@antoneeo/mkt-agentic-sdlc-skill 0.14.0 → 0.16.0

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/elicitation.md

@@ -1,217 +1,217 @@
-# Elicitation — question waves
-
-`## The question discipline` below governs EVERY doubt and EVERY question to the
-user — any phase, any level, inside or outside the waves. The waves are the only
-place the process *plans* the cost of asking.
-
-Ask for the **benefit** the user wants, never for the mechanism they imagine delivers it: a mechanism stated as a requirement forecloses every better one.
-
-The cardinal rule: **ask only what the user uniquely owns.** Facts about their
-business come from them; everything derivable from research comes from
-research. Asking the user "who are your competitors and how are you
-positioned?" is outsourcing the skill's own job — the failure mode this file
-exists to prevent.
-
-Unattended path: when the user is not reachable (a scheduled or autonomous run)
-and a real doubt remains, do not stall and do not invent consensus. Record it as
-a **declared assumption** (§Ask before the write). At E3 the artifact stays
-`DRAFT` and the plan holds at the next user gate; at E1/E2, proceed and list the
-assumption in the reply.
-
-## The question discipline
-
-A doubt kept silent is decided by the agent alone and reaches the plan looking
-settled; a useless question wastes the user's attention. This section rules on
-both.
-
-### When a doubt emerges
-
-A **candidate doubt** is an open point whose answer changes the plan. The usual
-signals — they illustrate, they do not close the definition:
-
-| Thought | What it means |
-|---|---|
-| "They probably mean…", "I'll assume…" | you are choosing between readings of the request |
-| "The brief doesn't say, so I'll fill it in" | a gap in scope, a non-goal, a budget or a priority |
-| "Either would work, I'll pick one" | equivalent in effect: yours, pick and do not ask; different in effect: weigh them below |
-| "I'll note it as an assumption and move on" | with the user reachable, that note is where doubts go to be forgotten |
-
-- **A fact about the business, or information only the user holds** (a budget,
-  a margin, a red line): settled only by evidence, cited —
-  never settled by a weighing. A ledger ASSUMPTION backed by a benchmark, a
-  comparable or a stated policy is a researched answer with its confidence, not a
-  doubt; a gap only the user can fill is a real doubt.
-- **A choice** — a reading of the brief, a strategic trade-off: cite the user's
-  statement that settles it (the brief, an APPROVED MKT-VISION, an earlier answer);
-  failing one, weigh the pros and cons of each option, stating each rejected option
-  at its strongest — the need it serves best; a weighing won against a weak version
-  of the alternative is not a weighing. One clearly outweighs: take it and write the
-  weighing with the choice — "I take X over Z: pro …, contro …". Balanced, or
-  turning on a priority of theirs not on record: a **real doubt** — and it turns on
-  one whenever the options serve different needs of the audience or the business,
-  each better at one the user would notice in the results (reach against
-  conversion, speed to market against completeness of the launch) and
-  none good enough at both, and nothing the user wrote ranks those needs — however
-  clear your own ranking feels. "The more natural reading" with no pros and cons
-  written is not a weighing. Reserved approvals never enter this test
-  (§The form of a question).
-
-### Ask before the write
-
-A real doubt that passes the legality test below is **owed**, not merely allowed.
-Ask it before the first write that would embed its answer, grouped with every
-doubt open at that point — the next wave when one is due, otherwise one round —
-following the question style below. Never defer a doubt to the deliverable, where
-the user must find it inside the plan; never drip one question per turn. An
-intent choice with neither a source nor a weighing is a finding (`review.md`
-§Reviewing).
-
-**Declared assumptions exist only where no question can be asked:**
-
-- **Unattended** — the user is not reachable (the Unattended path above).
-- **Delegated** — their own words handed you this choice; quote them. A general
-  "go ahead" is not a delegation.
-
-Each states **what it is taken from** and **the alternative it excludes** —
-a number goes in the ledger as an ASSUMPTION row, anything else in the artifact it
-touches — and is listed where the user will read it: an unshown assumption is a
-fabricated FACT waiting to happen. (A researched ASSUMPTION row, with its range and
-confidence, is an answer, not a declared assumption.) A dispatched subagent returns
-its open points in its final output (`dispatch.md`); the orchestrator treats them as
-its own candidate doubts (§When a doubt emerges).
