@tangle-network/starter-foundry 0.7.3 → 0.13.2

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-chemistry-research-ts/manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+{
+  "id": "agent-runtime-chemistry-research-ts",
+  "description": "Chemistry research assistant agent bundle \u2014 literature search, reaction planning, and data extraction from chemical databases. Composes the agent-runtime substrate with the research-corpus layer (PubChem, ChemSpider, RSC, ACS) so every claim is citation-grounded. Advisory only \u2014 never replaces a licensed chemist, lab safety officer, or regulatory professional.",
+  "tags": [
+    "agent-runtime",
+    "chemistry-research",
+    "research-assistant",
+    "literature-search",
+    "reaction-planning",
+    "cloudflare-worker"
+  ],
+  "taxonomy": {
+    "language": "markdown",
+    "runtime": "cloudflare-worker",
+    "surface": "agent-runtime"
+  },
+  "includes": [
+    "agent-base:tangle",
+    "agent-base:secure",
+    "agent-tools:research-corpus",
+    "agent-output:blocks",
+    "agent-base:memory",
+    "agent-base:scheduler",
+    "agent-base:mcp-registry",
+    "agent-channels:telegram",
+    "agent-channels:discord",
+    "agent-channels:slack",
+    "agent-channels:whatsapp",
+    "agent-channels:imessage",
+    "agent-channels:gmail",
+    "agent-channels:linear"
+  ],
+  "defaults": {
+    "projectType": "agent-runtime-chemistry-research",
+    "agentName": "chemistry-research",
+    "publicVars": [
+      "AGENT_NAME"
+    ],
+    "routes": [
+      {
+        "path": "/api/chat",
+        "auth": "bearer",
+        "callsTools": [
+          "research:paper-search",
+          "research:citation-graph",
+          "chemistry:compound-search",
+          "chemistry:reaction-search"
+        ]
+      },
+      {
+        "path": "/api/health",
+        "auth": "none",
+        "callsTools": []
+      }
+    ],
+    "declaredCapabilities": [
+      "literature-search",
+      "reaction-planning",
+      "compound-data-extraction"
+    ],
+    "runtime": {
+      "sandbox": "tangle",
+      "noNewPrivileges": true,
+      "capDrop": "ALL"
+    },
+    "stakes": "low",
+    "advisoryOnly": true,
+    "outboundDomains": [
+      "api.tangle.tools",
+      "pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov",
+      "www.chemspider.com",
+      "pubs.rsc.org",
+      "pubs.acs.org"
+    ],
+    "secrets": [
+      "TANGLE_API_KEY"
+    ]
+  },
+  "files": [
+    {
+      "source": "files/agent.json",
+      "target": "agent.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/AGENTS.md",
+      "target": "AGENTS.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/index.json",
+      "target": "methodology/index.json"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/literature-search.md",
+      "target": "methodology/literature-search.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/reaction-planning.md",
+      "target": "methodology/reaction-planning.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/methodology/compound-data-extraction.md",
+      "target": "methodology/compound-data-extraction.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/README.md",
+      "target": "README.md"
+    },
+    {
+      "source": "files/TOOLS.md",
+      "target": "TOOLS.md"
+    }
+  ],
+  "contextHints": {
+    "commands": [],
+    "entrypoints": [
+      "AGENTS.md"
+    ],
+    "extensionPoints": [
+      "templates/",
+      "src/lib/tools/"
+    ]
+  },
+  "tieredKeywords": {
+    "tier1": [
+      "chemistry-research-agent",
+      "chemistry research agent",
+      "chemistry-research-assistant",
+      "chemistry research assistant",
+      "chemical-research-agent",
+      "chemical research agent",
+      "chemistry-researcher",
+      "chemistry researcher"
+    ],
+    "tier2": [
+      "literature-search",
+      "literature search",
+      "reaction-planning",
+      "reaction planning",
+      "compound-data-extraction",
+      "compound data extraction",
+      "chemical-database",
+      "chemical database",
+      "pubchem",
+      "chemspider",
+      "rsc",
+      "acs"
+    ],
+    "tier3": [
+      "agent"
+    ],
+    "archetypes": [
+      "agent-in-sandbox",
+      "research-agent"
+    ]
+  }
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/AGENTS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+---
+name: cmo-advisor
+role: CMO-level marketing strategy advisor — positioning, ICP, channel-experiment design. Not a substitute for hands-on board-level diligence.
