@synap-core/workspace-templates 0.3.0 → 0.4.0

This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
package/src/life-os.yaml CHANGED
@@ -1330,6 +1330,44 @@ profileEntityBentoTemplates:
1330
1330
  onboarding:
1331
1331
  goal: Capture the shape of the user's life — their areas of focus, current goals, active projects, key people, and what they're reading or learning — so the second brain starts grounded in who they actually are.
1332
1332
  framing: Act as a thoughtful personal-knowledge coach. Gently tease out the domains they care about, what they're working toward, what's in motion, who matters to them, and what they're consuming. Translate that into areas, goals, projects, people, and books.
1333
+ expertise:
1334
+ starters:
1335
+ - >
1336
+ Lead with their AREAS, not a note dump. Ask them to name the handful of life
1337
+ domains they're permanently responsible for — Health, Finances, Career,
1338
+ Relationships, a side project — and seed one Area each. Areas are the PARA-style
1339
+ shelves everything else hangs off; without them the second brain is a flat pile.
1340
+ Skip the GTD jargon ("contexts", "tickler files") — nobody thinks in those.
1341
+ - >
1342
+ For every goal they mention, propose it WITH a linked project or a concrete next
1343
+ action attached. "Get fit" alone is a wish; "Get fit → project: 3x gym/week
1344
+ through March" is trackable. If they can't name the first move, capture it as an
1345
+ Area standard to maintain rather than a Goal to hit.
1346
+ - >
1347
+ When they name something in motion, decide OUT LOUD whether it's an Area (ongoing,
1348
+ no finish line — "stay healthy") or a Project (finite, has a done state — "run a
1349
+ half-marathon in May"), and file it accordingly. Getting this split right on day
1350
+ one is what keeps the system from rotting into an undifferentiated to-do heap.
1351
+ blindSpots:
1352
+ - >
1353
+ The "capture everything, revisit nothing" trap: people hoard highlights, articles,
1354
+ and notes into an inbox they never process. Capture is worthless without a review
1355
+ loop — surface it early. Propose an inbox-zero-style status flow (inbox →
1356
+ processing → evergreen) and a weekly review habit, not just more collection.
1357
+ - >
1358
+ Goals with no next action are wishes, not goals. People list aspirations
1359
+ ("learn Spanish", "write more") with no project or first step behind them, then
1360
+ wonder why nothing moves. Flag any goal that isn't wired to a project or an action.
1361
+ - >
1362
+ People conflate Areas with Projects and drown finite work inside never-ending
1363
+ buckets — or worse, treat a lifelong responsibility as a project they can "finish"
1364
+ and abandon. If "Health" shows up as a Project or "launch the app" as an Area,
1365
+ catch it: the confusion is the single most common reason PARA-style systems fail.
1366
+ bar: >
1367
+ A GREAT result is a small, LIVING skeleton, not an exhaustive archive: 3-5 real
1368
+ Areas covering their actual life, each with 1-2 current Goals or Projects hanging
1369
+ off it, a few key people, and what they're reading right now — every goal wired to
1370
+ a next action, and a review habit named so the system gets revisited, not just fed.
1333
1371
  collect:
1334
1372
  - profileSlug: area
1335
1373
  what: The ongoing areas of life / responsibility they want to keep standards in
@@ -1339,6 +1377,10 @@ onboarding:
1339
1377
  what: The goals they're currently working toward
1340
1378
  cardinality: few
1341
1379
  keyFields: [title, target-date, area, progress]
1380
+ - profileSlug: project
1381
+ what: The active projects in motion (the concrete efforts that advance their goals)
1382
+ cardinality: few
1383
+ keyFields: [title, status]
1342
1384
  - profileSlug: person
1343
1385
  what: The key people in their world
1344
1386
  cardinality: several
@@ -204,6 +204,43 @@ onboarding:
204
204
  stay on-strategy and on-brand. Push for the concrete: real channels, real
205
205
  numbers, real segments — not "we do social." Ask where leads come from and
206
206
  where they stall. Be warm but relentless about specifics.
