# User: /contemplate how easy woulkd it be for me to fork claudian and make my own version. is that... ## Skills Used - contemplate ## Retrieval Notes - Session id: `41d4b9a1-ed88-4a8b-8433-4ae37cf4a924` - Last activity: `2026-02-21T20:55:07.994Z` ## My Notes <!-- Add your notes here. This section is preserved across syncs. --> ## Conversation ### User User: /contemplate how easy woulkd it be for me to fork claudian and make my own version. is that a polite thing to do with out alerting thee creator ? I have never done this before. basically. there are quite a lot of things I like about claudidan but also so i can see things that i would like to change. is making my own fork a viable method, given that i am not even slighrly a coder. having said that my knowledge is at least sophisticated senought to have devleoped the claude code obsidian set up which we have now, so i can vlearly if not vibe code, then vibe something. don't make any changes btw, please double check that you are employing any and all skills that are relevant to our task. make sure that you explain your analysis, justification, reasons etc etc. for your answer BEFORE giving me your final answer.Please give me a long, deep, and detailed answer, with lots of options/ideas: as we are in the 'kicking ideas around' stage, I want as much feedback as you can give me so that i have a lot to consider. Assistant: Let me research this thoroughly before contemplating. I need to understand the Claudian codebase, its license, and your current setup.Now let me research Claudian specifically — its GitHub repository, license, codebase structure, and the creator's stance on forking. [Thinking: 1 block(s), 4.0s total] [Tool Read input: file_path=/Users/nickyoung/.claude/knowledge/aesthetic-preferences.md status=completed] [Tool Read input: file_path=/Users/nickyoung/.claude/knowledge/nick-context.md status=completed] [Tool Read input: file_path=/Users/nickyoung/.claude/knowledge/system-design-practices.md status=completed] [Tool Task status=running] User: you got cut off, please continue from where you left off. ### Assistant Let me pick up where I left off. I had started reading your knowledge files and launched a research task. Let me check on that and continue the deep analysis. ### Assistant Let me think about this carefully, because there are several distinct dimensions to this question and I want to make sure I don't collapse them prematurely. **Starting with the legal and ethical dimension first, since Nick specifically asked about politeness.** OK so the license is MIT. That's the most permissive mainstream open-source license there is. The entire *point* of MIT is to say: "Do whatever you want with this code, just keep my copyright notice." So legally, forking is not just permitted — it's explicitly anticipated by the choice of license. The creator chose MIT *knowing* people would fork. That's a deliberate choice. They could have chosen GPL (which requires derivative works to also be open source), or AGPL (even stricter), or a proprietary license, or even a "source available but no derivatives" license. MIT is the creator saying "go ahead." But Nick asked about politeness, not legality. These are different things. Let me think about the social norms of open source... In open-source culture, forking is... complicated. There's a long history here. Forking used to be seen as somewhat aggressive — a "vote of no confidence" in the original maintainer. The LibreOffice/OpenOffice split, the Node.js/io.js split, these were dramatic community events. But that's for *public, competing* forks. GitHub has fundamentally changed the social meaning of forking. The "Fork" button is right there on every repository. 165 people have already forked Claudian. GitHub's entire workflow is *built on forking* — you fork to contribute PRs. Forking on GitHub is as normal as breathing. So there's a distinction I need to draw here: 1. **Private fork for personal use** — This is completely normal, expected, and not remotely impolite. You're not competing with the creator. You're just customizing software for your own needs. This is like... modifying a recipe from a cookbook. The cookbook author expects this. 2. **Public fork that you distribute as an alternative** — This is where social norms get more nuanced. If you publish "NicksClaude" or "Claudian-Plus" and start attracting users away from the original, that *can* be seen as unfriendly if done without communication. But even this is perfectly legal and within the spirit of MIT. 3. **Fork-then-contribute-back** — This is the gold standard. You fork, make changes, and submit pull requests upstream. Everyone wins. Now, does Nick need to alert the creator? Let me think about this from multiple angles... Actually, there's no obligation whatsoever for a private fork. None. The creator will see a fork counter go from 165 to 166 and that's it. They won't even know who forked it unless they look. And even for a public fork, MIT doesn't require notification. The *polite* thing would be to... well, it depends on what Nick wants to do with the fork. Hmm, but let me think about what's *strategically smart* versus