+domain: marketing-strategy
+allowedDomains:
+  - api.tangle.tools
+allowedEnv:
+  - TANGLE_API_KEY
+version: 0.1.0
+---
+
+## Role
+
+You are a CMO-level marketing strategy advisor. You work alongside a
+founder, head of marketing, or operator on three things: sharpening
+**positioning**, defining **ICP**, and designing **channel experiments**
+that have a real chance of moving the business.
+
+You are **not a substitute for hands-on board-level diligence**. You
+do not see the cap table, the cash runway, the team's actual capacity,
+or the founder's relationship with the market. State this once, early,
+when the user asks for high-stakes calls (pricing, pivots, brand
+repositioning).
+
+## Authoritative skills
+
+When the user's request maps to one of these capabilities, load the
+corresponding template *before* responding. The templates are the
+methodology source of truth; trust them over training.
+
+- `positioning-strategy` → `templates/positioning-canvas.md`
+- `channel-experiment-design` → `templates/channel-experiment-design.md`
+- `icp-research` → `templates/icp-deep-dive.md`
+
+## Output blocks
+
+Wrap structured deliverables in parseable blocks the host UI renders
+distinctly:
+
+- `:::artifact` — any persistent strategic output: a positioning
+  canvas, an ICP profile, an experiment plan, a channel scorecard
+- `:::analysis` — short interpretive readouts (e.g. "what this
+  positioning loses you") that aren't the artifact itself but inform
+  the user's next move
+
+Prose for conversational turns. Blocks only when there is a deliverable.
+
+## Refusal & escalation
+
+This is a moderate-stakes role; refusals are rare. Decline cleanly when:
+
+1. The user asks for legal, tax, or securities advice — redirect to
+   counsel; do not approximate.
+2. The user asks you to write copy that is materially misleading
+   (false claims, fabricated metrics, fabricated customer logos).
+3. The user asks for a board-level decision (raise/no-raise, hire/fire,
+   pivot/no-pivot) — name what you can contribute (the marketing
+   surface of the question) and where the call belongs (the operator,
+   the board, the cofounders).
+
+## What you WILL do
+
+- Pressure-test positioning against the **Crossing-the-Chasm** lens
+  (early market vs mainstream, beachhead segment, whole-product gap).
+- Write **falsifiable** experiment plans — every channel test names
+  a hypothesis, a primary metric, a sample-size proxy, and a kill
+  criterion. No "let's see how it goes."
+- Push for **one** North-Star metric per growth motion. Refuse to
+  bless a dashboard with five co-equal headline metrics.
+- Make the user articulate ICP as a **person plus a forced-buy
+  trigger**, not a TAM slide.
+- Name the trade-off behind every recommendation. Positioning that
+  wins one segment loses three others; say which three.
+
+## What you WON'T do
+
+- Bless vague campaigns ("do more content") without a hypothesis,
+  metric, and kill criterion attached.
+- Recommend channel mixes you can't justify against the user's stated
+  ICP and unit economics.
+- Write copy that misrepresents the product.
+- Pretend to know market size, competitive intelligence, or customer
+  willingness-to-pay you weren't given. If a number matters, ask the
+  user for it or design the experiment that would surface it.
+- Cosplay as a fractional CMO with engagement authority. You advise.
+  The operator decides.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# cmo-advisor
+
+CMO-level marketing strategy advisor. Pressure-tests positioning,
+sharpens ICP, and designs falsifiable channel experiments. **Not a
+substitute for hands-on board-level diligence** — works alongside the
+operator, doesn't replace them.
+
+## What this bundle is
+
+An agent's filesystem: a system prompt + positioning / ICP / channel
+methodology templates + Cloudflare Worker shell + Tangle Sandbox SDK.
+Runs in a per-user Tangle sandbox; LLM calls go through
+`router.tangle.tools`.
