There are ten creation workflows. The Workflows nav group held eight of them plus
`guides/export-and-share`, which is not a workflow at all — there is no such
skill, it is a finishing task. The tenth, the Remotion port, sat under
Developers > Composition, design & animation, a different tab entirely.
So: export-and-share moved to Build the project where the other task pages live,
the Remotion page moved into Workflows, and the chooser gained a tenth route. The
chooser rendered `<video>` unconditionally, which would have drawn a black
rectangle for a route with no clip — it now renders a neutral tile instead, and
custom.css styles it to the same box.
**The Prompt Guide and the workflow guides did not know about each other.** Level 1
is organised one page per workflow, and five of its six pages linked to no guide
at all. A reader learning to prompt for motion graphics never discovered
/guides/motion-graphics, and the traffic went nowhere in both directions. Each
Level 1 page now names its workflow and says what that page adds.
Four links pointed at redirects rather than the real page — /guides/claude-design,
/guides/common-mistakes, /guides/website-to-video, /guides/media-overlays. Seven
files now link to the destination directly.
Checked after: 0 broken links, 0 links via redirect.
Rendering, Performance, Deploy, Figma and Bring in a design.
**Figma is the one worth reading about.** The first attempt failed honestly — no
token, no file key, so it refused to fake an import and built a generic design
handoff instead, where both panels looked identical and nothing was demonstrated.
A real token and file key were sitting in bug-bash-figma-hf. With genuine access
it makes the actual point: the same cursor and the same clicks land on a PNG export
and on the imported HTML, and only the HTML responds — the field takes text, the
button runs through its states. One side is pixels, the other is a component. It
replaces the placeholder comment on Bring in a design too.
**Performance is measured, not asserted.** 25.0s against 9.8s as the median of
three runs at 1920x1080 over 300 frames, one CSS declaration responsible for the
whole gap, and a pixel comparison at 43.7 dB PSNR confirming the picture did not
change. Real numbers from real runs on this machine.
**Rendering** shows the loop end to end. **Deploy** shows the four places a render
can run and labels anything not executed live.
All four carry their own audio at about -19 dB. Each was checked on a contact
sheet and for dead frames before publishing.
Guides with nothing to look at: 15 at the start of this work, 5 now. The five
left are pages where a video would be decoration — authentication, feedback, a
decision table, a comparison that carries code, and 4K, which is a paragraph
about a flag.
**Color grading** was the worst page in the docs by the measure that matters:
33 table rows against one image, for the most visual feature in the product.
Four of the five tables were restating jargon in a grid — "Waveform | Brightness
by horizontal image position" tells you nothing you could act on. Those are prose
now, and the scopes section explains what each one is *for* (skin tones land on
one known line of a vectorscope, so faces are quick to check). The control lookup
stays a table, because that one is a genuine lookup.
Four factual errors in the old page, each verified at source before changing:
Studio's group is **Grade** in the flat Inspector, not "Color grading" in Design;
the controls are `whites`/`blacks`, not "white point/black point"; LOG and HDR
were conflated into one sentence when they are different cases; and the
project-wide LUT copy refuses a relative path in favour of a URL or data URL, not
a "project-root path".
Two things the page never mentioned and should have: `hyperframes grade-compare`,
which renders every candidate look onto one reference frame, and the fact that
`data-color-grading` nests under adjust/details/effects — a flat object renders
nothing at all.
**vs Remotion** argued for 851 words with nothing to look at and no code. It now
carries the same three-second title card written both ways. The HyperFrames one
is a real composition, not illustrative markup: extracted and run through lint
(0/0) and the full browser gate — runtime, layout, motion and contrast all pass.
It also concedes what Remotion genuinely does better, because a comparison page
that only flatters us is not worth reading.
**Choose how to create** never said what the four options were before comparing
them. It opens with the actual decision now — they all give you a video, the
difference is what you keep — and a four-row table of what you walk away with.
**Bring in a design** loses the 7-row keep-vs-rebuild table for one plain rule,
and the bullet list that used semicolons.
Every internal link on all four checked against the real page set. Where a visual
belongs but no approved asset exists, there is a JSX comment marking the spot
rather than a URL that would 404.
Adds the pages the rebuilt navigation is organised around, and moves the sidebar
onto that structure. Every entry points at a file that exists after this commit;
nothing is rewritten or removed yet, and no redirect is claimed yet.
- Studio (13 pages) — the editor had no section of its own
- One guide per creation workflow, matching the shipped agent skills
- Section hubs: Concepts, Catalog, Developers, Deploy, Workflows, Help,
Go further, Product updates, 30 Days of HyperFrames
Pages a later commit retires drop out of the sidebar here but still exist and
still resolve, so the site stays navigable at this commit.
Incidentally fixes a link to /concepts from the Lambda migration guide that is
broken on main today — the destination did not exist.
ukimsanov