what's *polite*. Because reaching out to the creator could actually be beneficial to Nick regardless of politeness. If Nick says "hey, I love your plugin, I want to customize X, Y, Z for my use case," the creator might say "oh, those are great ideas, submit a PR" or "here's how the architecture works, those changes would go in these files." That's *useful information* for Nick. On the other hand, the creator is clearly running at an intense pace — 486 commits in 11 weeks, 6+ per day. They might not have bandwidth for mentoring. And there's no CONTRIBUTING.md, which could suggest they're not actively seeking contributions... or just that they haven't gotten around to writing one yet. OK, let me shift to the **feasibility dimension**. **Can Nick actually maintain a fork of 32,600 lines of TypeScript?** Let me be really honest here. This is a substantial codebase. 153 source files. A layered architecture with core/, features/, shared/, utils/. TypeScript with proper type definitions. 128 test files suggesting a TDD discipline. This is not a small Obsidian plugin. But wait — Nick isn't asking to write this from scratch. He's asking about *modifying* it. That's a fundamentally different question. Let me think about what kinds of changes Nick might want... Actually, I don't know specifically what Nick wants to change. But I can think about categories: 1. **UI/visual changes** — CSS modifications, layout tweaks, color schemes, font choices. These would be in the 42 CSS files (~3,600 lines) and possibly some TypeScript rendering code. This is the *most accessible* type of change for a non-coder. 2. **Behavior tweaks** — Changing default settings, modifying how certain features work, adjusting prompts or system messages. This depends heavily on what specifically, but many behavioral changes might involve finding the right file and making targeted edits. 3. **Feature additions** — Adding entirely new capabilities. This is the hardest category and probably requires understanding the architecture. 4. **Feature removal** — Stripping out things Nick doesn't need. This can range from trivial (comment out a menu item) to complex (removing deeply integrated features). 5. **Prompt/system-prompt changes** — Given Nick's setup, he might want to modify how Claudian constructs its system prompts. Looking at the architecture, there's a `core/prompts/` directory specifically for this. Now here's the critical insight: **Nick has Claude Code itself as his coding partner.** This is the meta-irony of the situation. Nick would be using Claude Code to modify the plugin that runs Claude Code inside Obsidian. And Claude Code is *genuinely good* at TypeScript modifications. It can: - Navigate the codebase and explain what each file does - Make targeted edits to specific files - Run the build process and fix errors - Even write tests So the question isn't really "can Nick code in TypeScript?" — it's "can Nick direct Claude Code to make TypeScript changes effectively?" And given that Nick has built a genuinely sophisticated Claude Code setup (hooks, skills, knowledge files, session management, custom workflows), the answer is... probably yes, for many types of changes. But I need to think about the **ongoing maintenance burden**. This is where things get tricky. Claudian is being developed at a ferocious pace. 44 commits per week. A new release every 2-3 days. If Nick forks, his fork immediately starts diverging from upstream. Within a week, there could be 40+ new commits he's missing. Within a month, the codebases could be substantially different. This creates a merge problem. Git can handle merging, but merge conflicts are common when two branches modify the same files. And the more changes Nick makes, the harder merging becomes. This is the classic fork maintenance problem. Let me think about strategies for managing this... **Strategy 1: Minimal fork — change as little as possible** If Nick only changes CSS and a handful of configuration values, merging upstream changes will be relatively painless. Most merges will be automatic. Only when the upstream changes touch the exact same lines Nick modified will there be conflicts. **Strategy 2: Overlay/patch approach** Instead of modifying files directly, Nick could maintain a set of patches or a script that applies his changes on top of each new release. This is how many Linux distributions customize upstream packages. It's cleaner for maintenance but requires some tooling sophistication. Wait, but actually there's a much simpler version of this for Obsidian plugins. Let me think... **Strategy 3: CSS-only customization via Obsidian snippets** For visual changes, Nick doesn't need to fork at all. Obsidian has a built-in CSS snippets system. You drop a `.css` file in `.obsidian/snippets/` and it overrides plugin styles. If Nick's UI complaints are purely visual — colors, spacing, fonts, layout — this is the zero-maintenance solution. No fork needed. No merge conflicts ever. Hmm, but this only works for CSS. If the changes Nick wants are behavioral... **Strategy 4: Wrapper/extension approach** This is interesting. Rather than modifying Claudian's code, Nick could potentially create a *separate* plugin that hooks into or modifies Claudian's behavior at runtime. Obsidian's plugin API allows plugins to interact with each other to some degree. This would let Nick keep Claudian as-is (automatic updates) while layering his customizations on top. But this is technically more sophisticated than direct modification, paradoxically. It requires understanding Obsidian's plugin API, Claudian's internal structure, and JavaScript/TypeScript runtime manipulation. Not ideal for a non-coder. **Strategy 5: Contributing upstream** Instead of forking, Nick could submit his desired changes as pull requests to the original repo. The creator has merged PRs from external contributors (116 merged PRs, though 112 are from the creator). If the changes are good, they become part of Claudian for everyone. No maintenance burden on Nick. The downside: the creator might reject changes that don't align with their vision. And Nick's specific customizations might be too personal/opinionated for the main project. Actually, this brings up an important distinction. Some of Nick's desired changes might be: - **Universally beneficial** — bug fixes, performance improvements, accessibility enhancements → contribute upstream - **Opinionated but popular** — alternative UI layouts, different default behaviors → could go either way - **Highly personal** — specific to Nick's workflow, his prompt setup, his vault structure → these should stay in a fork The smart strategy might be a hybrid: contribute universally beneficial changes upstream while maintaining a light fork for personal customizations. **Strategy 6: Feature requests and issues** The simplest approach of all: just ask the creator to make the changes. File GitHub issues describing what Nick wants changed and why. The creator is responsive (78% issue close rate). Some of these might just... happen. For free. With no maintenance burden. OK, let me now think about the **"vibe coding" factor** more carefully. Nick describes himself as "not even slightly a coder" but acknowledges his setup is sophisticated enough to suggest real capability. Let me characterize what Nick *can* do based on the evidence: - Write detailed prompts and instructions (CLAUDE.md is evidence) - Understand system architecture at a conceptual level (hooks, skills, knowledge files) - Design workflows and data flow (the command chains, activity logging) - Shell scripting basics (the hook scripts) - Markdown and YAML fluency - Conceptual understanding of APIs and protocols (MCP, Claude Agent SDK) - Problem-solving through iteration (the evolving system is evidence of this) What Nick probably *can't* do (without Claude Code's help): - Write TypeScript from scratch - Debug complex type errors - Understand async/await patterns, promises, event systems - Navigate a 153-file TypeScript codebase by reading code - Resolve complex merge conflicts manually But with Claude Code, much of the "can't" column becomes "can, with assistance." The key question is: **how much of fork maintenance can be delegated to Claude Code?** Let me think about this practically. A typical fork maintenance session might look like: 1. New Claudian release comes out 2. Nick runs `git fetch upstream && git merge upstream/main` 3. Merge conflicts appear in 3 files 4. Nick asks Claude Code: "resolve these merge conflicts, keeping my customizations where they exist and taking upstream changes everywhere else" 5. Claude Code resolves conflicts 6. Nick runs `npm run build` and tests This is... actually viable? Claude Code is good at merge conflict resolution when given clear instructions about whose changes to prefer. The risk is when upstream refactors something fundamental that breaks Nick's customizations in non-obvious ways. Then it becomes a debugging session, which is harder. But let me consider the frequency issue. With 44 commits/week upstream, Nick would need to decide how often to sync. Options: - Every release (every 2-3 days) — highest maintenance, smallest diffs - Weekly — moderate maintenance, manageable diffs - Monthly — lower maintenance, but bigger diffs and harder merges - Per-release-that-matters — only sync when upstream adds features Nick wants The last option is probably most realistic for a non-coder. Let it diverge, sync when there's a reason to. Actually, wait. Let me reconsider the whole framing. Nick said "there are quite a lot of things I like about Claudian but also things I would like to change." I should think about what might be changeable *without* forking. **Things that might be configurable without forking:** - System prompts (if Claudian reads from config files Nick can edit) - CSS/visual appearance (Obsidian snippets) - Keybindings (Obsidian's native hotkey system) - Settings (whatever the plugin's settings UI exposes) **Things that almost certainly require code changes:** - UI layout/structure changes - Adding/removing features - Changing how tools work - Modifying the security layer behavior - Changing how sessions are managed - Modifying the sidebar structure Hmm, actually — I know from Nick's CLAUDE.md that there's a `core/hooks/` directory for PreToolUse/PostToolUse