alignment check required."
+
+You: /update-product-mission
+     [Include conflict details]
+
+AI: [Reviews mission, provides guidance on alignment]
+```
+
+**Iterative Clarification Cycles:**
+
+For complex features, expect multiple clarification cycles:
+
+```
+Cycle 1: Initial clarification (3/8 complete)
+  ↓
+[Fill gaps with stakeholders]
+  ↓
+Cycle 2: Updated clarification (6/8 complete)
+  ↓
+[Address remaining technical unknowns]
+  ↓
+Cycle 3: Final clarification (8/8 complete)
+  ↓
+Ready for spec
+```
+
+**Decision Point: When to Proceed?**
+
+- **8/8 dimensions complete:** Proceed to spec
+- **6-7/8 dimensions complete:** Proceed with documented assumptions
+- **< 6/8 dimensions complete:** Fill gaps before proceeding
+- **Mission conflicts:** Escalate before proceeding
+
+---
+
+### Step 4: Create Specification
+
+**Command:** `/create-spec`
+
+**When to use:** After research and clarification are complete (or sufficient for MVP).
+
+**Input:** Feature hub path and research/clarification references
+
+**What it does:**
+- Synthesizes research and requirements into detailed spec
+- Defines functional narrative, technical approach, and acceptance criteria
+- Creates spec document in `spec/YYYY-MM-DD_feature-spec.md`
+- Links to research and clarification artifacts
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /create-spec
+
+AI: Reads research and clarification packets, creates comprehensive spec:
+     - Context & Objectives
+     - User Stories
+     - Functional Requirements
+     - Technical Approach (TanStack Table, server-side pagination)
+     - Acceptance Criteria
+     - Risks & Open Questions
+     
+     Creates: spec/2025-11-06_datatable-specification.md
+```
+
+**Output:** Review-ready specification document
+
+**⚠️ Handling Spec Gaps:**
+
+If `create-spec` identifies missing information, it will flag gaps and recommend next steps:
+
+**Example: Spec Identifies Missing Requirements**
+
+```
+You: /create-spec
+
+AI: Reads clarification packet (6/8 complete), identifies gaps:
+     
+     "Cannot draft Technical Approach section:
+     - [MISSING] API endpoint structure unclear
+     - [MISSING] Error handling strategy undefined
+     - [ASSUMPTION] Using TanStack Table (from research, needs validation)
+     
+     Recommendation: Run /research for API patterns
+     or update clarification packet with technical decisions."
+
+You: [Choose one:]
+     Option A: /research "API endpoint patterns for pagination"
+     Option B: [Update clarification packet with technical decisions]
+     Option C: [Proceed with assumptions documented in Risks section]
+```
+
+**What to do:**
+- **For technical gaps:** Run additional research
+- **For requirement gaps:** Update clarification packet, re-run clarify-feature
+- **For assumptions:** Document in spec's Risks section, proceed with validation plan
+
+---
+
+### Step 5: Plan Implementation Tasks
+
+**Command:** `/plan-tasks`
+
+**When to use:** After spec is approved, before starting implementation.
+
+**Input:** Spec path
+
+**What it does:**
+- Breaks spec into ordered, execution-focused tasks
+- Maps tasks to specific files/modules
+- Includes validation (tests, linting) in each task
+- Creates task plan in `tasks/YYYY-MM-DD_task-plan.md`
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /plan-tasks
+
+AI: Analyzes spec, creates task breakdown:
+     Task 1: Create DataTable component using TanStack Table
+     Task 2: Implement server-side pagination endpoint
+     Task 3: Add route for dataset viewing
+     Task 4: Write tests for DataTable component
+     Task 5: Write tests for pagination endpoint
+     
+     Creates: tasks/2025-11-06_datatable-implementation-plan.md
+```
+
+**Output:** Task plan with concrete implementation steps
+
+---
+
+### Step 6: Generate Task Prompts
+
+**Command:** `/create-task-prompt`
+
+**When to use:** When ready to start coding, convert tasks into AI-ready prompts.
+
+**Input:** Task plan or spec path
+
+**What it does:**
+- Converts tasks into detailed AI execution prompts
+- Includes context references (research, specs, code paths)
+- Creates task prompt file in `tasks/YYYY-MM-DD_task-slug.md`
+- Each task includes: description, execution prompt, file hints, context refs
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /create-task-prompt
+
+AI: Creates task prompt file with:
+     Task 1.1: Create DataTable component
+       - Execution prompt: "Create a DataTable component using TanStack 
+         Table v8 that displays dataset rows with server-side pagination..."
+       - File hints: app/components/DataTable.tsx, packages/components/src/ui/table.tsx
+       - Context refs: research/2025-11-06_datatable-research.md, 
+         spec/2025-11-06_datatable-spec.md
+     
+     Creates: tasks/2025-11-06_datatable-component-task.md
+```
+
+**Output:** AI-ready task prompts with full context
+
+---
+
+### Step 7: Implement Using Cursor AI
+
+**When to use:** During coding, reference task prompts in Cursor chat.
+
+**How to use:**
+1. Open the task prompt file in Cursor
+2. Copy the execution prompt for the current task
+3. Paste into Cursor chat with context references
+4. AI implements the task using provided context
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: [Paste task prompt from tasks/2025-11-06_datatable-component-task.md]
+     
+     Task 1.1: Create DataTable component using TanStack Table v8...
+     
+     Reference: research/2025-11-06_datatable-research.md
+     Reference: spec/2025-11-06_datatable-spec.md
+     Reference: packages/components/src/ui/table.tsx
+
+AI: [Implements DataTable component following spec and research findings]
+```
+
+**Best Practice:** Work through tasks sequentially, validating each before moving to the next.
+
+---
+
+### Step 8: Validate Code
+
+**Command:** `/validate-code`
+
+**When to use:** After implementing a task or before committing.
