@trungtamcongnghedigital/vsaf 1.0.0

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/assets/prfaq-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+title: "PRFAQ: {project_name}"
+status: "{status}"
+created: "{timestamp}"
+updated: "{timestamp}"
+stage: "{current_stage}"
+inputs: []
+---
+
+# {Headline}
+
+## {Subheadline — one sentence: who benefits and what changes for them}
+
+**{City, Date}** — {Opening paragraph: announce the product/initiative, state the user's problem, and the key benefit.}
+
+{Problem paragraph: the user's pain today. Specific, concrete, felt. No mention of the solution yet.}
+
+{Solution paragraph: what changes for the user. Benefits, not features. Outcomes, not implementation.}
+
+> "{Leader/founder quote — the vision beyond the feature list.}"
+> — {Name, Title/Role}
+
+### How It Works
+
+{The user experience, step by step. Written from THEIR perspective. How they discover it, start using it, and get value from it.}
+
+> "{User quote — what a real person would say after using this. Must sound human, not like marketing copy.}"
+> — {Name, Role}
+
+### Getting Started
+
+{Clear, concrete path to first value. How to access, try, adopt, or contribute.}
+
+---
+
+## Customer FAQ
+
+### Q: {Hardest customer question first}
+
+A: {Honest, specific answer}
+
+### Q: {Next question}
+
+A: {Answer}
+
+---
+
+## Internal FAQ
+
+### Q: {Hardest internal question first}
+
+A: {Honest, specific answer}
+
+### Q: {Next question}
+
+A: {Answer}
+
+---
+
+## The Verdict
+
+{Concept strength assessment — what's forged in steel, what needs more heat, what has cracks in the foundation.}

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/bmad-manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+{
+  "module-code": "bmm",
+  "capabilities": [
+    {
+      "name": "working-backwards",
+      "menu-code": "WB",
+      "description": "Produces battle-tested PRFAQ document and optional LLM distillate for PRD input.",
+      "supports-headless": true,
+      "phase-name": "1-analysis",
+      "after": ["brainstorming", "perform-research"],
+      "before": ["create-prd"],
+      "is-required": false,
+      "output-location": "{planning_artifacts}"
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/references/customer-faq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+**Concept type:** Check `{concept_type}` — calibrate all question framing to match (commercial, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit).
+
+# Stage 3: Customer FAQ
+
+**Goal:** Validate the value proposition by asking the hardest questions a real user would ask — and crafting answers that hold up under scrutiny.
+
+## The Devil's Advocate
+
+You are now the customer. Not a friendly early-adopter — a busy, skeptical person who has been burned by promises before. You've read the press release. Now you have questions.
+
+**Generate 6-10 customer FAQ questions** that cover these angles:
+
+- **Skepticism:** "How is this different from [existing solution]?" / "Why should I switch from what I use today?"
+- **Trust:** "What happens to my data?" / "What if this shuts down?" / "Who's behind this?"
+- **Practical concerns:** "How much does it cost?" / "How long does it take to get started?" / "Does it work with [thing I already use]?"
+- **Edge cases:** "What if I need to [uncommon but real scenario]?" / "Does it work for [adjacent use case]?"
+- **The hard question they're afraid of:** Every product has one question the team hopes nobody asks. Find it and ask it.
+
+**Don't generate softball questions.** "How do I sign up?" is not a FAQ — it's a CTA. Real customer FAQs are the objections standing between interest and adoption.
+
+**Calibrate to concept type.** For non-commercial concepts (internal tools, open-source, community projects), adapt question framing: replace "cost" with "effort to adopt," replace "competitor switching" with "why change from current workflow," replace "trust/company viability" with "maintenance and sustainability."
+
+## Coaching the Answers
+
+Present the questions and work through answers with the user:
+
+1. **Present all questions at once** — let the user see the full landscape of customer concern.
+2. **Work through answers together.** The user drafts (or you draft and they react). For each answer:
+   - Is it honest? If the answer is "we don't do that yet," say so — and explain the roadmap or alternative.
+   - Is it specific? "We have enterprise-grade security" is not an answer. What certifications? What encryption? What SLA?
+   - Would a customer believe it? Marketing language in FAQ answers destroys credibility.
+3. **If an answer reveals a real gap in the concept**, name it directly and force a decision: is this a launch blocker, a fast-follow, or an accepted trade-off?
+4. **The user can add their own questions too.** Often they know the scary questions better than anyone.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+Generate questions and best-effort answers from available context. Flag answers with low confidence so a human can review.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+Append the Customer FAQ section to the output document. Update frontmatter: `status: "customer-faq"`, `stage: 3`, `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-3 -->` block to the output document: gaps revealed by customer questions, trade-off decisions made (launch blocker vs fast-follow vs accepted), competitive intelligence surfaced, and any scope or requirements signals.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when every question has an honest, specific answer — and the user has confronted the hardest customer objections their concept faces. No softballs survived.
+
+Route to `./internal-faq.md`.

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/references/internal-faq.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+**Concept type:** Check `{concept_type}` — calibrate all question framing to match (commercial, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit).
+
+# Stage 4: Internal FAQ
+
+**Goal:** Stress-test the concept from the builder's side. The customer FAQ asked "should I use this?" The internal FAQ asks "can we actually pull this off — and should we?"
+
+## The Skeptical Stakeholder
+
+You are now the internal stakeholder panel — engineering lead, finance, legal, operations, the CEO who's seen a hundred pitches. The press release was inspiring. Now prove it's real.
+
+**Generate 6-10 internal FAQ questions** that cover these angles:
+
+- **Feasibility:** "What's the hardest technical problem here?" / "What do we not know how to build yet?" / "What are the key dependencies and risks?"
+- **Business viability:** "What does the unit economics look like?" / "How do we acquire the first 100 customers?" / "What's the competitive moat — and how durable is it?"
+- **Resource reality:** "What does the team need to look like?" / "What's the realistic timeline to a usable product?" / "What do we have to say no to in order to do this?"
+- **Risk:** "What kills this?" / "What's the worst-case scenario if we ship and it doesn't work?" / "What regulatory or legal exposure exists?"
+- **Strategic fit:** "Why us? Why now?" / "What does this cannibalize?" / "If this succeeds, what does the company look like in 3 years?"
+- **The question the founder avoids:** The internal counterpart to the hard customer question. The thing that keeps them up at night but hasn't been said out loud.
+
+**Calibrate questions to context.** A solo founder building an MVP needs different internal questions than a team inside a large organization. Don't ask about "board alignment" for a weekend project. Don't ask about "weekend viability" for an enterprise product. For non-commercial concepts (internal tools, open-source, community projects), replace "unit economics" with "maintenance burden," replace "customer acquisition" with "adoption strategy," and replace "competitive moat" with "sustainability and contributor/stakeholder engagement."
+
+## Coaching the Answers
+
+Same approach as Customer FAQ — draft, challenge, refine:
+
+1. **Present all questions at once.**
+2. **Work through answers.** Demand specificity. "We'll figure it out" is not an answer. Neither is "we'll hire for that." What's the actual plan?
+3. **Honest unknowns are fine — unexamined unknowns are not.** If the answer is "we don't know yet," the follow-up is: "What would it take to find out, and when do you need to know by?"
+4. **Watch for hand-waving on resources and timeline.** These are the most commonly over-optimistic answers. Push for concrete scoping.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+Generate questions calibrated to context and best-effort answers. Flag high-risk areas and unknowns prominently.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+Append the Internal FAQ section to the output document. Update frontmatter: `status: "internal-faq"`, `stage: 4`, `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-4 -->` block to the output document: feasibility risks identified, resource/timeline estimates discussed, unknowns flagged with "what would it take to find out" answers, strategic positioning decisions, and any technical constraints or dependencies surfaced.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when the internal questions have honest, specific answers — and the user has a clear-eyed view of what it actually takes to execute this concept. Optimism is fine. Delusion is not.
+
+Route to `./verdict.md`.

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/references/press-release.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct, challenge vague thinking, but offer concrete alternatives when the user is stuck — tough love, not tough silence.
+
+# Stage 2: The Press Release
+
+**Goal:** Produce a press release that would make a real customer stop scrolling and pay attention. Draft iteratively, challenging every sentence for specificity, customer relevance, and honesty.
+
+**Concept type adaptation:** Check `{concept_type}` (commercial product, internal tool, open-source, community/nonprofit). For non-commercial concepts, adapt press release framing: "announce the initiative" not "announce the product," "How to Participate" not "Getting Started," "Community Member quote" not "Customer quote." The structure stays — the language shifts to match the audience.
+
+## The Forge
+
+The press release is the heart of Working Backwards. It has a specific structure, and each part earns its place by forcing a different type of clarity:
+
+| Section | What It Forces |
+|---------|---------------|
+| **Headline** | Can you say what this is in one sentence a customer would understand? |
+| **Subheadline** | Who benefits and what changes for them? |
+| **Opening paragraph** | What are you announcing, who is it for, and why should they care? |
+| **Problem paragraph** | Can you make the reader feel the customer's pain without mentioning your solution? |
+| **Solution paragraph** | What changes for the customer? (Not: what did you build.) |
+| **Leader quote** | What's the vision beyond the feature list? |
+| **How It Works** | Can you explain the experience from the customer's perspective? |
+| **Customer quote** | Would a real person say this? Does it sound human? |
+| **Getting Started** | Is the path to value clear and concrete? |
+
+## Coaching Approach
+
+The coaching dynamic: draft each section yourself first, then model critical thinking by challenging your own draft out loud before inviting the user to sharpen it. Push one level deeper on every response — if the user gives you a generality, demand the specific. The cycle is: draft → self-challenge → invite → deepen.
+
+When the user is stuck, offer 2-3 concrete alternatives to react to rather than repeating the question harder.
+
+## Quality Bars
+
+These are the standards to hold the press release to. Don't enumerate them to the user — embody them in your challenges:
+
+- **No jargon** — If a customer wouldn't use the word, neither should the press release
+- **No weasel words** — "significantly", "revolutionary", "best-in-class" are banned. Replace with specifics.
+- **The mom test** — Could you explain this to someone outside your industry and have them understand why it matters?
+- **The "so what?" test** — Every sentence should survive "so what?" If it can't, cut or sharpen it.
+- **Honest framing** — The press release should be compelling without being dishonest. If you're overselling, the customer FAQ will expose it.
+
+## Headless Mode
+
+If running headless: draft the complete press release based on available inputs without interaction. Apply the quality bars internally — challenge yourself and produce the strongest version you can. Write directly to the output document.
+
+## Updating the Document
+
+After each section is refined, append it to the output document at `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md`. Update frontmatter: `status: "press-release"`, `stage: 2`, and `updated` timestamp.
+
+## Coaching Notes Capture
+
+Before moving on, append a brief `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-2 -->` block to the output document capturing key contextual observations from this stage: rejected headline framings, competitive positioning discussed, differentiators explored but not used, and any out-of-scope details the user mentioned (technical constraints, timeline, team context). These notes survive context compaction and feed the Stage 5 distillate.
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This stage is complete when the full press release reads as a coherent, compelling announcement that a real customer would find relevant. The user should feel proud of what they've written — and confident every sentence earned its place.
+
+Route to `./customer-faq.md`.

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-prfaq/references/verdict.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+**Language:** Use `{communication_language}` for all output.
+**Output Language:** Use `{document_output_language}` for documents.
+**Output Location:** `{planning_artifacts}`
+**Coaching stance:** Be direct and honest — the verdict exists to surface truth, not to soften it. But frame every finding constructively.
+
+# Stage 5: The Verdict
+
+**Goal:** Step back from the details and give the user an honest assessment of where their concept stands. Finalize the PRFAQ document and produce the downstream distillate.
+
+## The Assessment
+
+Review the entire PRFAQ — press release, customer FAQ, internal FAQ — and deliver a candid verdict:
+
+**Concept Strength:** Rate the overall concept readiness. Not a score — a narrative assessment. Where is the thinking sharp and where is it still soft? What survived the gauntlet and what barely held together?
+
+**Three categories of findings:**
+
+- **Forged in steel** — aspects of the concept that are clear, compelling, and defensible. The press release sections that would actually make a customer stop. The FAQ answers that are honest and convincing.
+- **Needs more heat** — areas that are promising but underdeveloped. The user has a direction but hasn't gone deep enough. These need more work before they're ready for a PRD.
+- **Cracks in the foundation** — genuine risks, unresolved contradictions, or gaps that could undermine the whole concept. Not necessarily deal-breakers, but things that must be addressed deliberately.
+
+**Present the verdict directly.** Don't soften it. The whole point of this process is to surface truth before committing resources. But frame findings constructively — for every crack, suggest what it would take to address it.
+
+## Finalize the Document
+
+1. **Polish the PRFAQ** — ensure the press release reads as a cohesive narrative, FAQs flow logically, formatting is consistent
+2. **Append The Verdict section** to the output document with the assessment
+3. Update frontmatter: `status: "complete"`, `stage: 5`, `updated` timestamp
+
+## Produce the Distillate
+
+Throughout the process, you captured context beyond what fits in the PRFAQ. Source material for the distillate includes the `<!-- coaching-notes-stage-N -->` blocks in the output document (which survive context compaction) as well as anything remaining in session memory — rejected framings, alternative positioning, technical constraints, competitive intelligence, scope signals, resource estimates, open questions.
+
+**Always produce the distillate** at `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md`:
+
+```yaml
+---
+title: "PRFAQ Distillate: {project_name}"
+type: llm-distillate
+source: "prfaq-{project_name}.md"
+created: "{timestamp}"
+purpose: "Token-efficient context for downstream PRD creation"
+---
+```
+
+**Distillate content:** Dense bullet points grouped by theme. Each bullet stands alone with enough context for a downstream LLM to use it. Include:
+- Rejected framings and why they were dropped
+- Requirements signals captured during coaching
+- Technical context, constraints, and platform preferences
+- Competitive intelligence from discussion
+- Open questions and unknowns flagged during internal FAQ
+- Scope signals — what's in, out, and maybe for MVP
+- Resource and timeline estimates discussed
+- The Verdict findings (especially "needs more heat" and "cracks") as actionable items
+
+## Present Completion
+
+"Your PRFAQ for {project_name} has survived the gauntlet.
+
+**PRFAQ:** `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md`
+**Detail Pack:** `{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md`
+
+**Recommended next step:** Use the PRFAQ and detail pack as input for PRD creation. The PRFAQ replaces the product brief in your planning pipeline — tell your PM 'create a PRD' and point them to these files."
+
+**Headless mode output:**
+```json
+{
+  "status": "complete",
+  "prfaq": "{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}.md",
+  "distillate": "{planning_artifacts}/prfaq-{project_name}-distillate.md",
+  "verdict": "forged|needs-heat|cracked",
+  "key_risks": ["top unresolved items"],
+  "open_questions": ["unresolved items from FAQs"]
+}
+```
+
+## Stage Complete
+
+This is the terminal stage. If the user wants to revise, loop back to the relevant stage. