diff --git a/CHANGELOG_ANALYSIS.md b/CHANGELOG_ANALYSIS.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..a2d44f90c87
--- /dev/null
+++ b/CHANGELOG_ANALYSIS.md
@@ -0,0 +1,193 @@
+# Changelog Analysis Report
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+This analysis examines the Roo Code changelog (361 releases, 721 fixes) to identify patterns of repeated fixes and assess work coordination. The codebase shows clear signs of **reactive development patterns** where certain problem areas have required multiple fixes over time.
+
+---
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### 1. Repeatedly Fixed Problem Areas
+
+#### 🔧 Tool ID/Schema Validation (17+ fixes)
+The most frequently fixed issue category involves tool IDs and schema validation across different providers:
+
+| Issue Pattern | Fix Count | Example PRs |
+|--------------|-----------|-------------|
+| tool_use ID sanitization | 5+ | #11131, #10760, #10649, #9952 |
+| Tool schema normalization | 6+ | #10726, #10472, #10221, #10148, #10109 |
+| additionalProperties handling | 4+ | #10472, #10210, #10109 |
+| Tool ID truncation (64 chars) | 3+ | #10902, #10763 |
+
+**Root Cause Analysis**: Each AI provider (OpenAI, Gemini, Bedrock, Anthropic) has different validation requirements for tool schemas and IDs. Rather than a unified abstraction, fixes are applied provider-by-provider.
+
+#### 🔄 Duplicate Tool Results/Blocks (16 fixes)
+Preventing duplicate content in API messages has been a persistent challenge:
+
+- PR #11008: Fix duplicate tool_call emission
+- PR #10760: Prevent duplicate tool_use IDs
+- PR #10519: Merge approval feedback to prevent duplicates
+- PR #10497: Prevent duplicate tool_result blocks
+- PR #10466: Explicit deduplication for tool_results
+- PR #9275: Resolve duplicate tool blocks error
+- PR #9272: Prevent duplicate tool_result in read_file
+- PR #9248: Prevent duplicate tool_result in native protocol
+
+**Root Cause Analysis**: Multiple code paths can emit tool results, and state management during streaming is complex.
+
+#### 💭 Gemini Thought Signatures (10+ fixes)
+Managing Gemini's thought signature format has required numerous iterations:
+
+- PR #10787: Detect Gemini models with space-separated names
+- PR #10743: Inject dummy signatures on ALL tool calls
+- PR #10694: Thought signature validation errors
+- PR #10640: Correct format via OpenRouter
+- PR #10590: Round-trip thought signatures for tool calls
+- PR #10554: Disable persistence to prevent corrupted errors
+- PR #9506: Support reasoning_details format for Gemini 3
+- PR #9380: Thought signature validation and token counting
+
+**Root Cause Analysis**: Gemini's thought/reasoning format differs from other providers and changed between model versions.
+
+#### 🏃 Race Conditions (17 fixes)
+Race conditions appear repeatedly across different subsystems:
+
+- Context condensing prompt input (#10876)
+- API message deletion during streaming (#10113)
+- new_task tool for native protocol (#9655)
+- Native tool protocol 400 errors (#9363)
+- Message queue drain (#8536)
+- Gemini Grounding Sources (#6372)
+- Provider model loading
+- Prompt updates
+- Terminal command capture
+- Shell integration
+- API key entry on welcome screen
+
+**Root Cause Analysis**: Asynchronous operations (streaming, user input, state updates) lack proper synchronization primitives.
+
+#### 📦 Context Condensing (24 fixes)
+The context management/condensing system has been heavily patched:
+
+- Nested condensing (#10985)
+- Token counting returns 0 (#10983)
+- Truncation recording (#10984)
+- Orphaned tool_results (#10927)
+- v1 prompt migration (#10931)
+- Race conditions (#10876)
+- Removing custom model option (#10901)
+- Tool_use preservation (#10471)
+- Pending results flush (#10379)
+- Reasoning preservation (#10292)
+- Context restoration on rewind (#9665)
+- Tool_use in summary messages (#9582)
+- Encrypted reasoning handling (#9263)
+- Queue processing after condensing (#8477)
+
+**Root Cause Analysis**: Context condensing involves complex state transformations across multiple message types, and provider-specific constraints make this challenging.