-
-### The legality test
-
-A question outside the waves is legal only when BOTH hold:
-
-1. **Searched first, and the search is named — with its result.** The answer is
-   not on record (MKT-VISION, ledger, session notes) and not derivable from
-   research — and the question states what you searched or researched **and what
-   it returned**. **Never fake the search**: "I looked and found nothing" that
-   names no sources and no queries is a search not run. A question research can
-   answer is research outsourced to the client — the cardinal rule's own
-   failure mode, restated as a legality test.
-2. **It names what is blocked.** The question states the decision or fact that
-   cannot be resolved without the reply — what changes in the plan depending on
-   the answer. If nothing downstream changes, there is no question.
-
-Never legal:
-
-- **Generic confirmation** — "shall I proceed?", "is the plan OK so far?". The
-  gates are where approval lives; if a real risk motivates the ask, name the
-  risk and the fork — that is a blocking question and carries the form below.
-- **Preference-fishing** — asking the client to pick among options equivalent
-  in their effect on the objective. Cheapness to undo is NOT the test.
-- **Re-asking the record** — anything an approved MKT-VISION, a ledger entry
-  or an earlier answer already states.
-
-**Precedence:** a choice the user uniquely owns (budget, risk appetite,
-non-negotiables, brand red lines, approvals the gates reserve) is never
-preference-fishing; the list above reaches choices that are *not* theirs.
-
-### The form of a question
-
-The approvals the gates reserve and every stop the doctrine mandates are asked
-whatever you expect the answer: **legal by mandate**, never weighed, never
-re-argued here. Unattended, they are never assumed: the plan holds at the gate,
-unless the mandating rule prescribes its own unattended handling (`review.md`'s
-gated rung does).
-
-One mandating file prescribes its own hand-over, and there this form does not
-apply: `review.md`'s round cap (the artifact plus the open findings).
-That list is closed. A question outside the waves carries the **blocking form**,
-one line per element:
-
-- the fork: the options, each with its pros and cons, and what each implies for
-  the plan;
-- the evidence: what you researched and what it leaves undecided;
-- why no assumption survives — why the weighing does not settle it, and what a
-  wrong pick costs; a reserved approval or a mandated stop cites the approval or
-  the mandate instead;
-- why it is the user's call;
-- what stays blocked until answered.
-
-Question style (all waves):
-- Plain language, zero marketing jargon. Not "what's your ICP?" but "describe
-  your best current customer".
-- Max 4 questions per round; multiple rounds per wave allowed but each round
-  must be worth the interruption. More than 4 open doubts: the next round follows
-  at once, still before the write.
-- Offer concrete options where a real choice exists, each with its pros and
-  cons (narrows the reply, speeds the round). Use the client's
-  structured-question facility when available.
-- **Pre-authorize "I don't know" on numeric asks.** When you ask for a figure
-  the client may never have measured (conversion rate, CAC, open rate),
-  append the permission in the question itself — "...ma se non l'avete mai
-  misurato, va bene 'non lo so'." It removes the pressure to invent a number
-  and keeps the ledger honest (an unmeasured figure becomes a researched
-  BENCHMARK or a declared ASSUMPTION, never a fabricated FACT).
-- Every answer that is a fact becomes a `FACT` entry in the evidence ledger,
-  same discipline as researched numbers.
-- **Seeds are allowed, analysis is not:** "which competitors do you lose
-  deals to?" is a fact the user owns (their perceived competitive set) and a
-  legitimate research seed. "What are their strengths and weaknesses?" is
-  analysis — forbidden to ask, mandatory to research.
-
-## Wave 1 — Discovery (phase 2, before any research)
-
-Cover, across rounds:
-1. **Offer** — what they sell, in their words; what problem it solves.
-2. **Price & margin** — price point(s), rough margin, discount reality.
-3. **Current traction** — customers today (how many, what kind), revenue
-   order of magnitude, where the current customers came from.
-4. **Market & language** — geography, target market, language for the
-   deliverables.
-5. **Budget & horizon** — marketing budget range (a range is fine), planning
-   horizon (quarter / year / launch window).