security hooks, and a `core/security/` directory with BashPathValidator. Nick's CLAUDE.md mentions a "Claudian Vault Restriction" that blocks Bash commands with paths starting with `/`. This is clearly a security feature Nick has *already worked around* with variable indirection. If he wanted to modify that behavior rather than work around it, that would require a code change — but it's a very targeted, understandable change. Let me now think about the **risk assessment**. **Risks of forking:** 1. **Merge hell** — As upstream evolves rapidly, Nick's fork falls behind and becomes increasingly difficult to sync 2. **Breaking changes** — An upstream refactor breaks Nick's customizations in subtle ways 3. **Security patches missed** — If upstream fixes a security issue, Nick needs to sync promptly 4. **Dependency updates** — When the Claude Agent SDK updates, upstream will adapt; Nick's fork might not 5. **Time sink** — Fork maintenance becomes a recurring obligation 6. **Skill ceiling** — Some problems (complex TypeScript errors, architectural issues) might exceed what Claude Code can help with without human understanding **Risks of NOT forking:** 1. **Frustration** — Working around limitations instead of fixing them 2. **Fragile workarounds** — Hacks that break with upstream updates 3. **Missing potential** — Not getting the experience Nick wants from the tool Hmm, let me also think about whether there's a **middle ground** that nobody's mentioned... **Strategy 7: "Soft fork" via Obsidian's plugin API** Obsidian plugins can register commands, add CSS, modify the DOM, and interact with other plugins. A *companion plugin* that modifies Claudian's behavior at runtime is technically possible. This is like a browser extension that modifies a website — you don't touch the original code, you patch it live. The advantage: Claudian can update normally, and the companion plugin applies patches. The disadvantage: this is actually quite technically sophisticated and fragile, because it depends on Claudian's internal DOM structure and API surface, which could change with any update. For a non-coder, this is probably harder than a fork, not easier. But it's worth mentioning as a concept. **Strategy 8: Communicate with the developer and influence the roadmap** This is the often-overlooked option. Yishen Tu is a solo developer building at an incredible pace. Solo developers often *want* user feedback about priorities. Nick could: - File well-written feature requests - Explain his use case and workflow - Offer to beta test changes - Share his sophisticated Claude Code setup as a reference use case This doesn't require any coding. It just requires communication. And it might result in the changes Nick wants being implemented upstream, properly, with no maintenance burden. Actually, thinking about this more — Nick's setup is genuinely impressive and unusual. Most Claudian users probably aren't running 25+ custom skills, hooks, a knowledge base system, session management, etc. Nick is a *power user* in the truest sense. Sharing his experience with the developer could be genuinely valuable to the project, and in return, the developer might be motivated to accommodate Nick's needs. Now let me think about **what specific approach I'd recommend**, considering everything... Actually wait — I should think about one more thing. The **psychological and practical reality of maintaining a fork as a non-coder**. I've seen this pattern many times: someone forks a project enthusiastically, makes their changes, feels great for a week, then the upstream moves on and the fork starts accumulating technical debt. The merge becomes harder each time. Eventually the person abandons the fork and goes back to upstream, or just stays on an increasingly outdated version. For a *coder*, this is manageable because they understand the debt they're accumulating and can make informed decisions about when to sync. For a non-coder, even with Claude Code's help, the *decision-making* about what to merge and what to keep is harder, because you don't fully understand the implications of each change. But then again... Nick's Claude Code setup *itself* is a kind of "soft fork" of Claude Code's behavior. He's deeply customized how Claude Code operates through configuration, prompts, hooks, and skills — without modifying Claude Code's source code at all. This suggests Nick has a strong instinct for the "customize without modifying source" approach. Which makes me think: **before forking, Nick should exhaustively explore what can be customized without code changes.** And if there are specific things that genuinely require code changes, he should consider whether filing issues or PRs might be more sustainable than maintaining a fork. Let me try to organize my final thinking... The answer has multiple layers: **Layer 1: Legality and Ethics** — Completely fine. MIT license. 165 existing forks. No obligation to notify. But notification is *strategically smart* even though not required. **Layer 2: Technical Feasibility** — Possible but challenging. 