+
+#### 🔌 Native Tool Protocol (30+ fixes)
+The native tool calling protocol has required extensive maintenance:
+
+- Double emission in handlers (#10888)
+- Missing tool identity in streams (#10719)
+- File path corruption during streaming (#10555)
+- Tool call end events (#10280, #10293)
+- Strict mode handling (#10220)
+- Race conditions (#9655, #9363)
+- Parallel tool calls (#9433)
+- Tool result preservation (#9457)
+- XML parser state sync (#9535)
+
+---
+
+### 2. Contributor Analysis
+
+| Contributor | Fix Count | Primary Areas |
+|-------------|-----------|---------------|
+| @daniel-lxs | 293 | Tool schemas, validation, native protocol, MCP |
+| @hannesrudolph | 226 | Reasoning/thinking, race conditions, streaming, condensing |
+| @app/roomote | 140 | Model configs, UI, provider settings |
+| @mrubens | 113 | OpenRouter, tool handling, provider integration |
+| @roomote | 67 | Model configs, UI fixes |
+
+**Observation**: Two core contributors (@daniel-lxs and @hannesrudolph) handle the majority of complex fixes. This creates knowledge concentration risk but also shows coordination - they rarely fix the same issues.
+
+---
+
+### 3. Coordination Assessment
+
+#### ✅ Evidence of Coordination
+
+1. **Clear PR numbering and attribution**: Every fix references a PR number and contributor
+2. **Consistent changelog format**: Structured entries with issue references
+3. **Specialized ownership**: Contributors tend to own specific subsystems
+4. **Release cadence**: 361 releases over ~2 years shows active maintenance
+5. **Bug regression tracking**: Some fixes reference earlier issues that were reintroduced
+6. **Provider-specific batching**: Related provider fixes often appear in the same release
+
+#### ⚠️ Evidence of Reactive vs. Proactive Development
+
+1. **Same-class fixes across releases**: Tool ID validation appears in versions 3.33 through 3.46
+2. **Provider-by-provider fixes**: Instead of unified abstractions, each provider gets individual fixes
+3. **Multiple patch releases**: Many versions have .1, .2, .3 patches for the same features
+4. **Regression fixes**: Terms like "revert", "restore", "re-enable" appear frequently
+5. **"Prevent" pattern**: 83 fixes use "prevent" language, suggesting defensive patches rather than root cause resolution
+
+#### 📊 Release Pattern Analysis
+
+```
+Recent release velocity (2026-01):
+- 3.46.1, 3.46.0 (Jan 30) - 2 releases same day
+- 3.45.0 (Jan 27)
+- 3.44.2, 3.44.1, 3.44.0 (Jan 26-27) - 3 releases in 2 days
+- 3.43.0 (Jan 23)
+- 3.42.0 (Jan 22)
+- 3.41.3, 3.41.2, 3.41.1, 3.41.0 (Jan 15-18) - 4 releases in 4 days
+```
+
+This pattern suggests a ship-fast-fix-fast approach rather than comprehensive testing before release.
+
+---
+
+### 4. Root Cause Categories
+
+| Category | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| **Provider Fragmentation** | Each AI provider has unique requirements, leading to N implementations instead of 1 abstraction | Tool schema normalization per provider |
+| **State Management** | Async state updates without proper locking/ordering | Race conditions during streaming |
+| **Format Evolution** | Model updates change response formats | Gemini thought signatures |
+| **Integration Complexity** | Multiple protocols (native, XML, MCP) multiply edge cases | Duplicate tool results |
+| **Test Coverage Gaps** | Fixes often don't prevent similar future issues | Same-class bugs recurring |
+
+---
+
+### 5. Recommendations
+
+1. **Unified Tool Abstraction Layer**: Create a single normalization layer for tool schemas that handles all provider requirements upfront, rather than fixing providers individually.
+
+2. **State Machine for Tool Execution**: Implement explicit state machines for tool execution flows to prevent race conditions and duplicate emissions.
+
+3. **Provider Abstraction Tests**: Add integration tests that verify tool calls work consistently across all providers before release.
+
+4. **Condensing System Redesign**: The context condensing system has too many patches; consider a ground-up redesign with clear invariants.
+
+5. **Regression Test Suite**: Each fix should include a test that would have caught the bug, preventing the "same-class fix" pattern.
+
+6. **Release Staging**: Consider a beta channel to catch issues before they require multiple patch releases.
+
+---
+
+## Conclusion
+
+The Roo Code project shows **organized but reactive** development. Contributors are clearly coordinated (they don't duplicate work) and changes are well-documented. However, the repeated fixes in the same problem areas suggest that **root causes are not being fully addressed** - instead, surface-level patches are applied as issues arise.
+
+The concentration of fixes around tool handling, context condensing, and provider integration suggests these subsystems would benefit from architectural review rather than continued incremental fixes.
+
+**Overall Coordination Score: 7/10**
+- Documentation: ✅ Excellent
+- Attribution: ✅ Excellent  
+- Ownership clarity: ✅ Good
+- Root cause resolution: ⚠️ Needs improvement
+- Regression prevention: ⚠️ Needs improvement