@rubytech/create-siteoffice-code 0.1.256

package/payload/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/value-proposition-canvas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+# Value Proposition Canvas
+
+## Purpose
+Align what you offer with what customers actually need by mapping customer jobs, pains, and gains to your value proposition.
+
+## When to Use
+- Validating new offers or products
+- Refining messaging and positioning
+- GTM strategy development
+- When product-market fit feels off
+
+## Process
+
+### Part 1: Customer Profile
+
+1. **Customer Jobs**
+   - Functional jobs: Tasks they're trying to complete
+   - Social jobs: How they want to be perceived
+   - Emotional jobs: How they want to feel
+   - Supporting jobs: Adjacent tasks in their workflow
+
+2. **Customer Pains**
+   - Obstacles preventing job completion
+   - Risks and negative outcomes they fear
+   - Frustrations with current solutions
+   - What makes things harder or slower
+
+3. **Customer Gains**
+   - Required outcomes (must-haves)
+   - Expected outcomes (should-haves)
+   - Desired outcomes (nice-to-haves)
+   - Unexpected delights (wow-factors)
+
+### Part 2: Value Map
+
+4. **Products & Services**
+   - What you're offering (be specific)
+   - Features and components
+
+5. **Pain Relievers**
+   - How you eliminate or reduce pains
+   - Map each pain reliever to specific customer pains
+   - Which pains matter most to customers?
+
+6. **Gain Creators**
+   - How you create or maximize gains
+   - Map each gain creator to specific customer gains
+   - Which gains matter most to customers?
+
+### Part 3: Fit Analysis
+
+7. **Assess the fit**
+   - Which customer pains are you NOT addressing?
+   - Which gains are you NOT creating?
+   - Are you solving for what matters most?
+   - Are you creating value customers don't care about?
+
+8. **Prioritize**
+   - Focus on extreme pains (severe + frequent)
+   - Focus on essential gains (required outcomes)
+   - Cut or deprioritize nice-to-haves
+
+9. **Synthesis**
+   - Does your value proposition address top pains and create top gains?
+   - What needs to change to improve fit?
+   - How would you communicate this value clearly?
+
+## Example
+
+**Idea**: "Done-for-you AI automation service for ecommerce brands"
+
+### Customer Profile
+
+**Jobs**:
+- Process customer orders efficiently
+- Respond to customer inquiries 24/7
+- Reduce operational overhead
+- Scale without proportional hiring
+
+**Pains**:
+- Customer service response times (losing customers)
+- High turnover in support team
+- Expensive to hire skilled help
+- Manual, repetitive order processing tasks
+- Fear of tech complexity/failed implementations
+
+**Gains**:
+- Required: Faster response times, lower costs
+- Expected: Improved customer satisfaction
+- Desired: More time for strategic work
+- Unexpected: Competitive differentiation
+
+### Value Map
+
+**Offering**: "AI-powered customer service + order automation for ecommerce (Shopify/WooCommerce)"
+
+**Pain Relievers**:
+- Instant 24/7 response (eliminates wait time pain)
+- Done-for-you setup (removes tech complexity fear)
+- Flat monthly fee (eliminates hiring cost pain)
+- 14-day implementation (removes long project pain)
+
+**Gain Creators**:
+- 80% ticket reduction (required outcome)
+- 24/7 availability (expected outcome)
+- Dashboard with insights (desired outcome)
+- Auto-learns from brand voice (unexpected delight)
+
+### Fit Analysis
+
+**Strong fit**:
+- Pain relievers target extreme pains (cost, complexity, time)
+- Gain creators deliver required outcomes
+
+**Gaps identified**:
+- Not addressing high turnover pain (existing team still needed)
+- No gain creator for "more strategic time" (claimed benefit not supported)
+
+**Refined value prop**: "Get 24/7 AI customer service + order automation live in 14 days. Flat monthly fee, no hiring, no tech headaches. Built specifically for Shopify and WooCommerce brands doing $100K-$2M/year."
+
+**Insight**: Value proposition is strong but messaging should emphasize specific platforms (Shopify/WooCommerce) and revenue range to improve targeting.

package/payload/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/win-loss-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,242 @@
+# Win/Loss Analysis
+
+## Purpose
+Systematically understand why you won or lost specific deals to improve product, positioning, sales process, and competitive strategy.