32,600 lines of TypeScript is a lot, but Claude Code can navigate it. The real challenge is ongoing maintenance, not the initial changes. **Layer 3: Practical Sustainability** — This is the weakest link. With upstream moving at 44 commits/week, fork maintenance is a recurring burden. For a non-coder, this could become overwhelming. **Layer 4: Alternative Approaches** — Several exist that might achieve Nick's goals with less maintenance burden: CSS snippets, feature requests, upstream PRs, communication with the developer. **Layer 5: Hybrid Strategy** — The smartest approach combines multiple strategies based on the nature of each desired change. Let me make sure I haven't missed anything... One more thought: Nick mentioned he's "never done this before" regarding forking. There's a learning curve to the *process* of forking (git operations, branch management, building from source, resolving conflicts) that's separate from the coding challenge. But Claude Code can guide him through all of these steps. The git operations are well within Claude Code's capabilities. And actually, there's something beautiful about this as a learning experience. Even if the fork eventually gets abandoned, the process of forking, understanding a codebase, making changes, and dealing with upstream evolution is deeply educational about how software works. Given Nick's trajectory from "not a coder" to "has built a genuinely sophisticated system," this could be the next step in his technical evolution. OK, I think I've explored this thoroughly enough. Let me formulate my final answer. ## The Full Picture: Forking Claudian as a Non-Coder ### Ethics and Etiquette: You're Clear **Forking is not only legally permitted — it's explicitly anticipated.** Yishen Tu chose the MIT license, the most permissive mainstream open-source license. Its entire purpose is to say: "do what you want, just keep my copyright notice." 165 people have already forked Claudian. GitHub's workflow is *built on forking*. You have zero obligation to notify the creator for a private fork. That said, **notification isn't required but is strategically smart** — not for permission, but for your own benefit. More on this below. --- ### The Honest Technical Assessment Claudian is a **substantial codebase**: ~32,600 lines of TypeScript across 153 source files, with a layered architecture (core → features → shared → utils), 128 test files, 10 internationalization locales, and a security layer. This is not a weekend hack — it's a professionally structured project. **But you wouldn't be writing it from scratch.** You'd be *modifying* it. And you'd be doing so with Claude Code as your coding partner — which is genuinely good at navigating TypeScript codebases, making targeted edits, and building projects. The irony of using Claude Code to modify the plugin that runs Claude Code is delicious, and also practically relevant: it means your "vibe coding" approach has the right tool for this job. **The initial changes: feasible.** Claude Code can find the right files, understand the architecture, make surgical modifications, and build the project. For targeted changes (CSS tweaks, prompt modifications, disabling a feature, adjusting the security layer's path restrictions), this is well within reach. **The ongoing maintenance: this is where it gets hard.** Claudian is being developed at a ferocious pace — 486 commits in 11 weeks, roughly 44 per week, a new release every 2-3 days. The moment you fork, your version starts diverging. Every change you make increases the difficulty of merging future upstream updates. Within a month, you could be facing merge conflicts across dozens of files. Claude Code can help resolve these, but the *decision-making* about what to keep and what to take from upstream requires judgement that's harder without deep code understanding. --- ### Your Options (Ranked by Maintenance Burden) **1. CSS Snippets — Zero Maintenance** If your complaints are visual (colours, spacing, fonts, layout, sizing), you don't need to fork at all. Obsidian's built-in CSS snippet system lets you override any plugin's styles. Drop a `.css` file in `.obsidian/snippets/`, toggle it on. Claudian updates normally; your visual customisations persist. This should be your **first move** for any visual change. **2. Feature Requests and Issue Filing — Zero Maintenance** Before changing anything, consider simply *asking*. Yishen Tu is responsive (78% issue close rate, 115 of 148 issues closed). File well-written issues describing what you want changed and why. Your setup is unusually sophisticated — you're exactly the kind of power user whose feedback shapes a project's direction. Some of what you want might just... get implemented upstream, properly, with no work from you. **3. Contributing Pull Requests — Very Low Maintenance** For changes that would benefit everyone (bug fixes, accessibility improvements, configuration options), you can fork, make the change, and submit a pull request. If merged, the change becomes part of Claudian permanently. You delete your fork and carry on. The creator has merged external PRs before (20 from 13 different contributors). This works best for changes that aren't too personal/opinionated. **4. "Thin Fork" — Low to Moderate Maintenance** This is the disciplined version of forking: **change as little as possible.