207
+ expertise:
208
+ starters:
209
+ - >
210
+ One channel to competence before the next. Spraying across email, social,
211
+ paid, and events at once means all of them stay mediocre. Propose ONE
212
+ primary channel to get working end-to-end (message → creative → conversion)
213
+ and treat the others as experiments, not commitments.
214
+ - >
215
+ Growth is a chain: ICP → message → channel fit. The message that lands is
216
+ the one that names the ICP's specific pain in their words, and the channel
217
+ that works is where that ICP already is. If a campaign has a channel but no
218
+ named segment and no sharp message, propose filling those first.
219
+ - >
220
+ Anchor every campaign to a pipeline metric, not a vanity one. Impressions,
221
+ followers, and open rates feel good and predict nothing. Propose the campaign
222
+ target as leads, qualified pipeline, or CAC — the number a founder would
223
+ actually defend in a board meeting.
224
+ blindSpots:
225
+ - >
226
+ The "spray across every channel" reflex is the #1 growth failure — it
227
+ guarantees no channel reaches the volume needed to learn what works. If they
228
+ list four channels for one campaign, push back: which ONE gets real budget
229
+ and attention this quarter?
230
+ - >
231
+ Attribution is where growth stories quietly lie. If they can't say where
232
+ their best leads actually come from — not where they THINK, but what the data
233
+ shows — the pipeline is being optimized blind. Surface the tracking gap.
234
+ - >
235
+ A leaking funnel beats a full top. Founders obsess over more leads while
236
+ leads pile up and stall at one pipeline stage. If a stage is a graveyard, the
237
+ fix is conversion there, not more volume up top — name the stall before
238
+ proposing new campaigns.
239
+ bar: >
240
+ Each live campaign has a named ICP segment, a sharp message that segment would
241
+ recognize, one channel it's genuinely committed to, and a pipeline metric it's
242
+ judged on — so a growth lead could tell at a glance what's working, what's
243
+ leaking, and where the next dollar should go.
207
244
  collect:
208
245
  - profileSlug: campaign
209
246
  what: The campaigns live or planned right now — one per real initiative, with its channel and goal.
@@ -348,6 +348,45 @@ onboarding:
348
348
  vagueness: every workflow has an owner and a cadence, every SOP has a
349
349
  trigger. Translate their answers into SOPs, workflows, vendors, tools, and
350
350
  rituals.
351
+ expertise:
352
+ starters:
353
+ - >
354
+ Don't map the whole org or every process — start with the few recurring
355
+ processes that actually BREAK: the ones that cause fire drills, missed
356
+ handoffs, or "who was supposed to do that?" moments. Ask what went wrong last
357
+ month and reverse-engineer the workflow from the failure, not from an
358
+ idealized flowchart.
359
+ - >
360
+ SOP the highest-frequency × highest-pain work first. A daily task that hurts
361
+ every time beats a quarterly one that's annoying once. Propose that
362
+ prioritization out loud — "let's document the thing you do 50 times a month
363
+ before the thing you do twice a year" — instead of documenting alphabetically.
364
+ - >
365
+ Give every workflow a single named owner and a cadence before anything else.
366
+ Refuse "the team owns it" — that means no one does. If they can't name one
367
+ accountable person, that's the finding, and the workflow's real status is
368
+ "at risk", not "active".
369
+ blindSpots:
370
+ - >
371
+ A process nobody owns doesn't exist — it just hasn't failed publicly yet.
372
+ Hunt for the workflows that run on habit and goodwill with no owner; those
373
+ are the ones that collapse the week someone is on holiday.
374
+ - >
375
+ "It's all in my head" is a single point of failure, not a system. The most
376
+ dangerous SOPs are the undocumented ones the founder or one key person runs
377
+ from memory. Ask directly: what breaks if that person is out for two weeks? —
378
+ and document those first.
379
+ - >
380
+ Founders confuse activity with process. A recurring meeting or a busy Slack
381
+ channel isn't a workflow unless it has a defined input, a defined output, and
382
+ a trigger. If a "process" has no clear input→output, it's a habit; name it as
383
+ one and either give it structure or drop it.
384
+ bar: >
385
+ The workspace captures the handful of processes that actually run (and break)
386
+ the business — each with one accountable owner, a cadence, and a clear
387
+ input→output — the highest-frequency/highest-pain procedures are documented as
388
+ SOPs so they survive the owner leaving, and nothing critical lives only in one
389
+ person's head.
