What problem does it solve? Evaluating React frameworks requires accurate, current facts about routing, caching, loaders, rendering, and safety behavior, and outdated or one-sided comparisons lead to poor adoption and migration decisions. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Framework comparison baseline: Uses a canonical reference document comparing Rango against Next.js App Router, TanStack Start, and Waku across routing, caching, prerendering, slots, observability, and deployment. - Positioning and migration guidance: Produces TL;DR answers or full decision memos covering the at-a-glance table, growth path, runtime differences, and areas where competitors lead. - Claim verification discipline: Distinguishes source-verifiable Rango behavior from competitor claims that must be checked against current official documentation before publishing. - Use Case: A developer evaluating React frameworks asks how Rango's loader model differs from TanStack Start's route loaders, and receives a sourced answer covering live-by-default data slots beneath cached UI plus the relevant tradeoffs. ## Quick Start Use the comparison skill to explain how Rango differs from Next.js App Router for an application that needs cached shells with live data.