+
+**What it does:**
+- Runs `bun run lint` - checks for linting errors
+- Runs `bun run typecheck` - checks for TypeScript errors
+- Runs `bun run test` - runs all tests
+- Provides specific fix suggestions if errors found
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /validate-code
+
+AI: Running lint... ✓ No errors
+    Running typecheck... ✗ Error in DataTable.tsx:42
+    Running tests... ✗ 2 tests failing
+    
+    [Provides specific fix suggestions with file paths and line numbers]
+```
+
+**Output:** Validation results with fix suggestions
+
+---
+
+### Step 9: Review Progress (Optional)
+
+**Command:** `/review-progress`
+
+**When to use:** When switching contexts, at end of day, or after interruptions.
+
+**Input:** Task prompt or spec path, current progress state
+
+**What it does:**
+- Captures what's completed, in progress, and blocked
+- Identifies immediate next steps
+- Updates `AGENTS.md` with progress
+- Creates checkpoint file for easy resumption
+
+**Example:**
+
+```
+You: /review-progress
+     Task: tasks/2025-11-06_datatable-component-task.md
+     Completed: Task 1.1 (DataTable component created)
+     In Progress: Task 1.2 (Server pagination endpoint)
+     Blocked: Need clarification on pagination API format
+
+AI: Creates checkpoint:
+     ✓ Completed: DataTable component with TanStack Table
+     ⏳ In Progress: Pagination endpoint (50% complete)
+     ⚠️ Blocked: API format clarification needed
+     
+     Next Steps:
+     1. Clarify pagination API with team
+     2. Complete pagination endpoint
+     3. Write tests for endpoint
+     
+     Updates: AGENTS.md with progress log entry
+```
+
+**Output:** Progress checkpoint and updated `AGENTS.md`
+
+---
+
+## Command Reference
+
+### Core Commands
+
+| Command | Purpose | Input | Output |
+|---------|---------|-------|--------|
+| `/new-feature` | Scaffold feature hub | Title/description | Feature hub with `AGENTS.md` |
+| `/research` | Investigate technical patterns | Research question | Research packet |
+| `/clarify-feature` | Validate requirements | Feature concept | Clarification packet |
+| `/create-spec` | Write specification | Feature hub path | Specification document |
+| `/plan-tasks` | Break down implementation | Spec path | Task plan |
+| `/create-task-prompt` | Generate AI prompts | Task plan/spec | Task prompt file |
+| `/validate-code` | Validate implementation | None | Lint/typecheck/test results |
+| `/review-progress` | Capture progress state | Task/spec + progress | Checkpoint file |
+
+### Additional Commands
+
+| Command | Purpose | When to Use |
+|---------|---------|-------------|
+| `/brainstorm` | Generate feature ideas | Exploring solution space |
+| `/update-product-mission` | Update product mission | Mission conflicts or updates |
+| `/update-tech-stack` | Document tech stack | New project or major changes |
+| `/update-constitution` | Update governance docs | Constitutional changes |
+
+---
+
+## Handling Unclear Information: Decision Tree
+
+Use this decision tree when you encounter unclear information:
+
+```
+Encounter unclear information
+    ↓
+Is it a technical question?
+    ├─ YES → /research "specific technical question"
+    │         ↓
+    │    Research provides answer?
+    │    ├─ YES → Continue workflow
+    │    └─ NO → Document as assumption, proceed with validation plan
+    │
+    └─ NO → Is it a stakeholder decision?
+            ├─ YES → Add to clarification packet
+            │         ↓
+            │    Stakeholder available?
+            │    ├─ YES → Schedule clarification session
+            │    │         Fill gaps → Update clarification packet
+            │    └─ NO → Document assumption with "Validation Required"
+            │            Proceed to spec with assumption log
+            │
+            └─ NO → Is it a product mission question?
+                    ├─ YES → /update-product-mission
+                    │         Resolve conflict → Continue workflow
+                    └─ NO → Document in Risks & Open Questions
+                            Proceed with best-effort assumption
+```
+
+---
+
+## Example Interactions
+
+### Example 1: Simple Feature (Quick Path)
+
+**Scenario:** Add a "Copy to Clipboard" button to dataset cards.
+
+```
+You: /new-feature "Add copy dataset ID to clipboard button"
+
+AI: [Creates feature hub]
+
+You: /research "How do we handle clipboard operations in React? 
+     Are there existing copy buttons in the codebase?"
+
+AI: [Finds existing clipboard patterns, creates research packet]
+
+You: /create-task-prompt
+
+AI: [Creates task prompt with implementation steps]
+
+You: [Implements using Cursor AI with task prompt]
+
+You: /validate-code
+
+AI: [Validates code, provides fixes if needed]
+```
+
+**Result:** Feature implemented with minimal overhead.
+
+---
+
+### Example 2: Complex Feature (Full Workflow)
+
+**Scenario:** Build a data visualization dashboard.
+
+```
+You: /new-feature "Create data visualization dashboard"
+
+AI: [Creates feature hub]
+
+You: /research "What chart libraries are available? 
+     How do we structure dashboard layouts? 
+     What's the data access pattern for aggregated queries?"
+
+AI: [Investigates, creates comprehensive research packet]
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: [Creates clarification packet, identifies gaps]
+     "Need stakeholder input on: chart types, refresh intervals, 
+     user permissions"
+
+You: [Meets with stakeholders, fills gaps]
+
+You: /create-spec
+
+AI: [Creates detailed spec with all requirements]
+
+You: /plan-tasks
+
+AI: [Breaks down into 8 implementation tasks]
+
+You: /create-task-prompt
+
+AI: [Creates task prompts for each task]
+
+You: [Implements Task 1 using Cursor AI]
+
+You: /validate-code
+
+AI: [Validates, provides fixes]
+
+You: [Continues with remaining tasks...]
+
+You: /review-progress
+
+AI: [Captures progress, updates AGENTS.md]
+```
+
+**Result:** Well-documented, validated feature with full traceability.