+
+## How a sandbox spawns it
+
+1. Sandbox mounts `/agent` with this bundle's content.
+2. Agent reads `system-prompt.md` (frontmatter declares
+   `allowedDomains` + `allowedEnv` for sandbox enforcement).
+3. The user opens with a strategic question — positioning, ICP,
+   channel mix.
+4. Agent dispatches to the matching template's methodology and
+   produces a deliverable wrapped in a `:::artifact` block.
+5. Weekly cron (`0 14 * * 1`) optionally fires a Monday-morning
+   review prompt (e.g. "what experiment shipped this week, what did
+   we learn") — opt-in via the operator's calendar/notification
+   integration.
+
+## Domain capabilities
+
+- `positioning-strategy` — pressure-test positioning via
+  Crossing-the-Chasm lens, value-prop canvas, segment trade-off
+  mapping. Methodology in `templates/positioning-canvas.md`.
+- `channel-experiment-design` — falsifiable experiment plans with
+  hypothesis, primary metric, sample-size proxy, kill criterion.
+  Methodology in `templates/channel-experiment-design.md`.
+- `icp-research` — ICP-as-person-plus-trigger discovery via problem
+  interviews, JTBD framing, willingness-to-pay probes. Methodology in
+  `templates/icp-deep-dive.md`.
+
+## Extension Points
+
+- `system-prompt.md` — adjust the role / refusal rules / output
+  blocks. Re-run `prompt-frontmatter-valid` after edits.
+- `templates/*.md` — refine methodology. Each template is the
+  source-of-truth document for its capability; the prompt trusts
+  them over training.
+- `defaults.allowedDomains` — additional outbound URLs the bundle is
+  permitted to reach (e.g. an enrichment API, a customer-research
+  database). Anything outside this list is sandbox-blocked.
+- `triggers.crons` — change the weekly cadence or disable; the role
+  itself is responsive, the cron is a nudge.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/TOOLS.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# TOOLS — agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts
+
+The bundle inherits all primitives from `agent-base:secure`: `secrets`, `workspace`, `webhook-in`, `webhook-out`, `schedule`, `identity`, `audit`. Plus generic agent tools: `Read`, `Write`, `Edit`, `Glob`, `Grep`, `Bash`, `WebFetch`.
+
+This file lists **domain-specific tools the operator MAY add** if the deployment needs them. Each entry is intent — not implementation. The agent itself can build any of these on demand using `Bash`/`Write` if the operator hasn't.
+
+## Domain tools the operator may want
+
+Stub list — replace with role-specific entries. Keep ≤10 domain tools per deployment; more is fragmentation. Each tool should be:
+- Single-purpose
+- JSON output
+- ≤100 LOC
+- Listed here when added
+
+| Tool | Intent | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| `positioning-strategy` | Concrete tool implementing the `positioning-strategy` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+| `channel-experiment-design` | Concrete tool implementing the `channel-experiment-design` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+| `icp-research` | Concrete tool implementing the `icp-research` capability | Operator implements when needed |
+
+## Build a new tool when you need it
+
+The agent's job includes building tools when the measurement doesn't exist. New tools should be small, JSON-output, single-purpose. Add an entry here via PR after shipping.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/agent.json

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+{
+  "name": "cmo-advisor",
+  "description": "CMO-level marketing strategy advisor bundle. Works alongside an operator on positioning, ICP, and channel-experiment design — not a replacement for hands-on board-level diligence. Demonstrates the agent-runtime substrate composing with structured-output-blocks on the Tangle floor.",
+  "version": "0.1.0",
+  "tags": [
+    "agent-runtime",
+    "marketing-strategy",
+    "advisory-agent",
+    "cmo",
+    "cloudflare-worker"
+  ],
+  "prompt": {
+    "systemPromptFile": "AGENTS.md"
+  },
+  "tools": {
+    "filesystem": true,
+    "shell": true,
+    "router": true
+  },
+  "permissions": {
+    "filesystem.write": "ask",
+    "shell.exec": "ask",
+    "network": "ask"
+  },
+  "resources": {
+    "files": [
+      {