+
+## When to Use
+- After closing (or losing) a deal
+- Improving sales conversion rates
+- Refining product positioning and messaging
+- Understanding competitive dynamics
+- Identifying product gaps or opportunities
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Capture Every Outcome
+
+Track all deals that reach decision stage:
+
+**Won deals:** Understand what made you the choice
+**Lost deals:** Understand why they chose differently
+**No decision:** Understand what prevented action
+
+### 2. Conduct Win/Loss Interviews
+
+**Timing:** Within 2 weeks of decision (memories fade)
+
+**Format:** 15-30 minute call with the decision-maker
+
+**Approach:**
+- Thank them for their time
+- Explain you're trying to improve
+- Ask open-ended questions
+- Listen more than talk
+- Don't defend or sell
+
+### 3. Win Analysis Questions
+
+**The Decision:**
+- "What ultimately made you decide to go with us?"
+- "What was the deciding factor?"
+- "Was there a moment when you knew you'd choose us?"
+
+**The Alternatives:**
+- "Who else did you seriously consider?"
+- "How did we compare to [competitor]?"
+- "What did they have that we didn't?"
+
+**The Process:**
+- "How did you make this decision?"
+- "Who else was involved in deciding?"
+- "What almost stopped you from choosing us?"
+
+**The Value:**
+- "What do you expect to get from working with us?"
+- "What problem are you most hoping we solve?"
+- "How will you measure if this was a good decision?"
+
+**The Improvement:**
+- "What would you change about our sales process?"
+- "Was anything confusing or frustrating?"
+- "What should we do differently next time?"
+
+### 4. Loss Analysis Questions
+
+**The Decision:**
+- "What made you decide not to go with us?"
+- "Was there a specific moment when you knew?"
+- "What would have changed your mind?"
+
+**The Winner:**
+- "Who did you choose instead?" (or "Did you choose anyone?")
+- "What did they have that we didn't?"
+- "What was their key advantage?"
+
+**The Objections:**
+- "What concerns did you have about us?"
+- "Was there anything we said or did that raised red flags?"
+- "What questions did we not answer well?"
+
+**The Fit:**
+- "In hindsight, were we ever a real contender?"
+- "What would make us the right fit for someone like you?"
+- "Would you reconsider in the future? Under what circumstances?"
+
+**The Process:**
+- "How did our sales process compare to others?"
+- "Did we provide what you needed to make a decision?"
+- "What should we do differently?"
+
+### 5. No-Decision Analysis Questions
+
+**The Stall:**
+- "What prevented you from making a decision?"
+- "Is this still a priority? Why or why not?"
+- "What would need to change for you to revisit this?"
+
+**The Urgency:**
+- "What was the original timeline you had in mind?"
+- "What happened to push it back?"
+- "Is there a trigger that would restart this?"
+
+**The Internal:**
+- "Was there internal disagreement about this decision?"
+- "What other priorities are competing for attention?"
+- "Who would need to be convinced to move forward?"
+
+### 6. Analyze Patterns
+
+After collecting 10+ win/loss interviews, look for patterns:
+
+**Win Patterns:**
+- What do winning deals have in common?
+- What features/benefits are mentioned most?
+- What use cases resonate?
+- What personas convert best?
+
+**Loss Patterns:**
+- What objections repeat across losses?
+- Which competitors are beating you? Why?
+- What features/gaps are mentioned?
+- What personas don't convert?
+
+**Create a matrix:**
+
+| Pattern | Wins | Losses | Action |
+|---------|------|--------|--------|
+| Price objection | 2/10 | 7/15 | Review pricing strategy |
+| Integration need | 8/10 | 3/15 | Lead with integrations |
+| Enterprise features | 1/10 | 8/15 | Consider roadmap priority |
+| Fast implementation | 9/10 | 2/15 | Emphasize speed in messaging |
+
+### 7. Take Action
+
+**Product Actions:**
+- Feature gaps mentioned in multiple losses
+- Features praised in wins (double down)
+- Integration requests
+
+**Positioning Actions:**
+- Messaging that resonates (emphasize more)
+- Messaging that confuses (clarify or remove)
+- Competitive positioning adjustments
+
+**Sales Process Actions:**
+- Questions that aren't being answered
+- Objections not being handled
+- Proof points that would help
+
+**Qualification Actions:**
+- Personas that don't convert (qualify out earlier)
+- Red flags that predict loss (address or disqualify)
+- Buying signals that predict win (prioritize)
+
+### 8. Track Over Time
+
+Monitor win/loss trends:
+- Win rate by segment
+- Win rate by competitor
+- Most common loss reasons
+- Most common win reasons
+
+**Quarterly review:**
+- Is win rate improving?