+
+---
+
+### Example 3: Bug Fix (Minimal Workflow)
+
+**Scenario:** Fix form validation error.
+
+```
+You: /research "Form validation error on email field - 
+     what's the current validation logic?"
+
+AI: [Finds validation code, identifies issue]
+
+You: [Fixes bug directly]
+
+You: /validate-code
+
+AI: [Validates fix]
+```
+
+**Result:** Quick fix without full workflow overhead.
+
+---
+
+### Example 4: Feature with Unclear Requirements (Iterative Clarification)
+
+**Scenario:** Build export feature, but requirements are vague.
+
+```
+You: /new-feature "Add data export functionality"
+
+AI: [Creates feature hub]
+
+You: /research "What export formats are supported? 
+     How do we handle large file exports?"
+
+AI: Investigates, finds:
+     - No existing export functionality
+     - [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Which formats? (CSV, Excel, PDF?)
+     - [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] File size limits?
+     
+     Creates: research/2025-11-06_export-research.md
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: Creates clarification packet:
+     ⚠️ Problem Statement: Partial (why export needed?)
+     ⚠️ Success Criteria: Missing (adoption target?)
+     ⚠️ Scope Boundaries: Unclear (which formats?)
+     ⚠️ Constraints: Missing (file size limits?)
+     
+     Completeness: 2/8 dimensions complete
+     Status: More Clarification Needed
+     
+     Creates: clarification/2025-11-06_initial-clarification.md
+
+You: [Review clarification packet, prepare questions]
+
+You: [Email product manager]
+     "Hi [PM],
+     
+     Clarifying export feature requirements:
+     
+     1. Why do users need export? (use case)
+     2. Which formats? (CSV, Excel, PDF, all?)
+     3. File size limits? (10MB, 100MB, unlimited?)
+     4. Success metric? (% of users who export)
+     
+     See: clarification/2025-11-06_initial-clarification.md
+     "
+
+[PM responds]:
+- Use case: Users need to share data with external tools
+- Formats: CSV and Excel (PDF later)
+- File size: 50MB limit
+- Success: 30% of active users export monthly
+
+You: [Update clarification packet with answers]
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+     [Include PM answers]
+
+AI: Updates clarification packet:
+     ✓ Problem Statement: Complete
+     ✓ Success Criteria: Complete (30% monthly export rate)
+     ✓ Scope Boundaries: Complete (CSV/Excel MVP, PDF later)
+     ✓ Constraints: Complete (50MB limit)
+     
+     Completeness: 6/8 dimensions complete
+     Status: Ready for Spec (with assumptions)
+
+You: /create-spec
+
+AI: Creates spec with documented assumptions:
+     - Technical approach for 50MB file generation
+     - CSV/Excel implementation (PDF deferred)
+     - Success tracking for export usage
+     
+     Creates: spec/2025-11-06_export-specification.md
+```
+
+**Result:** Iterative clarification cycle fills gaps before spec work.
+
+---
+
+### Example 5: Research Finds Conflicting Information
+
+**Scenario:** Research discovers conflicting patterns in codebase.
+
+```
+You: /research "How do we handle authentication in API routes?"
+
+AI: Investigates, finds:
+     - Pattern A: Uses session cookies (older routes)
+     - Pattern B: Uses Bearer tokens (newer routes)
+     - [CONFLICT] Two different patterns exist
+     - [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Which pattern should new feature use?
+     
+     Creates: research/2025-11-06_auth-patterns-research.md
+     with conflict documented
+
+You: [Review research, see conflict]
+
+You: /clarify-feature
+     [Include auth pattern question]
+
+AI: Adds to clarification packet:
+     ⚠️ Solution Principles: Partial
+     - [CONFLICT] Authentication pattern unclear
+     - [RECOMMENDATION] Standardize on Bearer tokens (newer pattern)
+     - [VALIDATION REQUIRED] Confirm with team lead
+
+You: [Check with team lead]
+
+Team Lead: "Use Bearer tokens for all new features"
+
+You: [Update clarification packet]
+
+You: /create-spec
+
+AI: Uses Bearer token pattern in spec
+```
+
+**Result:** Conflict resolved through clarification, spec uses consistent pattern.
+
+---
+
+### Example 6: Stakeholder Unavailable (Proceeding with Assumptions)
+
+**Scenario:** Need to proceed, but stakeholder is on vacation.
+
+```
+You: /clarify-feature
+
+AI: Creates clarification packet:
+     ⚠️ Success Criteria: Missing (adoption target?)
+     ⚠️ Timeline: Missing (deadline?)
+     
+     Completeness: 6/8 dimensions complete
+     Status: More Clarification Needed
+     
+     Stakeholder: [Unavailable until next week]
+
+You: [Document assumptions in clarification packet]
+
+You: "Assumptions (to be validated with [Stakeholder] on return):
+     - Success metric: 40% adoption (industry benchmark)
+     - Timeline: Flexible, can adjust post-launch
+     - Validation required: Yes
+     - Validation date: [Stakeholder return date]
+     "
+
+You: /create-spec
+     [Include note about assumptions]
+
+AI: Creates spec with:
+     - Assumptions clearly documented in Risks section
+     - Validation plan included
+     - Proceeds with best-effort assumptions
+     
+     Creates: spec/2025-11-06_feature-spec.md
+
+[Later, when stakeholder returns]
+
+You: [Review assumptions with stakeholder]
+
+Stakeholder: "Adoption target should be 50%, not 40%"
+
+You: [Update clarification packet]
+
+You: /create-spec
+     [Re-run with updated requirements]
+
+AI: Updates spec with corrected success metric
+```
+
+**Result:** Feature proceeds with documented assumptions, validated later.