351
390
  collect:
352
391
  - profileSlug: sop
353
392
  what: The core documented procedures / runbooks — the repeatable ways of doing key things.
package/src/personal.yaml CHANGED
@@ -92,6 +92,44 @@ onboarding:
92
92
  You're here to understand their world, not audit it — curious, warm, never
93
93
  pushy. Meet them where they are: a couple of honest notes beat a perfect
94
94
  system. Reflect back what you hear so it feels captured, not interrogated.
95
+ expertise:
96
+ starters:
97
+ - >
98
+ Start from ONE real recurring need, not a structure. Ask "what do you keep losing
99
+ track of?" — the tab you meant to read, the idea you forgot, the link you can't
100
+ find again — and seed that single thing. A personal space earns trust by solving
101
+ one nagging friction, then grows; it dies if it opens as an empty filing cabinet.
102
+ - >
103
+ Propose the 2-3 things they ACTUALLY want to track, then stop. Most people need
104
+ exactly: a place for stray notes, a reading list, and a bookmark pile. Name those,
105
+ seed one item in each, and resist adding projects/tags/statuses they didn't ask
106
+ for. The default here is deliberately lean — under-structure on purpose.
107
+ - >
108
+ Mirror their own capture habit instead of imposing one. Ask what a jotted thought
109
+ usually looks like for them — a link, a one-liner, a voice-note-to-self — and map
110
+ the workspace to that shape. If they dump links, lead with bookmarks; if they
111
+ write, lead with notes. Match reality; don't teach them a new ritual.
112
+ blindSpots:
113
+ - >
114
+ The productivity-system graveyard: elaborate setups — nested tags, six statuses,
115
+ color-coded areas — built with enthusiasm on day one and abandoned by day seven.
116
+ The failure mode is over-structuring, not under-structuring. Every field you add
117
+ is a field they must maintain; keep it embarrassingly simple and let it grow later.
118
+ - >
119
+ People try to design the "perfect system" before they have any content, and stall.
120
+ Structure should emerge FROM real notes, not precede them. If they're deliberating
121
+ over categories with an empty workspace, cut it short — capture three real things
122
+ first, and let the shape reveal itself.
123
+ - >
124
+ A reading list nobody triages just becomes guilt. People pile "to-read" articles
125
+ and never mark anything read or dropped, so the list rots into a backlog they
126
+ avoid. Give it a lightweight status (to-read / reading / read / archived) and
127
+ normalize archiving unread — a shrinking list is a healthy one.
128
+ bar: >
129
+ A GREAT result is TWO OR THREE things they genuinely care about, each with a real
130
+ item already in it — not an empty scaffold. It should feel like a lean personal
131
+ shelf they'll actually open tomorrow, with nothing to maintain that they didn't ask
132
+ for. If it looks like a "productivity system", it's already too much.
95
133
  collect:
96
134
  - profileSlug: project
97
135
  what: The handful of things they're actively working on or care about right now.
@@ -717,6 +717,44 @@ playbooks:
717
717
  onboarding:
718
718
  goal: "Capture the user's goals, the projects in flight, the current sprint, and who's involved — so the workspace mirrors how their team actually plans and delivers."
719
719
  framing: "Act as a sharp delivery lead / chief of staff. Tease out what outcomes matter this quarter, what's actively being worked, what's in the current cycle, and who owns what. Translate that into OKRs, projects, a sprint, and people."
720
+ expertise:
721
+ starters:
722
+ - >
723
+ Don't collect a wishlist of goals — force ONE north-star metric and 2-3 key results that
724
+ move it. Propose "the single number that means this quarter succeeded" first, then the
725
+ handful of measurable KRs under it. Five objectives is zero objectives; a team that's aiming
726
+ at everything is aiming at nothing.
727
+ - >
728
+ Capture what's actually in flight and impose a WIP limit as you go. Ask "what's genuinely
729
+ being worked THIS week" — not the backlog — and if it's more than the team can finish,
730
+ that's the finding. Too many projects in progress means nothing ships; the map should make
731
+ the overload visible.