+- Are the same objections repeating?
+- Have product changes affected wins?
+
+### 9. Synthesis
+
+After conducting win/loss analysis:
+- What are the top 3 reasons we win?
+- What are the top 3 reasons we lose?
+- What would improve our win rate most?
+- Which losses were we never going to win? (bad fit)
+- Which losses could we have won? (execution gap)
+
+## Example
+
+**Product**: B2B HR software for mid-market companies
+
+### Win/Loss Data (Q1: 12 Wins, 18 Losses)
+
+**Win Interview Insights:**
+
+| Deal | Deciding Factor | Key Quote |
+|------|-----------------|-----------|
+| Win 1 | Ease of implementation | "We were live in 2 weeks vs. 3 months for competitors" |
+| Win 2 | Customer support | "Your team felt like partners, not vendors" |
+| Win 3 | Modern UI | "Our employees would actually use this" |
+| Win 4 | Price | "Best value for features we actually need" |
+
+**Loss Interview Insights:**
+
+| Deal | Why Lost | Key Quote |
+|------|----------|-----------|
+| Loss 1 | Enterprise features | "Needed SOC2 compliance, you don't have it" |
+| Loss 2 | Competitor (Workday) | "Our board required a name they recognized" |
+| Loss 3 | No decision | "Budget got cut; maybe next year" |
+| Loss 4 | Missing integration | "We needed Greenhouse integration; deal breaker" |
+
+### Pattern Analysis
+
+**Why We Win:**
+1. Speed of implementation (8/12 wins)
+2. Modern UX/design (7/12 wins)
+3. Responsive support (6/12 wins)
+4. Value/price ratio (5/12 wins)
+
+**Why We Lose:**
+1. Enterprise features missing (7/18 losses)
+2. Brand recognition (5/18 losses)
+3. No decision/budget (4/18 losses)
+4. Missing integrations (2/18 losses)
+
+### Actions Taken
+
+**Product:**
+- Prioritize SOC2 certification (addresses 7/18 losses)
+- Build Greenhouse integration (addresses 2/18)
+
+**Positioning:**
+- Lead with "live in 2 weeks" messaging
+- Add customer logos to address brand concern
+- Create ROI calculator for budget objections
+
+**Sales:**
+- Qualify for enterprise requirements early
+- Disqualify Fortune 500 (brand concern insurmountable)
+- Create "speed to value" case studies
+
+**Qualification:**
+- Add SOC2 to discovery questions
+- Identify integration requirements upfront
+- Assess brand sensitivity earlier
+
+### Q2 Results (Post-Actions)
+
+- Win rate: 45% → 52% (+7%)
+- Losses to "enterprise features": 7 → 3
+- Losses to "brand recognition": 5 → 5 (no change)
+- Average deal cycle: 45 days → 38 days
+
+**Insight:** Win/loss analysis identified SOC2 as a solvable blocker worth fixing (high loss frequency, within our control). Brand recognition was high frequency but not actionable (can't become Workday overnight). This focused product investment on maximum win-rate impact.

package/payload/premium-plugins/venture-studio/skills/zero-to-prototype/references/workflow-mapping.md

@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
+# Workflow Mapping
+
+## Purpose
+Document and visualize how customers currently accomplish the job they're hiring your product to do, revealing friction points, workarounds, and opportunities for improvement.
+
+## When to Use
+- Understanding the current state before designing solutions
+- Identifying the biggest pain points in a process
+- Finding opportunities to save time or reduce errors
+- Designing products that fit into existing workflows
+- Comparing how different customer segments work
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Select the Workflow to Map
+
+**Choose a workflow that:**
+- Is directly related to the problem you're solving
+- Happens frequently enough to matter
+- Involves steps that could be improved
+- You can observe or customers can describe
+
+**Define boundaries:**
+- Start trigger: "When [X happens], the workflow begins"
+- End state: "The workflow ends when [Y is achieved]"
+- Scope: Include related activities, exclude tangential ones
+
+### 2. Gather the Raw Data
+
+**Methods to collect workflow data:**
+
+**Customer interviews:**
+- "Walk me through the last time you did [task]"
+- "What's the very first thing you do?"
+- "Then what? And after that?"
+- "What tools do you use at each step?"