+
+---
+
+## Clarification Scenarios & Solutions
+
+### Scenario 1: Research Finds Gaps
+
+**Problem:** Research identifies missing information or unclear patterns.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Review research packet's "Risks & Open Questions" section
+2. Classify gaps:
+   - **Technical questions** → Additional research
+   - **Stakeholder decisions** → Add to clarification
+   - **Assumptions** → Document and proceed
+3. Update research packet or create follow-up research
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Research finds: "[NEEDS CLARIFICATION] Update frequency?"
+→ Add to clarification packet
+→ Get stakeholder answer
+→ Update clarification packet
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario 2: Clarification Incomplete
+
+**Problem:** Clarification packet shows < 6/8 dimensions complete.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Review "Gaps Requiring Clarification" section
+2. Prepare specific questions for stakeholders
+3. Schedule clarification session (sync or async)
+4. Update clarification packet with answers
+5. Re-run `/clarify-feature` if needed
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Clarification: 3/8 complete
+→ Identify missing dimensions
+→ Prepare stakeholder questions
+→ Get answers
+→ Update clarification packet
+→ Re-run clarify-feature
+→ Now 7/8 complete, proceed with assumption
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario 3: Stakeholder Conflicts
+
+**Problem:** Different stakeholders have conflicting requirements.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Document both positions in clarification packet
+2. Identify decision maker
+3. Escalate to decision maker or product mission
+4. Do not proceed until resolved
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Stakeholder A: "Feature must support real-time updates"
+Stakeholder B: "Feature should be simple, no real-time"
+→ Document both in clarification packet
+→ Escalate to product manager (decision maker)
+→ Get decision: "MVP without real-time, add later"
+→ Update clarification packet
+→ Proceed
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario 4: Mission Conflicts
+
+**Problem:** Requirements conflict with product mission.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Document conflict in clarification packet
+2. Escalate to `/update-product-mission`
+3. Get alignment decision
+4. Update clarification packet
+5. Proceed with aligned requirements
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Requirement: "Real-time updates for all users"
+Mission: "Keep infrastructure costs low"
+→ Conflict identified
+→ Escalate to update-product-mission
+→ Decision: "Real-time for premium users only"
+→ Update clarification packet
+→ Proceed
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario 5: Technical Unknowns
+
+**Problem:** Technical approach is unclear or risky.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Document unknowns in research or clarification
+2. Run additional research for technical evidence
+3. Create spike/prototype if needed
+4. Document assumptions and risks in spec
+5. Proceed with validation plan
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Unknown: "Can WebSocket handle 10k concurrent connections?"
+→ Run research: "WebSocket scalability patterns"
+→ Research finds: "Yes, with proper infrastructure"
+→ Document in spec with infrastructure requirements
+→ Proceed
+```
+
+---
+
+### Scenario 6: Timeline Pressure
+
+**Problem:** Need to proceed quickly, but requirements incomplete.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Prioritize Must-have clarification (defer Should/Could)
+2. Document assumptions explicitly
+3. Mark assumptions as "Validation Required"
+4. Proceed to MVP spec with assumption log
+5. Schedule follow-up clarification for post-MVP features
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Timeline: "Need MVP in 2 weeks"
+Clarification: 5/8 complete (missing Should/Could items)
+→ Document Must-have assumptions
+→ Proceed to MVP spec
+→ Defer Should/Could clarification to post-MVP
+→ Schedule follow-up session
+```
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices
+
+### 1. Choose the Right Workflow Path
+
+- **Complex features:** Use full workflow (new-feature → research → clarify → spec → plan → prompt)
+- **Simple enhancements:** Skip to research → create-task-prompt
+- **Bug fixes:** Research → fix → validate
+
+### 2. Keep Artifacts Updated
+
+- Update `AGENTS.md` as you progress
+- Link related artifacts (research → spec → tasks)
+- Document decisions in feature hub
+
+### 3. Use Context Effectively
+
+- Always reference research and specs in task prompts
+- Include file paths and code references
+- Link to related features or ADRs
+
+### 4. Validate Early and Often
+
+- Run `/validate-code` after each task
+- Fix linting/type errors immediately
+- Write tests as you implement
+
+### 5. Document Assumptions
+
+- Use `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` tags in research/clarification
+- Document assumptions in specs with "Validation Required" flag
+- Track open questions in `AGENTS.md`
+- **Never proceed with undocumented assumptions**
+
+**Example of Good Assumption Documentation:**
+```
+Assumption: 50% feature adoption target
+Validation Required: Yes
+Validation Method: Stakeholder confirmation
+Validation Date: 2025-11-15
+Owner: Product Manager
+Risk if Wrong: Medium (affects success metrics)
+```
+
+### 5a. Handle Clarification Gaps Systematically
+
+- **< 6/8 dimensions complete:** Fill gaps before proceeding
+- **6-7/8 dimensions complete:** Document assumptions, proceed with validation plan
+- **8/8 dimensions complete:** Proceed to spec
+- **Mission conflicts:** Escalate immediately, do not proceed
+
+### 6. Progress Tracking
+
+- Use `/review-progress` when switching contexts
+- Update `AGENTS.md` Progress Log regularly
+- Create checkpoints for complex features
+
+### 7. Workflow Integration
+
+- Commands are designed to work together
+- Each workflow produces artifacts for the next
+- Follow recommended "Next Steps" from each command
+
+---
+
+## Troubleshooting
+
+### Missing Type Errors
+
+**Problem:** TypeScript errors about missing `./+types/[routeName]` imports.
+
+**Solution:** Run `bun run typecheck` to generate types. Never change import paths.
+
+### Workflow Not Executing
+
+**Problem:** Command returns description instead of executing.
+
+**Solution:** Ensure you're using the exact command format: `/[workflow-name]`. Check `.agents/commands/` for available commands.
+
+### Feature Hub Already Exists
+
+**Problem:** `/new-feature` fails because folder exists.
+
+**Solution:** The workflow will append a numeric suffix automatically. Or manually specify a different slug.