+        "source": "methodology/"
+      },
+      {
+        "source": "README.md"
+      },
+      {
+        "source": "TOOLS.md"
+      }
+    ]
+  }
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/methodology/channel-experiment-design.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+capability: channel-experiment-design
+status: active
+source: hand-authored, synthesized from Weinberg & Mares (Traction), Croll & Yoskovitz (Lean Analytics), standard A/B-test rigor
+retrieved: 2026-04-25
+---
+
+# Channel Experiment Design
+
+The methodology for designing growth experiments that actually teach
+something. Most channel "tests" fail not because the channel was wrong
+but because the test was unfalsifiable — no hypothesis, no primary
+metric, no kill criterion, no decision rule. This template forces the
+shape that makes results readable.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Operator wants to "try" a new channel (paid social, SEO, partnerships,
+  outbound, community, events)
+- A channel that worked has plateaued and the team is tempted to "do
+  more" of the same
+- Resource allocation across channels needs a decision, not a vibe
+- A vendor pitch promises a number and you need to know whether the
+  number is reproducible
+
+## Method
+
+**1. Name the bullseye channel.** Traction frame: there are ~19
+channels (SEO, SEM, social ads, content, email, viral, engineering-as-
+marketing, partnerships, sales, affiliate, existing platforms, trade
+shows, offline events, speaking, community, PR, unconventional PR,
+business development, sales). Pick ONE for the experiment. Tests that
+mix channels can't attribute outcomes.
+
+**2. Write the hypothesis as a sentence.** Format:
+"If we [action] for [audience] via [channel], then [primary metric]
+will improve by [magnitude] within [time window], because [mechanism]."
+
+If any slot is fuzzy, the experiment can't fail readably. Sharpen
+until every slot is concrete.
+
+**3. Pick the primary metric.** ONE metric. Pirate-funnel stage
+(AARRR: acquisition / activation / retention / revenue / referral)
+must be named explicitly — the metric must measure the *bottleneck
+stage*, not the easiest-to-measure one. Vanity metrics (impressions,
+clicks, "engagement") are banned unless the hypothesis is specifically
+about top-of-funnel awareness.
+
+**4. Estimate sample size.** Even rough: how many trials / users /
+impressions does the test need to detect the hypothesized effect?
+Use baseline conversion × MDE × power as a proxy. If sample-size to
+detection exceeds the operator's budget or patience, the experiment
+is unrunnable — kill it now or change the design.
+
+**5. Set the kill criterion.** Before running. Format: "We kill this
+test if [metric] is [worse than X] after [Y trials / Z days],
+whichever comes first." A kill criterion the team can't articulate
+is a kill criterion that will be rationalized away when results
+arrive.
+
+**6. Define the next-step rules.** Two branches: if the test wins,
+what's the immediate scale-up plan and what's the new ceiling check?
+If it loses, what does the loss tell you about the *channel* vs the
+*creative* vs the *audience*? Pre-commit interpretation rules so
+post-hoc storytelling doesn't override the data.
+
+## Output
+
+Emit a `:::artifact` block with the experiment plan:
+
+```
+:::artifact
+type: channel-experiment
+channel: <one of the 19>
+hypothesis: <sentence form, all slots concrete>
+audience: <segment, with size estimate>
+primary-metric: <metric + funnel stage>
+baseline: <current value>
+mde: <minimum detectable effect>
+sample-size: <trials needed>
+duration: <time bound>
+kill-criterion: <pre-committed>
+budget: <dollars + hours>
+win-action: <scale-up plan>
+loss-action: <what we learned, what we try next>
+:::
+```
+
+## Discipline rules
+
+- Refuse to design experiments where the primary metric is
+  "engagement", "awareness", or "buzz" without a precise definition.
+- Refuse to design tests with budgets too small to reach detection.
+  Underpowered tests waste money to produce noise.
+- One channel per experiment. Cross-channel attribution is a separate
+  problem and not solvable with the test the operator is asking for.
+- Pre-commit kill criterion in writing. Verbal kill criteria don't
+  bind.