+
+**Observation:**
+- Watch customers do the task
+- Note every action, even small ones
+- Time each step
+- Record tool switches
+
+**Self-documentation:**
+- Have customers record themselves
+- Use screen recording
+- Ask for screenshots of their tools
+- Review their existing documentation
+
+### 3. Map the Steps
+
+Create a linear or branching flow:
+
+```
+[Trigger] → [Step 1] → [Step 2] → [Decision] → [Step 3a] or [Step 3b] → [End State]
+```
+
+**For each step, capture:**
+- Action: What do they do?
+- Tool: What do they use?
+- Time: How long does it take?
+- Pain: What's difficult about it?
+- Frequency: How often (if repeating)?
+
+### 4. Use the Workflow Template
+
+| Step | Action | Tool | Time | Pain Level (1-5) | Notes |
+|------|--------|------|------|------------------|-------|
+| 1 | Check for new requests | Email | 5 min | 2 | Scattered across threads |
+| 2 | Prioritize requests | Spreadsheet | 15 min | 4 | Manual, error-prone |
+| 3 | Research each item | Google/wiki | 30 min | 3 | Information scattered |
+| 4 | Draft response | Word doc | 20 min | 2 | Template helps |
+| 5 | Get approval | Email chain | varies | 5 | Bottleneck, delays |
+| 6 | Send response | Email | 5 min | 1 | Easy |
+
+**Total time:** 75 min + approval delay
+**Highest pain:** Steps 2 and 5
+
+### 5. Identify Friction Types
+
+Categorize the pain points:
+
+**Time waste:**
+- Manual data entry
+- Waiting for approvals
+- Searching for information
+- Switching between tools
+
+**Error-prone:**
+- Copy-paste between systems
+- Manual calculations
+- Inconsistent processes
+- No validation
+
+**Frustrating:**
+- Repetitive tasks
+- Unclear next steps
+- Lack of visibility
+- Dependencies on others
+
+**Missing:**
+- No tracking/history
+- No alerts/reminders
+- No templates
+- No automation
+
+### 6. Calculate Workflow Metrics
+
+**Time metrics:**
+- Total workflow time
+- Time per step
+- Wait time vs. active time
+- Frequency (per day/week)
+
+**Quality metrics:**
+- Error rate
+- Rework percentage
+- Completion rate
+- Customer satisfaction
+
+**Cost metrics:**
+- Labor cost per workflow
+- Tool costs
+- Opportunity cost of delays
+- Cost of errors
+
+**Example calculation:**
+- 75 minutes per workflow
+- 20 workflows per week
+- 25 hours/week on this task
+- At $50/hour = $1,250/week = $65,000/year
+
+### 7. Find Opportunities
+
+**Look for:**
+
+**Automation opportunities:**
+Steps that are:
+- Rule-based (if X, then Y)
+- Repetitive and consistent
+- Low judgment required
+- High time investment
+
+**Elimination opportunities:**
+Steps that are:
+- Vestigial (no longer needed)
+- Redundant (done elsewhere too)
+- Low-value compliance
+- Unnecessary approvals
+
+**Simplification opportunities:**
+Steps that are:
+- Overly complex
+- Use wrong tools
+- Lack templates/defaults
+- Missing guidance
+
+**Integration opportunities:**
+- Tool switches that cause friction
+- Copy-paste between systems
+- Re-entering the same data
+- Manual data synchronization
+
+### 8. Prioritize Improvements
+
+Score each opportunity:
+
+| Opportunity | Pain Reduction | Time Saved | Feasibility | Priority |
+|-------------|----------------|------------|-------------|----------|
+| Auto-prioritize requests | High | 15 min | Medium | 1 |
+| Eliminate approval step | High | 20 min | Low | 3 |
+| Create response templates | Medium | 10 min | High | 2 |
+| Integrate email + task | Medium | 5 min | Medium | 4 |
+
+### 9. Compare Across Segments
+
+Map the same workflow for different customer types:
+
+| Step | Segment A | Segment B | Segment C |
+|------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
+| Request intake | Email | Slack | Ticketing system |
+| Prioritization | Manual | Team meeting | Automated |
+| Research | Google | Internal wiki | CRM lookup |
+| Total time | 75 min | 90 min | 45 min |
+| Pain points | 2, 5 | 2, 4, 5 | 2 |
+
+**Insight:** Segment C has already automated prioritization. Learn from them.
+
+### 10. Synthesis
+
+After mapping workflows:
+- What's the total time and cost of this workflow today?