+
+### Missing Context
+
+**Problem:** Task prompts lack necessary context.
+
+**Solution:** Ensure research and spec are complete. Use `/clarify-feature` to fill gaps before creating task prompts.
+
+### Clarification Incomplete
+
+**Problem:** Clarification packet shows low completeness score (< 6/8).
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Review "Gaps Requiring Clarification" section
+2. Prepare specific questions for stakeholders
+3. Schedule clarification session
+4. Update clarification packet with answers
+5. Re-run `/clarify-feature` if needed
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Clarification: 3/8 complete
+→ Review gaps: Success metrics, Timeline, Performance benchmarks
+→ Prepare questions for stakeholder
+→ Get answers via email/meeting
+→ Update clarification packet manually or re-run clarify-feature
+→ Now 7/8 complete, proceed with documented assumption
+```
+
+### Research Finds Conflicting Patterns
+
+**Problem:** Research discovers multiple conflicting approaches in codebase.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Document conflict in research packet
+2. Add conflict to clarification packet
+3. Escalate to team lead or decision maker
+4. Get decision on which pattern to use
+5. Update clarification packet with decision
+6. Proceed with consistent pattern
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Research finds: Two auth patterns (session vs Bearer token)
+→ Document conflict in research
+→ Add to clarification: "Which pattern for new feature?"
+→ Check with team lead
+→ Decision: "Use Bearer tokens (newer pattern)"
+→ Update clarification packet
+→ Proceed
+```
+
+### Stakeholder Unavailable
+
+**Problem:** Need clarification, but stakeholder is unavailable.
+
+**Solution:**
+1. Document assumptions explicitly
+2. Mark assumptions with "Validation Required: Yes"
+3. Include validation plan (who, when, how)
+4. Proceed to spec with assumption log
+5. Schedule follow-up validation when stakeholder returns
+
+**Example:**
+```
+Stakeholder unavailable until next week
+→ Document assumption: "50% adoption target (industry benchmark)"
+→ Mark: "Validation Required: Yes, Owner: PM, Date: Next week"
+→ Proceed to spec with assumption documented
+→ Validate when stakeholder returns
+→ Update spec if assumption was wrong
+```
+
+---
+
+## File Structure Reference
+
+```
+.devagent/
+├── core/
+│   ├── workflows/          # Workflow definitions
+│   └── templates/          # Templates for artifacts
+└── workspace/
+    └── features/
+        └── active/
+            └── YYYY-MM-DD_feature-slug/
+                ├── AGENTS.md              # Progress tracker
+                ├── research/              # Research packets
+                ├── clarification/         # Requirement clarification
+                ├── spec/                  # Specifications
+                └── tasks/                 # Task plans & prompts
+
+.agents/
+└── commands/               # Command files (symlinked to .cursor/commands)
+```
+
+---
+
+## Getting Help
+
+- **Workflow questions:** Review `.devagent/core/workflows/[workflow-name].md`
+- **Command reference:** Check `.agents/commands/[command-name].md`
+- **Project patterns:** See `AGENTS.md` (root) and `.devagent/core/AGENTS.md`
+- **Code standards:** Review `.cursor/rules/` for coding guidelines
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference Card
+
+```
+New Feature Workflow:
+1. /new-feature "Title"
+2. /research "Question"
+3. /clarify-feature
+4. /create-spec
+5. /plan-tasks
+6. /create-task-prompt
+7. [Implement with Cursor AI]
+8. /validate-code
+9. /review-progress (optional)
+
+Simple Enhancement:
+1. /research "Question"
+2. /create-task-prompt
+3. [Implement]
+4. /validate-code
+
+Bug Fix:
+1. /research "Problem"
+2. [Fix]
+3. /validate-code
+```
+
+---
+
+*Last Updated: 2025-11-07*
+
diff --git a/.devagent/learned-lessons.md b/.devagent/learned-lessons.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..374c21b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.devagent/learned-lessons.md
@@ -0,0 +1,529 @@
+# DevAgent Learned Lessons: First-Time User Experience
+
+**Author:** Antony Duran  
+**Date:** 2025-11-13  
+**Context:** First implementation using DevAgent workflows for "Simple Datatable to View Data" feature
+
+---
+
+## Table of Contents
+
+1. [Initial Impressions & Confusion](#initial-impressions--confusion)
+2. [How Workflows Work in Practice](#how-workflows-work-in-practice)
+3. [The Iterative Process & DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md](#the-iterative-process--developer-guidemd)
+4. [Common Questions & Solutions](#common-questions--solutions)
+5. [Best Practices & Recommendations](#best-practices--recommendations)
+
+---
+
+## Initial Impressions & Confusion
+
+### The Overwhelming First Look
+
+When first encountering DevAgent, the structure can feel overwhelming. There are multiple directories (`.devagent/core/`, `.devagent/workspace/`, `.agents/commands/`), workflows, templates, and documentation scattered across different locations.
+
+**Key Confusion Points:**
+- **`.agents/commands/` vs `.devagent/core/workflows/`** — What's the difference? How do they relate?
+- **Where to start?** — The `.devagent/core/README.md` exists but isn't immediately obvious
+- **Workflow vs Command** — Are these the same thing? How do they interact?