-6. **Team & capacity** — who will execute marketing (nobody / founder /
-   person / team / agency), hours realistically available.
-7. **Sales motion** — how a sale happens today (self-serve, demo calls,
-   proposals, retail...), typical cycle length.
-8. **Existing assets** — website, mailing list, social accounts and their
-   real state; brand materials.
-9. **Constraints** — legal/regulatory limits, channels they refuse, brand
-   red lines.
-10. **Competitor seeds** — who they lose deals to / who customers compare
-    them with (seed, not analysis).
-
-Skip path: any item already answered by an approved MKT-VISION or earlier
-session record is not re-asked — note where the answer came from.
-
-## Wave 2 — Ambition (phase 5 entry, after research)
-
-Now the user chooses with research on the table. Present the relevant
-evidence first (one short paragraph), then ask:
-1. **Growth vs margin** — push volume or protect profitability?
-2. **Risk appetite** — proven channels only, or reserve an experimental slice?
-3. **Timeline pressure** — is there a hard date (launch, season, runway)?
-4. **Non-negotiables** — anything the objectives must include or avoid?
-
-## Wave 3 — Execution capacity (phase 7 entry)
-
-1. **Content capacity** — who writes/records, in which language, how often
-   realistically?
-2. **Paid capacity** — who runs ads; any platform experience in-house?
-3. **Follow-up capacity** — if leads double, who answers them? CRM/tooling?
-4. **Budget flexibility** — is the budget fixed or scalable if a channel
-   proves itself?
-
-## Reflect
-
-Fold answers into the artifacts (MKT_VISION, OBJECTIVES, TACTICAL_PLAN) and
-the ledger — never leave them only in chat. The written document is what the
-next session and the reviewer read.
-
-## Anti-patterns
-
-- **Deferring a doubt into the plan**: writing a guess into the artifact and
-  leaving the user to find it there.
-- **Outsourcing analysis**: asking the user for market size, competitor
-  strengths, channel choice, or positioning. That is the skill's work.
-- **Jargon**: ICP, CAC, SOM, funnel — translate or don't ask.
-- **Interrogation**: more than 4 questions per round, or drip-feeding across
-  many turns instead of structured rounds.
-- **Re-asking the recorded**: anything an approved vision or ledger FACT
-  already answers.
-- **Collecting without folding in**: answers that never reach a document or
-  the ledger are lost to the next session.
+# Elicitation — question waves
+
+`## The question discipline` below governs EVERY doubt and EVERY question to the
+user — any phase, any level, inside or outside the waves. The waves are the only
+place the process *plans* the cost of asking.
+
+Ask for the **benefit** the user wants, never for the mechanism they imagine delivers it: a mechanism stated as a requirement forecloses every better one.
+
+The cardinal rule: **ask only what the user uniquely owns.** Facts about their
+business come from them; everything derivable from research comes from
+research. Asking the user "who are your competitors and how are you
+positioned?" is outsourcing the skill's own job — the failure mode this file
+exists to prevent.
+
+Unattended path: when the user is not reachable (a scheduled or autonomous run)
+and a real doubt remains, do not stall and do not invent consensus. Record it as
+a **declared assumption** (§Ask before the write). At E3 the artifact stays
+`DRAFT` and the plan holds at the next user gate; at E1/E2, proceed and list the
+assumption in the reply.
+
+## The question discipline
+
+A doubt kept silent is decided by the agent alone and reaches the plan looking
+settled; a useless question wastes the user's attention. This section rules on
+both.
+
+### When a doubt emerges
+
+A **candidate doubt** is an open point whose answer changes the plan. The usual
+signals — they illustrate, they do not close the definition:
+
+| Thought | What it means |
+|---|---|
+| "They probably mean…", "I'll assume…" | you are choosing between readings of the request |
+| "The brief doesn't say, so I'll fill it in" | a gap in scope, a non-goal, a budget or a priority |
+| "Either would work, I'll pick one" | equivalent in effect: yours, pick and do not ask; different in effect: weigh them below |
+| "I'll note it as an assumption and move on" | with the user reachable, that note is where doubts go to be forgotten |
+
+- **A fact about the business, or information only the user holds** (a budget,
+  a margin, a red line): settled only by evidence, cited —
+  never settled by a weighing. A ledger ASSUMPTION backed by a benchmark, a
+  comparable or a stated policy is a researched answer with its confidence, not a
+  doubt; a gap only the user can fill is a real doubt.