+- Where are the biggest pain points?
+- What would customers pay to eliminate those pains?
+- Which improvements are feasible to build?
+- How does your solution fit into this workflow?
+
+## Example
+
+**Context**: Mapping how recruiters screen candidates
+
+### Workflow: Candidate Screening
+
+**Trigger:** New application received
+**End state:** Candidate advanced or rejected
+
+### Current State Map
+
+| Step | Action | Tool | Time | Pain (1-5) |
+|------|--------|------|------|------------|
+| 1 | Check ATS for new applicants | Greenhouse | 5 min | 1 |
+| 2 | Open each resume | PDF viewer | 2 min each | 2 |
+| 3 | Read resume (100+) | PDF viewer | 5 min each | 4 |
+| 4 | Check LinkedIn profile | LinkedIn | 3 min each | 3 |
+| 5 | Score candidate | Spreadsheet | 2 min each | 4 |
+| 6 | Write notes | Greenhouse | 3 min each | 3 |
+| 7 | Decision: advance or reject | Greenhouse | 1 min each | 2 |
+| 8 | Send rejection email | Greenhouse | 1 min each | 1 |
+| 9 | Schedule interview | Calendly | 5 min each | 3 |
+
+**For 100 applicants:**
+- Steps 2-6: ~15 min each × 100 = 25 hours
+- Steps 7-9: ~7 min each × 20 advanced = 2.3 hours
+- **Total: ~27 hours per role**
+
+### Pain Point Analysis
+
+**Step 3 (Read resume) - Pain 4:**
+- "Most resumes are irrelevant"
+- "I can tell in 30 seconds but still have to document"
+- "No way to bulk filter"
+
+**Step 5 (Score candidate) - Pain 4:**
+- "I use different criteria each time"
+- "Hard to compare candidates objectively"
+- "Managers question my decisions"
+
+### Opportunity Identification
+
+| Opportunity | Pain Addressed | Time Saved | Feasibility |
+|-------------|----------------|------------|-------------|
+| AI pre-screen resumes | Steps 2-3 | 7 min × 80% = 5.6 min/app | High |
+| Standardized scorecard | Step 5 | 1 min/app + consistency | High |
+| Auto-rejection emails | Step 8 | 1 min × 80 = 80 min | Medium |
+| LinkedIn enrichment | Step 4 | 2 min/app | Medium |
+
+### Proposed Future State
+
+| Step | Action | Tool | Time | Pain |
+|------|--------|------|------|------|
+| 1 | Check ATS | Greenhouse | 5 min | 1 |
+| 2 | Review AI-filtered top 20 | AI Tool | 5 min | 1 |
+| 3 | Deep review top 20 | AI Tool + LinkedIn | 5 min each | 2 |
+| 4 | Score using standard criteria | AI Tool | 1 min each | 1 |
+| 5 | Decision | Greenhouse | 1 min each | 1 |
+| 6 | Auto-send rejections | AI Tool | 0 min | 0 |
+| 7 | Schedule interviews | Calendly | 5 min each | 2 |
+
+**For 100 applicants:**
+- AI pre-screens: ~30 min
+- Deep review 20: ~2 hours
+- Decisions + scheduling: ~1 hour
+- **Total: ~3.5 hours per role**
+
+### Value Proposition
+
+**Time saved:** 27 hours → 3.5 hours = **23.5 hours saved per role**
+**At $75/hour:** $1,762 value per role
+**10 roles/month:** $17,620/month potential value
+
+**Key insight:** Workflow mapping revealed that 92% of time was spent on candidates who would be rejected. The solution doesn't need to be better at screening—it needs to eliminate obvious non-fits faster, letting recruiters spend time on serious candidates.

package/payload/premium-plugins/writer-craft/.claude-plugin/plugin.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "name": "writer-craft",
+  "description": "Manuscript review and writing craft tools grounded in neuroscience-based story theory, professional editing practice, and prose technique. 12 skills covering story architecture, reader engagement, prose craft, point of view, persuasive storytelling, editorial practice, citation style, three levels of manuscript review, and voice mirror (authorial-voice capture + application) — plus a specialist subagent for autonomous deep manuscript review.",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "author": {
+    "name": "Rubytech LLC"
+  },
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "writer-craft": {
+      "type": "stdio",
+      "command": "node",
+      "args": [
+        "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/mcp/dist/index.js"
+      ]
+    }
+  }
+}