+
+### The Discovery Process
+
+Through actual usage, the structure became clearer:
+- **`.devagent/core/`** = Portable agent kit (workflows, templates) that can be copied to any project
+- **`.devagent/workspace/`** = Project-specific artifacts (features, research, specs, decisions)
+- **`.agents/commands/`** = Command files that trigger workflows (symlinked to `.cursor/commands/`)
+
+**The Missing Piece:** A high-level "Getting Started" guide that explains:
+- The relationship between commands and workflows
+- Where to start for different types of work
+- How workflows chain together
+- A glossary of terms
+
+---
+
+## How Workflows Work in Practice
+
+### The Actual Workflow Sequence
+
+Based on the datatable feature implementation, here's how workflows were used in practice:
+
+```
+1. /new-feature "Add datatable to view dataset data"
+   → Creates feature hub with AGENTS.md and folder structure
+   → Recommends next steps (research, clarify)
+
+2. /research "table components and data access patterns"
+   → Investigates codebase, finds existing patterns
+   → Creates research packet with findings
+   → Identifies gaps requiring clarification
+
+3. /clarify-feature
+   → Validates requirements across 8 dimensions
+   → Creates clarification packet
+   → Identifies missing information (4/8 complete initially)
+
+4. /clarify-feature (re-run after gap-fill)
+   → Updates clarification packet with new information
+   → Improves completeness (7/8 complete)
+
+5. /create-spec
+   → Synthesizes research + clarification into spec
+   → Creates comprehensive specification document
+
+6. /plan-tasks
+   → Breaks spec into 6 tasks with 28 subtasks
+   → Creates implementation plan
+
+7. /create-task-prompt
+   → Converts tasks into AI-ready execution prompts
+   → Includes context references and file hints
+
+8. [Implementation using Cursor AI]
+   → Execute tasks one by one using task prompts
+
+9. /clarify-feature (re-run for major direction change)
+   → Scope changed: migrate to @lambdacurry/forms
+   → Creates comprehensive clarification document
+   → Updates completeness (8/8 complete)
+
+10. /create-spec (re-run for v2)
+    → Creates new spec reflecting migration requirements
+
+11. /plan-tasks (re-run for migration)
+    → Creates migration task plan
+
+12. /create-task-prompt (re-run for migration)
+    → Creates migration task prompts
+```
+
+### Key Insights
+
+**1. Workflows Can Be Re-Run**
+- If something changes, you can re-call the same command to update previous documents
+- This is powerful but can create confusion about which document is "current"
+- **Solution:** Use clear versioning in filenames (e.g., `spec-v2.md`) and update `AGENTS.md` references
+
+**2. Workflows Chain Naturally**
+- Each workflow produces artifacts that feed into the next
+- Research → Clarification → Spec → Tasks → Prompts
+- **But:** You can skip steps for simple features (research → create-task-prompt)
+
+**3. Iteration is Expected**
+- The datatable feature went through multiple clarification cycles
+- Initial implementation (TanStack Table) was later migrated to @lambdacurry/forms
+- **Lesson:** Don't be afraid to re-run workflows when scope changes
+
+**4. Workflows Don't Execute Automatically**
+- After `/new-feature`, you must manually call the next workflow
+- Workflows are **tools**, not autonomous agents
+- **You remain the coordinator** — workflows don't talk to each other
+
+---
+
+## The Iterative Process & DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md
+
+### Why DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md Was Created
+
+After the first few workflow executions, several issues emerged:
+
+1. **Lost after research** — Research recommended `/clarify-feature`, but it didn't ask clarifying questions as expected
+2. **Unclear next steps** — After each workflow, it wasn't always clear what to do next
+3. **No examples** — Workflow descriptions were abstract; real examples were needed
+4. **Gap handling** — When research or clarification found gaps, the process wasn't clear
+
+### How DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md Helped
+
+The DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md was created to:
+- **Provide step-by-step examples** — Real interactions showing how workflows chain together
+- **Explain gap handling** — What to do when research finds `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]` tags
+- **Clarify decision points** — When to proceed with assumptions vs. filling gaps
+- **Show iteration patterns** — How to handle scope changes and re-runs
+
+### The Iterative Learning Process
+
+```
+Initial Confusion
+    ↓
+First Workflow Execution (/new-feature)
+    ↓
+Second Workflow Execution (/research)
+    ↓
+Confusion: "What do I do with gaps?"
+    ↓
+Third Workflow Execution (/clarify-feature)
+    ↓
+Confusion: "It didn't ask questions?"
+    ↓
+Manual Clarification (gap-fill document)
+    ↓
+Re-run /clarify-feature
+    ↓
+Continue with /create-spec
+    ↓
+Realization: "I need examples and guidance"
+    ↓
+Create DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md
+    ↓
+Use DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md for remaining workflows
+    ↓
+Much smoother experience
+```
+
+**Key Takeaway:** The DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md emerged from **actual pain points** during first-time usage. It's not theoretical—it's a practical guide based on real experience.
+
+---
+
+## Common Questions & Solutions
+
+### Q1: How do I feed `/new-feature` output to `/research`?
+
+**The Question:** After `/new-feature` creates a feature hub, how do I pass that context to `/research`?
+
+**Solution A: Reference the Feature Hub Path**
+```
+You: /research "What table components exist in the codebase? 
+     How do we query organization database tables?"
+     
+     Feature: .devagent/workspace/features/active/2025-11-06_simple-datatable-to-view-data/
+```
+
+**Solution B: Reference the AGENTS.md File**
+```
+You: /research "table components and data access patterns"
+     
+     Context: See .devagent/workspace/features/active/2025-11-06_simple-datatable-to-view-data/AGENTS.md
+```
+
+**Best Practice:** Always include the feature hub path or `AGENTS.md` reference when chaining workflows. Workflows read from the workspace, but explicit references help ensure context is captured.
+
+---
+
+### Q2: How do I resume a task after switching contexts?
+
+**The Question:** If I stop working and come back later, how do I let the LLM know what to continue working on?
+
+**Solution A: Use `/review-progress`**
+```
+You: /review-progress
+     Task: tasks/2025-11-06_datatable-component-task.md
+     Completed: Task 1.1 (DataTable component created)
+     In Progress: Task 1.2 (Server pagination endpoint)
+     Blocked: Need clarification on pagination API format
+```
+
+This creates a checkpoint file and updates `AGENTS.md` with progress state.