+- **A choice** — a reading of the brief, a strategic trade-off: cite the user's
+  statement that settles it (the brief, an APPROVED MKT-VISION, an earlier answer);
+  failing one, weigh the pros and cons of each option, stating each rejected option
+  at its strongest — the need it serves best; a weighing won against a weak version
+  of the alternative is not a weighing. One clearly outweighs: take it and write the
+  weighing with the choice — "I take X over Z: pro …, contro …". Balanced, or
+  turning on a priority of theirs not on record: a **real doubt** — and it turns on
+  one whenever the options serve different needs of the audience or the business,
+  each better at one the user would notice in the results (reach against
+  conversion, speed to market against completeness of the launch) and
+  none good enough at both, and nothing the user wrote ranks those needs — however
+  clear your own ranking feels. "The more natural reading" with no pros and cons
+  written is not a weighing. Reserved approvals never enter this test
+  (§The form of a question).
+
+### Ask before the write
+
+A real doubt that passes the legality test below is **owed**, not merely allowed.
+Ask it before the first write that would embed its answer, grouped with every
+doubt open at that point — the next wave when one is due, otherwise one round —
+following the question style below. Never defer a doubt to the deliverable, where
+the user must find it inside the plan; never drip one question per turn. An
+intent choice with neither a source nor a weighing is a finding (`review.md`
+§Reviewing).
+
+**Declared assumptions exist only where no question can be asked:**
+
+- **Unattended** — the user is not reachable (the Unattended path above).
+- **Delegated** — their own words handed you this choice; quote them. A general
+  "go ahead" is not a delegation.
+
+Each states **what it is taken from** and **the alternative it excludes** —
+a number goes in the ledger as an ASSUMPTION row, anything else in the artifact it
+touches — and is listed where the user will read it: an unshown assumption is a
+fabricated FACT waiting to happen. (A researched ASSUMPTION row, with its range and
+confidence, is an answer, not a declared assumption.) A dispatched subagent returns
+its open points in its final output (`dispatch.md`); the orchestrator treats them as
+its own candidate doubts (§When a doubt emerges).
+
+### The legality test
+
+A question outside the waves is legal only when BOTH hold:
+
+1. **Searched first, and the search is named — with its result.** The answer is
+   not on record (MKT-VISION, ledger, session notes) and not derivable from
+   research — and the question states what you searched or researched **and what
+   it returned**. **Never fake the search**: "I looked and found nothing" that
+   names no sources and no queries is a search not run. A question research can
+   answer is research outsourced to the client — the cardinal rule's own
+   failure mode, restated as a legality test.
+2. **It names what is blocked.** The question states the decision or fact that
+   cannot be resolved without the reply — what changes in the plan depending on
+   the answer. If nothing downstream changes, there is no question.
+
+Never legal:
+
+- **Generic confirmation** — "shall I proceed?", "is the plan OK so far?". The
+  gates are where approval lives; if a real risk motivates the ask, name the
+  risk and the fork — that is a blocking question and carries the form below.
+- **Preference-fishing** — asking the client to pick among options equivalent
+  in their effect on the objective. Cheapness to undo is NOT the test.
+- **Re-asking the record** — anything an approved MKT-VISION, a ledger entry
+  or an earlier answer already states.
+
+**Precedence:** a choice the user uniquely owns (budget, risk appetite,
+non-negotiables, brand red lines, approvals the gates reserve) is never
+preference-fishing; the list above reaches choices that are *not* theirs.
+
+### The form of a question
+
+The approvals the gates reserve and every stop the doctrine mandates are asked
+whatever you expect the answer: **legal by mandate**, never weighed, never
+re-argued here. Unattended, they are never assumed: the plan holds at the gate,
+unless the mandating rule prescribes its own unattended handling (`review.md`'s
+gated rung does).
+
+One mandating file prescribes its own hand-over, and there this form does not
+apply: `review.md`'s round cap (the artifact plus the open findings).