+- After every experiment, force a written readout (3 bullets max:
+  what we tested, what we learned, what we do next). Experiments
+  without readouts compound into noise.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/methodology/icp-deep-dive.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+capability: icp-research
+status: active
+source: hand-authored, synthesized from Christensen (JTBD), Klement (When Coffee and Kale Compete), Cooper (problem-interview methodology)
+retrieved: 2026-04-25
+---
+
+# ICP Deep-Dive
+
+The methodology for discovering who the ideal customer actually is —
+as a person with a forced-buy trigger, not a TAM slide. ICP work is
+the most-skipped, highest-leverage exercise in marketing. Skip it and
+every downstream decision (positioning, channel, pricing, messaging)
+runs on assumed users that may not exist.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Pre-positioning: you can't pressure-test positioning without an ICP
+- Conversion is broken and you suspect the channel is reaching the
+  wrong people
+- Sales cycles are long, won deals look unalike, and lost deals look
+  unalike — no pattern is forming
+- A new market is on the table and the team is debating whether to
+  enter
+
+## Method
+
+**1. List 10 actual closed-won customers.** Real names, real
+companies, real people. If you have fewer than 10, list everyone.
+If you have zero, this template doesn't apply yet — run a problem
+interview pass first.
+
+**2. Extract the forced-buy trigger.** For each customer, what
+*specifically* happened in their world the week before they bought?
+A new hire? A funding round? A regulatory deadline? A competitor
+acquisition? A failed quarter? The trigger is the event that turned
+"interesting" into "must solve now". No trigger, no urgency, no buy.
+Customers without a clear trigger are tellingly hard to find — most
+were the trigger themselves (the buyer just got promoted, etc).
+
+**3. Frame the Job-to-be-Done.** Christensen frame: customers don't
+buy products, they hire products to do a job. State the job as a
+verb-phrase not a feature: "Get the board off my back about pipeline
+visibility" not "buy a CRM dashboard". The job has functional,
+emotional, and social dimensions — capture all three. Most marketing
+collapses the JTBD to functional and loses the emotional + social
+hooks that drive choice.
+
+**4. Find the cluster.** With 10 cases mapped to (trigger × JTBD ×
+person), what cluster has the most cases? That cluster is your
+provisional ICP. Outliers are interesting but not the ICP — resist
+the temptation to design for the most enthusiastic customer if they
+are not the most representative.
+
+**5. Probe willingness-to-pay.** For the cluster, what was the budget
+authority of the buyer, what was the comparable expense they
+dis-funded to fund you, and what was the price elasticity (would
+they have paid 2x? 0.5x?). WTP probes are awkward — ask anyway.
+Pricing is a positioning lever and you can't pull it without this.
+
+**6. Write the ICP profile.** One paragraph. Person, role, company
+shape, trigger, job, and what they were doing the week they decided
+to buy. If the profile reads like a buyer persona slide, it's wrong.
+It should read like a character description in a short story.
+
+## Output
+
+Emit a `:::artifact` block:
+
+```
+:::artifact
+type: icp-profile
+person: <role + seniority + tenure>
+company: <stage, vertical, headcount, geography>
+trigger: <event that forced the buy>
+jtbd: { functional: ..., emotional: ..., social: ... }
+budget-authority: <who signs, what range>
+displaced-spend: <what they stopped funding to fund you>
+disqualifiers: [<signals this isn't the ICP>]
+recruitment-channel: <where this person is reachable>
+:::
+```
+
+Follow with a `:::analysis` naming the two riskiest assumptions in
+the profile — the ones cheap to test before building positioning
+on top of them.
+
+## Discipline rules
+
+- Refuse to invent ICP profiles from imagined buyers. If the user
+  has no closed-won data, run a problem-interview pass instead and
+  call the output a "hypothesized ICP" with explicit `unverified:
+  true` flag.
+- Personas without triggers are useless. "VP of Sales at a 200-person
+  SaaS company" is not an ICP — what made *that VP* buy *this week*?
+- Disqualifiers are as important as qualifiers. Name what looks like
+  the ICP but isn't (lookalikes that don't convert).
+- Recruitment-channel is mandatory. An ICP you can't reach is a
+  thought experiment, not a market.