+
+**Solution B: Reference AGENTS.md and Task Prompts**
+```
+You: [Open feature hub AGENTS.md]
+     [Review "Progress Log" and "Implementation Checklist"]
+     [Open current task prompt file]
+     
+     Continue from Task 1.2: Implement server-side pagination endpoint
+     See: tasks/2025-11-06_task-prompts.md, Task 1.2
+     Context: Feature hub AGENTS.md shows Task 1.1 complete
+```
+
+**Best Practice:** Use `/review-progress` when stopping work. When resuming, reference both `AGENTS.md` (for overall progress) and the specific task prompt file (for current task details).
+
+---
+
+### Q3: What if I disagree with research findings?
+
+**The Question:** After `/research` execution, I don't agree with the outcome or proposed solution. What's the proper way to proceed?
+
+**Solution A: Document Disagreement in Clarification**
+```
+You: /clarify-feature
+     
+     Note: Research recommended TanStack Table, but I want to use 
+     @lambdacurry/forms instead. See research/2025-11-06_datatable-research.md 
+     for historical record, but we're proceeding with @lambdacurry/forms.
+```
+
+The clarification packet will document this decision, and future workflows will use the clarified approach.
+
+**Solution B: Re-run Research with Different Focus**
+```
+You: /research "How do we implement data tables with @lambdacurry/forms?
+     What are the server-side pagination patterns?"
+     
+     Note: Previous research focused on TanStack Table (see 
+     research/2025-11-06_datatable-research.md), but we're exploring 
+     @lambdacurry/forms as an alternative.
+```
+
+This creates a new research packet that can be referenced in the spec.
+
+**Best Practice:** Research packets are **historical records**. If you disagree, either:
+1. Document the disagreement in clarification (recommended for stakeholder decisions)
+2. Create new research with different focus (recommended for technical alternatives)
+3. Keep old research for historical context, but proceed with clarified approach
+
+---
+
+### Q4: Is `/create-task-prompt` for one task or all tasks?
+
+**The Question:** Does `/create-task-prompt` produce a master prompt for all tasks, or one prompt per task?
+
+**Answer:** It produces **one file with multiple task prompts** (one per task). Each task has:
+- Execution prompt (detailed instructions)
+- File hints (where to create/modify files)
+- Context references (research, spec, code paths)
+- Acceptance criteria
+
+**Usage Pattern:**
+```
+1. /create-task-prompt (creates tasks/2025-11-06_task-prompts.md)
+2. Open task prompts file
+3. Copy Task 1.1 execution prompt
+4. Paste into Cursor chat with context references
+5. AI implements Task 1.1
+6. Repeat for Task 1.2, 1.3, etc.
+```
+
+**Best Practice:** Work through tasks **sequentially**. Each task builds on the previous one. Validate after each task before moving to the next.
+
+---
+
+### Q5: How do I handle major direction changes?
+
+**The Question:** What if the current feature state is "good enough" but requirements change significantly?
+
+**Solution A: Start New Feature (Recommended if Current State is Good)**
+```
+Current State: TanStack Table implementation complete and functional
+New Requirement: Migrate to @lambdacurry/forms
+
+Decision: Keep current feature as-is (it's functional)
+          Create new feature: "Migrate datatable to @lambdacurry/forms"
+          New feature can reference old feature's artifacts
+```
+
+**Solution B: Re-run Workflows in Current Feature (Recommended if Current State Needs Changes)**
+```
+Current State: TanStack Table implementation, but needs major refactor
+New Requirement: Migrate to @lambdacurry/forms
+
+Decision: Re-run /clarify-feature (update scope)
+          Re-run /create-spec (create v2 spec)
+          Re-run /plan-tasks (create migration plan)
+          Re-run /create-task-prompt (create migration prompts)
+```
+
+**Decision Criteria:**
+- **Current state is functional and acceptable?** → Start new feature
+- **Current state needs major changes anyway?** → Re-run workflows in current feature
+- **Unclear?** → Document decision in `AGENTS.md` Key Decisions section
+
+**Best Practice:** For the datatable feature, we used **Solution B** because:
+1. The TanStack Table implementation was complete but needed migration
+2. The migration was a natural evolution, not a separate feature
+3. Re-running workflows kept all context in one place
+
+---
+
+### Q6: Should I use best models for planning and auto for implementation?
+
+**The Question:** Is DevAgent designed to work with different models for planning vs. implementation?
+
+**Answer:** DevAgent workflows are **model-agnostic**. They work with any LLM that can:
+- Follow structured instructions
+- Read and write markdown files
+- Reference context from workspace
+
+**Current Usage Pattern:**
+- **Planning workflows** (`/research`, `/create-spec`, `/plan-tasks`) → Use best available model (e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.5)
+- **Implementation** (Cursor AI with task prompts) → Use auto or best available model
+
+**Potential Enhancement:**
+- **Background agents** (Codegen) → Can run implementation tasks asynchronously
+- See `.devagent/core/workflows/codegen/run-codegen-background-agent.md` for details
+
+**Best Practice:** 
+- Use best models for **planning** (research, spec, tasks) — these benefit from reasoning
+- Use auto or best models for **implementation** — depends on token budget and complexity
+- Consider background agents for **independent tasks** that can run in parallel
+
+---
+
+## Best Practices & Recommendations
+
+### 1. Start with `/new-feature`, Then Research
+
+**Don't skip the feature hub.** Even for simple features, creating a feature hub provides:
+- Centralized progress tracking (`AGENTS.md`)
+- Organized artifact storage (research/, spec/, tasks/)
+- Clear ownership and status
+
+**Workflow:**
+```
+/new-feature "Brief description"
+  ↓
+/research "Specific questions"
+  ↓
+[Continue based on complexity]
+```
+
+### 2. Always Reference Feature Hub in Workflows
+
+When chaining workflows, always include the feature hub path:
+
+```
+/research "question"
+  Feature: .devagent/workspace/features/active/YYYY-MM-DD_feature-slug/
+```
+
+This ensures workflows can:
+- Read existing artifacts (research, clarification, spec)
+- Update `AGENTS.md` with progress
+- Maintain context across workflow executions
+
+### 3. Use AGENTS.md as Your North Star
+
+`AGENTS.md` is the **single source of truth** for feature progress:
+- **Progress Log** — Chronological history of what happened
+- **Implementation Checklist** — What's done, in progress, or pending
+- **Key Decisions** — Important choices with rationale
+- **References** — Links to all artifacts (research, spec, tasks)
+
+**Check `AGENTS.md` before:**
+- Starting a new workflow
+- Resuming work after context switch
+- Making scope changes
+- Creating new artifacts
+
+### 4. Document Assumptions Explicitly
+
+When proceeding with incomplete information:
+1. **Document in clarification packet** — Mark as `[ASSUMPTION]` with validation plan
+2. **Update AGENTS.md** — Add to Key Decisions section
+3. **Include in spec** — Document in Risks & Open Questions section
+4. **Schedule validation** — Set a date/owner for assumption validation
+
+**Never proceed with undocumented assumptions.**
+
+### 5. Re-Run Workflows When Scope Changes
+
+If requirements change significantly:
+1. **Re-run `/clarify-feature`** — Update requirements and completeness
+2. **Re-run `/create-spec`** — Create new spec version (use `-v2` suffix)
+3. **Re-run `/plan-tasks`** — Create new task plan
+4. **Re-run `/create-task-prompt`** — Create new task prompts
+5. **Update `AGENTS.md`** — Document the change in Progress Log
+
+**Don't try to manually update old artifacts.** Re-running workflows ensures consistency.
+
+### 6. Work Through Tasks Sequentially
+
+Task prompts are designed to be executed **one at a time**:
+1. Copy task execution prompt
+2. Paste into Cursor chat with context references
+3. AI implements the task
+4. Validate (lint, typecheck, test)
+5. Move to next task
+
+**Don't try to execute all tasks at once.** Each task builds on the previous one.
+
+### 7. Use `/review-progress` for Context Switches
+
+When stopping work (end of day, switching features, interruptions):
+```
+/review-progress
+  Task: tasks/YYYY-MM-DD_task-prompts.md
+  Completed: Task 1.1, 1.2
+  In Progress: Task 1.3 (50% complete)
+  Blocked: Need clarification on API format
+```
+
+This creates a checkpoint for easy resumption.
+
+### 8. Keep Artifacts Organized
+
+**File Naming:**
+- Research: `research/YYYY-MM-DD_topic.md`
+- Clarification: `clarification/YYYY-MM-DD_description.md`
+- Spec: `spec/YYYY-MM-DD_feature-spec.md` (use `-v2` for major revisions)
+- Tasks: `tasks/YYYY-MM-DD_task-plan.md` and `tasks/YYYY-MM-DD_task-prompts.md`
+
+**Versioning:**
+- Major revisions: Use `-v2`, `-v3` suffixes
+- Minor updates: Re-run workflow (overwrites old file, but history in `AGENTS.md`)
+
+### 9. Validate Early and Often
+
+After each implementation task:
+```
+/validate-code
+```
+
+This runs:
+- `bun run lint` — Linting errors
+- `bun run typecheck` — TypeScript errors
+- `bun run test` — Test failures
+
+**Fix errors immediately** before moving to the next task.
+
+### 10. Don't Be Afraid to Iterate
+
+The datatable feature went through:
+- Initial research → TanStack Table approach
+- Implementation → TanStack Table complete
+- Scope change → Migrate to @lambdacurry/forms
+- Re-clarification → Updated requirements
+- Re-spec → v2 specification
+- Re-plan → Migration task plan
+- Re-prompt → Migration task prompts
+
+**This is normal.** Workflows are designed to be re-run when scope changes.
+
+---
+
+## Summary
+
+### Key Takeaways
+
+1. **DevAgent is a tool, not an autonomous agent** — You remain the coordinator
+2. **Workflows can be re-run** — Don't be afraid to iterate when scope changes
+3. **AGENTS.md is your north star** — Check it before starting, update it as you progress
+4. **Workflows chain naturally** — Research → Clarify → Spec → Tasks → Prompts
+5. **Document assumptions** — Never proceed with undocumented assumptions
+6. **Use `/review-progress`** — For context switches and resumption
+7. **Validate early and often** — Fix errors before moving to next task
+8. **Iteration is expected** — Complex features will go through multiple cycles
+
+### For New Devs
+
+**Start Here:**
+1. Read `.devagent/core/README.md` (overview)
+2. Read `.devagent/core/AGENTS.md` (workflow roster)
+3. Read `DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md` (this document's companion)
+4. Start with `/new-feature` for your first feature
+5. Follow the workflow sequence, referencing examples in DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md
+
+**Common Mistakes to Avoid:**
+- Skipping feature hub creation
+- Not referencing feature hub in workflow calls
+- Trying to execute all tasks at once
+- Proceeding with undocumented assumptions
+- Not checking `AGENTS.md` before starting work
+
+### For DevAgent Creators
+
+**Potential Enhancements:**
+1. **Getting Started Guide** — High-level overview explaining commands → workflows relationship
+2. **Workflow Chaining Hints** — After each workflow, suggest next steps with ready-to-run commands
+3. **Gap Handling Guidance** — When research finds `[NEEDS CLARIFICATION]`, provide clear next steps
+4. **Progress Resumption** — Better tooling for resuming work after context switches
+5. **Model Recommendations** — Guidance on which models to use for which workflows
+6. **Background Agent Integration** — Clearer documentation on using Codegen for parallel execution
+
+---
+
+**Last Updated:** 2025-11-13  
+**Related Documents:**
+- `DEVELOPER-GUIDE.md` — Comprehensive workflow guide with examples
+- `.devagent/core/README.md` — Core kit setup and usage
+- `.devagent/core/AGENTS.md` — Workflow roster and reference
+