+That list is closed. A question outside the waves carries the **blocking form**,
+one line per element:
+
+- the fork: the options, each with its pros and cons, and what each implies for
+  the plan;
+- the evidence: what you researched and what it leaves undecided;
+- why no assumption survives — why the weighing does not settle it, and what a
+  wrong pick costs; a reserved approval or a mandated stop cites the approval or
+  the mandate instead;
+- why it is the user's call;
+- what stays blocked until answered.
+
+Question style (all waves):
+- Plain language, zero marketing jargon. Not "what's your ICP?" but "describe
+  your best current customer".
+- Max 4 questions per round; multiple rounds per wave allowed but each round
+  must be worth the interruption. More than 4 open doubts: the next round follows
+  at once, still before the write.
+- Offer concrete options where a real choice exists, each with its pros and
+  cons (narrows the reply, speeds the round). Use the client's
+  structured-question facility when available.
+- **Pre-authorize "I don't know" on numeric asks.** When you ask for a figure
+  the client may never have measured (conversion rate, CAC, open rate),
+  append the permission in the question itself — "...ma se non l'avete mai
+  misurato, va bene 'non lo so'." It removes the pressure to invent a number
+  and keeps the ledger honest (an unmeasured figure becomes a researched
+  BENCHMARK or a declared ASSUMPTION, never a fabricated FACT).
+- Every answer that is a fact becomes a `FACT` entry in the evidence ledger,
+  same discipline as researched numbers.
+- **Seeds are allowed, analysis is not:** "which competitors do you lose
+  deals to?" is a fact the user owns (their perceived competitive set) and a
+  legitimate research seed. "What are their strengths and weaknesses?" is
+  analysis — forbidden to ask, mandatory to research.
+
+## Wave 1 — Discovery (phase 2, before any research)
+
+Cover, across rounds:
+1. **Offer** — what they sell, in their words; what problem it solves.
+2. **Price & margin** — price point(s), rough margin, discount reality.
+3. **Current traction** — customers today (how many, what kind), revenue
+   order of magnitude, where the current customers came from.
+4. **Market & language** — geography, target market, language for the
+   deliverables.
+5. **Budget & horizon** — marketing budget range (a range is fine), planning
+   horizon (quarter / year / launch window).
+6. **Team & capacity** — who will execute marketing (nobody / founder /
+   person / team / agency), hours realistically available.
+7. **Sales motion** — how a sale happens today (self-serve, demo calls,
+   proposals, retail...), typical cycle length.
+8. **Existing assets** — website, mailing list, social accounts and their
+   real state; brand materials.
+9. **Constraints** — legal/regulatory limits, channels they refuse, brand
+   red lines.
+10. **Competitor seeds** — who they lose deals to / who customers compare
+    them with (seed, not analysis).
+
+Skip path: any item already answered by an approved MKT-VISION or earlier
+session record is not re-asked — note where the answer came from.
+
+## Wave 2 — Ambition (phase 5 entry, after research)
+
+Now the user chooses with research on the table. Present the relevant
+evidence first (one short paragraph), then ask:
+1. **Growth vs margin** — push volume or protect profitability?
+2. **Risk appetite** — proven channels only, or reserve an experimental slice?
+3. **Timeline pressure** — is there a hard date (launch, season, runway)?
+4. **Non-negotiables** — anything the objectives must include or avoid?
+
+## Wave 3 — Execution capacity (phase 7 entry)
+
+1. **Content capacity** — who writes/records, in which language, how often
+   realistically?
+2. **Paid capacity** — who runs ads; any platform experience in-house?
+3. **Follow-up capacity** — if leads double, who answers them? CRM/tooling?
+4. **Budget flexibility** — is the budget fixed or scalable if a channel
+   proves itself?
+
+## Reflect
+
+Fold answers into the artifacts (MKT_VISION, OBJECTIVES, TACTICAL_PLAN) and
+the ledger — never leave them only in chat. The written document is what the
+next session and the reviewer read.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+- **Deferring a doubt into the plan**: writing a guess into the artifact and
+  leaving the user to find it there.
+- **Outsourcing analysis**: asking the user for market size, competitor
+  strengths, channel choice, or positioning. That is the skill's work.
+- **Jargon**: ICP, CAC, SOM, funnel — translate or don't ask.
+- **Interrogation**: more than 4 questions per round, or drip-feeding across
+  many turns instead of structured rounds.