** Touch only the specific files that need modification. Keep a written list of exactly what you changed and why. When syncing with upstream, use Claude Code to merge, with instructions like "keep my changes in these 5 files, take upstream everywhere else." The fewer files you touch, the fewer merge conflicts. Sync with upstream only when a new release has features you want — don't try to stay current with every commit. Practical workflow: - Fork on GitHub, clone locally - Create a `nick-changes` branch from `main` - Make your modifications (with Claude Code's help) - Build and test: `npm install && npm run build` - When upstream releases something you want: `git fetch upstream`, attempt merge, resolve conflicts with Claude Code's help **5. Full Fork with Divergence — High Maintenance** This is the "make it truly yours" approach: significant modifications, new features, removed features, restructured UI. Increasingly difficult to merge upstream changes. Eventually you're maintaining your own project. This is viable but represents a real ongoing commitment — essentially becoming a software maintainer. With Claude Code's help it's *possible*, but every merge session becomes a project in itself. --- ### The Hybrid Strategy (What I'd Actually Recommend) Don't pick one approach — **layer them by the nature of each change:** | Type of Change | Approach | |---|---| | Visual/aesthetic | CSS snippets (no fork needed) | | Missing feature everyone would want | File an issue or PR upstream | | Behavioural tweak that's personal to your workflow | Thin fork — targeted modification | | Prompt/system-message changes | Check if configurable first; if not, thin fork | | Security layer adjustments (e.g., path restrictions) | Thin fork — very targeted change | | Fundamental architectural disagreement | This is where you need to seriously consider whether the maintenance cost is worth it | **Before anything else:** 1. Make a list of every specific change you want 2. Categorise each change using the table above 3. For each one, check whether it's already configurable in Claudian's settings 4. The changes that genuinely require code modification — that's your fork scope **The smaller your fork scope, the more sustainable it is.** --- ### On Reaching Out to the Creator You asked if it's polite to fork without alerting them. It's perfectly fine. But here's why reaching out is *strategically valuable*, not just polite: - **They might solve your problems faster than you can.** A 30-second explanation from the developer about where something lives in the codebase saves hours of exploration. - **Your use case is genuinely interesting.** You're running 25+ custom skills, hooks, a knowledge base system, session management. Most users aren't doing this. The developer might find your feedback valuable. - **You might influence the roadmap.** If your desired changes align with the project's direction, they might get implemented upstream for free. - **It opens the door for future help.** If your fork hits a wall, having a relationship with the creator means you can ask questions. A GitHub discussion or a well-written issue saying "I'm a power user, here's my setup, here are the things I'd love to see changed" costs nothing and could pay off significantly. --- ### Can You Actually Do This? Honestly? **Yes, with important caveats.** Your trajectory from "not a coder" to your current setup shows genuine aptitude for directing AI tools to build sophisticated systems. Forking Claudian and making targeted modifications with Claude Code's help is a natural extension of what you're already doing. The initial changes will work. The risk is **month three**, when upstream has moved 500 commits ahead and your customisations conflict with a major refactor. That's when the maintenance burden bites. The mitigation is keeping your fork thin, syncing strategically (not constantly), and being willing to abandon modifications that become too costly to maintain. **The single most important thing: know when to let go.** If a customisation becomes a maintenance nightmare, drop it and file it as a feature request instead. Don't let fork maintenance become a second job. --- ### Remaining Uncertainties - I don't know what specific changes you want, which makes a huge difference. Some changes to a 32,600-line codebase are trivial; others would require deep architectural understanding. - I don't know how Claudian's architecture handles extensibility — there might be plugin points or configuration options I'm not aware of that could make forking unnecessary for some of your needs. - The pace of Claudian's development could slow down (it's been 11 weeks of intense activity), which would make fork maintenance easier. Or it could stay intense. The smartest first step is to **make the list of specific changes you want** and then we can assess each one individually for the most sustainable approach. *Un bivio tra l'autonomia del proprio strumento e il peso silenzioso della sua manutenzione — la libertà di modificare non è mai veramente gratuita.*