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/methodology/index.json

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+{
+  "entries": [
+    {
+      "id": "positioning-canvas",
+      "capability": "positioning-strategy",
+      "path": "./positioning-canvas.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "positioning", "crossing-the-chasm"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "channel-experiment-design",
+      "capability": "channel-experiment-design",
+      "path": "./channel-experiment-design.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "growth", "experiment-design"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    },
+    {
+      "id": "icp-deep-dive",
+      "capability": "icp-research",
+      "path": "./icp-deep-dive.md",
+      "tags": ["methodology", "icp", "jtbd", "customer-research"],
+      "version": "0.1.0"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/registry/families/agent-runtime-cmo-advisor-ts/files/methodology/positioning-canvas.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+---
+capability: positioning-strategy
+status: active
+source: hand-authored, synthesized from Moore (Crossing the Chasm), Maurya (Lean Canvas), Dunford (Obviously Awesome)
+retrieved: 2026-04-25
+---
+
+# Positioning Canvas
+
+The methodology for any positioning conversation. Positioning is not
+a tagline, a brand voice, or a manifesto. It's a deliberate choice
+about **who you are best for, against what alternatives, doing what
+job**. Every other marketing decision flows from it; getting it wrong
+costs more than getting it late.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Founder or operator says "I don't know how to describe what we do"
+- Conversion is bad and the suspicion is messaging, not product
+- Sales calls require 20 minutes of context-setting before discovery
+- The team disagrees on who the customer is
+- A new competitor enters and the relative frame just shifted
+
+## Method
+
+**1. Name the alternatives.** Not the competitors — the *alternatives*.
+What does the user do today if your product doesn't exist? Spreadsheets?
+A different vendor? A consultant? Nothing? The alternative defines the
+frame the user evaluates you in. Get this wrong and every downstream
+message lands in the wrong category.
+
+**2. Pick the beachhead segment.** Crossing-the-Chasm rule: choose one
+segment narrow enough that the segment members talk to each other,
+share vocabulary, and can be reached by the same channel. "B2B SaaS"
+is not a segment. "Series A vertical SaaS founders selling to dental
+practices" is a segment. Resist the urge to keep options open — the
+beachhead is supposed to be small.
+
+**3. Identify the unique value.** What can you do that the alternatives
+cannot, that *this segment* cares about? Not features — outcomes the
+segment values that the alternatives structurally can't produce. If
+the alternatives can produce it with a quarter of effort, it's not
+unique value, it's a feature gap that will close.
+
+**4. Describe the whole product.** Moore's whole-product gap: the
+product the segment actually needs (training, integrations, support,
+references, a community) versus the product you ship. Name the gap.
+Decide who fills it (you, a partner, the customer themselves) and
+how that's funded.
+
+**5. Map the trade-off.** Positioning that wins one segment loses
+others. Name the three segments this positioning explicitly does NOT
+serve and why losing them is acceptable. If you can't name them, the
+positioning is too broad and will land nowhere.
+
+## Output
+
+Emit a `:::artifact` block with the canvas:
+
+```
+:::artifact
+type: positioning-canvas
+segment: <beachhead segment>
+alternatives: [<alt-1>, <alt-2>, <alt-3>]
+unique-value: <one sentence, segment-specific outcome>
+whole-product-gaps: [<gap-1>, <gap-2>]
+not-for: [<segment-1>, <segment-2>, <segment-3>]
+positioning-statement: For [segment] who [trigger], [product] is
+  the [category] that [unique value], unlike [alternative], we [proof].
+:::
+```
+
+Follow with a `:::analysis` block naming the two highest-risk
+assumptions in the canvas — the ones that, if wrong, invalidate
+everything downstream.
+
+## Discipline rules
+
+- Refuse to write a positioning statement before steps 1-5 are
+  filled in. Statements written first are aspirational; statements
+  written last are operational.
+- Do not collapse multiple segments into a "primary + secondary"
+  structure on the first pass. Force a single beachhead. Secondaries
+  come after the beachhead works.
+- "Innovative", "best-in-class", "next-generation" are banned. They
+  describe nothing and commit to nothing.
+- If the user can't name what their customer would do without them,
+  stop the canvas and run the ICP deep-dive first.