+- **Re-asking the recorded**: anything an approved vision or ledger FACT
+  already answers.
+- **Collecting without folding in**: answers that never reach a document or
+  the ledger are lost to the next session.

package/skills/mkt-agentic-sdlc/hybrid.md

@@ -1,47 +1,47 @@
-# The Hybrid Seam — coexistence with devPNT (marketing lens)
-
-**For whom**: the agent working a marketing engagement where the `devpnt_*` tools
-are available and point at this project.
-**Answers**: "which mode am I in, and who owns what when both authorities are live".
-**Does not answer**: the process itself — the engagement triage, the SOSTAC
-phases, the gates and the evidence discipline are `SKILL.md`'s, identical in both
-modes.
-
-Moved out of `SKILL.md` by F-052 so a Standalone session stops paying for a seam
-it cannot reach. **The content below is unchanged**: a relocation, not a rewrite.
-
-<!-- moved-block-sha256: b9b19d58a104e858f38460065160a61e64a6cd6f64f92c1bbf47fbf534d25ef6 -->
-### Hybrid in symbiosis with devPNT
-
-Use this mode when the `devpnt_*` tools are available and point at the current project.
-
-Authoritative hierarchy:
-1. **devPNT M-VISION**: strategic beacon of the plan cycle. Before strategy or tactics, read it and verify benefits, success signals, scope-in and non-goals.
-2. **devPNT Master Plan**: the marketing roadmap; milestones are plan cycles (a quarter, a launch, a market entry).
-3. **devPNT Action Plan**: the nine phases of the active engagement as tactical nodes.
-4. **devPNT governed artifacts**: the marketing artifact set (table below).
-5. **Local `mkt_docs/`**: readable context, Standalone fallback, evidence ledger home, shadow/mirror when useful.
-
-### Ownership matrix (the Hybrid seam)
-
-The skill owns the **process** (triage, phases, gates, lifecycle); devPNT owns the **machinery** (governed storage, versioned proposals, review wiring). The marketing artifacts occupy the same governance slots the software artifacts occupy in the sibling skill:
-
-| Artifact | Standalone master | Hybrid master (devPNT slot) | Mirror rule |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Marketing vision | `vision/MKT_VISION.md` | M-VISION (`milestone_vision_<slug>`) | filesystem copy is a shadow; DB wins |
-| ICP & Personas | `strategy/ICP_PERSONAS.md` | `mkt_icp_personas` (D-UC slot) | shadow `SHADOW_[doc_key]_vX.Y.md` |
-| Threat map | `strategy/THREAT_MAP.md` | `mkt_threat_map` (P-TM slot) | shadow |
-| Objectives | `strategy/OBJECTIVES.md` | `mkt_objectives` | shadow |
-| Strategy | `strategy/STRATEGY.md` | `mkt_strategy` (E-ISP slot) | shadow, exported BEFORE tactics work |
-| Tactical plan | `tactics/TACTICAL_PLAN.md` | `mkt_tactical_plan` (E-TDD slot) | shadow, exported BEFORE action phase |
-| Measurement plan | `tactics/MEASUREMENT_PLAN.md` | `mkt_measurement_plan` (E-TP slot) | shadow |
-| Evidence ledger | `research/evidence_ledger.md` | `research/evidence_ledger.md` — **filesystem-first even in Hybrid** | validator needs it on disk; devPNT may reference, never copies |
-| Final plan + one-pager | `deliverables/` | assembled from ACCEPTED artifact versions | PDF via `devpnt_generate_document_pdf` when available |
-| Handoff | `audit/handoff.md` | `audit/handoff.md` | always filesystem |
-
-Hybrid rules:
-- devPNT is the governed source for plans and strategy artifacts; do not create a second truth in `mkt_docs/`.
-- The skill stays autonomous: if devPNT is not there, switch to Standalone without losing capability.
-- If the user request, the local vision and the M-VISION diverge, stop and make the conflict explicit.
-- Never auto-accept devPNT proposals: present the preview and wait for explicit confirmation.
-- Where the local devPNT protocol imposes stricter gates (vision creation/amendment gates, independent review gates), follow them: they are the same discipline this skill encodes.