732
+ - >
733
+ Every project and KR gets a named owner before anything else. Lead with "who owns this?" —
734
+ a goal with no owner is a hope, and it will quietly slip. Capture the person on the project
735
+ the moment you capture the project; ownerless work is the first thing to surface, not the
736
+ last.
737
+ blindSpots:
738
+ - >
739
+ "Everything is P1" is the prioritization failure that guarantees the wrong things ship. When
740
+ every project is Critical, priority carries no information and the team defaults to whatever's
741
+ loudest. Push back on the priority field — force a real ranking, because if you can't say
742
+ what's LESS important, you haven't prioritized at all.
743
+ - >
744
+ A goal with no owner is a hope, and hopes don't ship. Teams write beautiful OKRs with an
745
+ empty owner field, and the KR that belongs to "the team" belongs to no one. Surface every
746
+ ownerless objective, project, and KR — accountability is a name, not a shared intention.
747
+ - >
748
+ Too much work-in-progress is the silent throughput killer. Founders equate "many things
749
+ started" with progress, but a dozen 60%-done projects deliver nothing while three finished
750
+ ones deliver value. Watch the count of In-Progress items and flag when it exceeds what the
751
+ team can actually close in a cycle.
752
+ bar: >
753
+ A great result is a workspace where the line from a single north-star metric down to the task
754
+ in flight this week is unbroken: one clear objective with measurable KRs, every project and
755
+ goal owned by a named person, a real priority ranking (not all-P1), and a WIP that matches
756
+ capacity. You can answer "are we on track, who owns the thing that's slipping, and what should
757
+ we STOP to ship what matters?" in one look.
720
758
  collect:
721
759
  - profileSlug: okr
722
760
  what: The goals / OKRs that define success this quarter
package/src/radar.yaml CHANGED
@@ -189,6 +189,40 @@ onboarding:
189
189
  THE SCOUT: Act as a sharp market scout. Curious, factual, neutral. Surface who
190
190
  else plays here, where the market is moving, and who's worth learning from.
191
191
  Always cite a source when you can.
192
+ expertise:
193
+ starters:
194
+ - >
195
+ Don't just log named rivals — map the CATEGORY. Buyers compare across three
196
+ tiers: direct competitors, adjacent tools that solve the same job
197
+ differently, and the status quo ("a spreadsheet", "do nothing"). Propose
198
+ entries in all three, because the status quo is usually the real competitor.
199
+ - >
200
+ Track positioning by CONTRAST, not features. For each rival, capture the
201
+ one axis where you're deliberately opposite ("they're enterprise-heavy, we're
202
+ self-serve") — that contrast is what a buyer remembers. If they only give you
203
+ a feature list, reflect the underlying axis back and propose that.
204
+ - >
205
+ Separate LEADING from LAGGING signals. Pricing changes, hiring sprees, and
206
+ docs/changelog velocity predict where a competitor is going; press releases
207
+ and funding rounds only confirm where they've been. Prioritize the leading
208
+ indicators when you propose what to watch.
209
+ blindSpots:
210
+ - >
211
+ "We have no competitors" is a red flag, not a moat — it usually means the
212
+ category is undefined or the buyer's alternative (a manual workaround) hasn't
213
+ been named. Push to name what a buyer does TODAY instead of buying anything.
214
+ - >
215
+ Founders over-watch the loud incumbent and miss the fast-moving insurgent
216
+ one tier down. The threat that kills you is rarely the market leader — it's
217
+ the well-funded startup attacking your exact wedge. Surface the insurgents.
218
+ - >
219
+ A trend with no direction or timing is just a headline. Every trend needs a
220
+ stance: is it rising, steady, or fading, and does it help or hurt you? An
221
+ untimed "AI is big" tells strategy nothing — force the "so what for us".
222
+ bar: >
223
+ The landscape reads like a real map: every rival placed on a contrast axis, the
224
+ status-quo alternative named, and each trend carrying a direction and a "so what"
225
+ — so a strategist can see the open lane you should own, not just a list of logos.
192
226
  collect:
193
227
  - profileSlug: competitor
194
228
  what: Rivals and alternatives a buyer would seriously compare you to.