The build in numbers
The branches I burned
Nate Baldwin calls it Branch + Burn. I call it Monday. Every failure below taught me something the success couldn't have. The knowledge survived. The code didn't.
Static HTML site with inline CSS
C — CreateCouldn't scale. Adding a new page meant copy-pasting 400 lines of HTML. Design tokens were CSS variables but nothing consumed them programmatically. The site described a design system it didn't actually use.
The site must practise what it preaches. If I'm selling agentic design systems, the site needs to BE one. Migrated to Next.js with Tailwind and real token consumption.
Letting the FED Developer write content
<N> — NarrateThe developer agent optimised for structure, not voice. The content was technically correct but read like documentation — no fire, no provocation, no Lincoln in it.
Created a dedicated Content Strategist agent with Lincoln's voice deeply encoded. The developer builds what the strategist writes. Separation of concerns isn't just for code.
Designing in Figma first, then implementing
I — IdeateClassic waterfall trap. By the time the Figma design was 'approved', the code had already evolved past it. The design became a constraint instead of an enabler.
NorthStar Prototyping means code IS the design tool. Prototype in code, iterate in code, ship the prototype. Figma is for tokens and components, not page layouts.
One massive prompt to build an entire page
I — IdeateContext window overload. The agent lost track of the brief halfway through and started inventing content. The result was impressive-looking but strategically incoherent.
Nate Baldwin's 4-step structured prompting was right: context priming first, then planning, then refinement, then implementation. Never skip straight to build.
“The quality of input is equal to the quality of output. But the quality of correction is what makes it yours.The human in the loop
What the agent wrote vs what I shipped
The agents handle volume. I handle voice. Here's what that looks like in practice — raw agent output on the left, what actually shipped on the right.
“Quinn and Cameron's Competing Values Framework provides a useful lens for understanding organisational culture dynamics and their relationship to design system implementation methodologies.”
“Your design system team has a culture problem. Quinn and Cameron's Competing Values Framework explains why your team is grinding — and the INC framework maps the way out.”
The agent wrote like an academic paper. I needed a diagnosis that makes a design system lead think 'I've been thinking about my team wrong.'
“AI agents can significantly reduce the cost of building digital products by automating tasks traditionally performed by multiple team members.”
“This is not about replacing people. It is about what becomes possible when one person has the right methodology and the right tools.”
The agent went for the obvious 'AI saves money' angle. That's threatening, not inspiring. The real message is amplification, not replacement.
Building the site that describes the methodology, using the methodology
The CLAUDE.md file that governs agent behaviour was itself written through agent conversations. The thoughts pages that describe I<N>C were built using the I<N>C process. This page about failures was reviewed and corrected by the same human-in-the-loop process it describes.
This is not a bug. It is the point. The methodology proves itself by being used to describe itself. If the site reads well, the system works. If the agents stay on-brand, the governance works. If the content provokes, the voice encoding works.
You are reading the proof right now.
Want to see the raw conversations?
I'll walk you through a real build session — the prompts, the agent hand-offs, the corrections, the burns. No polish, no editing. The real thing.