+# The Hybrid Seam — coexistence with devPNT (marketing lens)
+
+**For whom**: the agent working a marketing engagement where the `devpnt_*` tools
+are available and point at this project.
+**Answers**: "which mode am I in, and who owns what when both authorities are live".
+**Does not answer**: the process itself — the engagement triage, the SOSTAC
+phases, the gates and the evidence discipline are `SKILL.md`'s, identical in both
+modes.
+
+Moved out of `SKILL.md` by F-052 so a Standalone session stops paying for a seam
+it cannot reach. **The content below is the relocated text, unchanged except for one declared amendment**: F-065 rewrote the review wording (devPNT performs no review; the agent review precedes the proposal — `ADR_2026-10-07_agent_review_precedes_human` in the code lens). The digest certifies the amended block, re-stamped only after the pre-edit block matched the previous digest and the diff showed only those lines changed.
+
+<!-- moved-block-sha256: 1627068db8c34b2bbbbb151812b12a3d09d663f4bace41d2d5b490239eb2efb6 -->
+### Hybrid in symbiosis with devPNT
+
+Use this mode when the `devpnt_*` tools are available and point at the current project.
+
+Authoritative hierarchy:
+1. **devPNT M-VISION**: strategic beacon of the plan cycle. Before strategy or tactics, read it and verify benefits, success signals, scope-in and non-goals.
+2. **devPNT Master Plan**: the marketing roadmap; milestones are plan cycles (a quarter, a launch, a market entry).
+3. **devPNT Action Plan**: the nine phases of the active engagement as tactical nodes.
+4. **devPNT governed artifacts**: the marketing artifact set (table below).
+5. **Local `mkt_docs/`**: readable context, Standalone fallback, evidence ledger home, shadow/mirror when useful.
+
+### Ownership matrix (the Hybrid seam)
+
+The skill owns the **process** (triage, phases, gates, lifecycle); devPNT owns the **machinery** (governed storage, versioned proposals, the human's review and approval surface; devPNT performs no review — the agent review is the client's, under `review.md`, and its PASS precedes the proposal). The marketing artifacts occupy the same governance slots the software artifacts occupy in the sibling skill:
+
+| Artifact | Standalone master | Hybrid master (devPNT slot) | Mirror rule |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Marketing vision | `vision/MKT_VISION.md` | M-VISION (`milestone_vision_<slug>`) | filesystem copy is a shadow; DB wins |
+| ICP & Personas | `strategy/ICP_PERSONAS.md` | `mkt_icp_personas` (D-UC slot) | shadow `SHADOW_[doc_key]_vX.Y.md` |
+| Threat map | `strategy/THREAT_MAP.md` | `mkt_threat_map` (P-TM slot) | shadow |
+| Objectives | `strategy/OBJECTIVES.md` | `mkt_objectives` | shadow |
+| Strategy | `strategy/STRATEGY.md` | `mkt_strategy` (E-ISP slot) | shadow, exported BEFORE tactics work |
+| Tactical plan | `tactics/TACTICAL_PLAN.md` | `mkt_tactical_plan` (E-TDD slot) | shadow, exported BEFORE action phase |
+| Measurement plan | `tactics/MEASUREMENT_PLAN.md` | `mkt_measurement_plan` (E-TP slot) | shadow |
+| Evidence ledger | `research/evidence_ledger.md` | `research/evidence_ledger.md` — **filesystem-first even in Hybrid** | validator needs it on disk; devPNT may reference, never copies |
+| Final plan + one-pager | `deliverables/` | assembled from ACCEPTED artifact versions | PDF via `devpnt_generate_document_pdf` when available |
+| Handoff | `audit/handoff.md` | `audit/handoff.md` | always filesystem |
+
+Hybrid rules:
+- devPNT is the governed source for plans and strategy artifacts; do not create a second truth in `mkt_docs/`.
+- The skill stays autonomous: if devPNT is not there, switch to Standalone without losing capability.
+- If the user request, the local vision and the M-VISION diverge, stop and make the conflict explicit.
+- Never auto-accept devPNT proposals: present the preview and wait for explicit confirmation.
+- Where the local devPNT protocol imposes stricter gates (vision creation/amendment gates, the order agent review → proposal → human review), follow them: they are the same discipline this skill encodes.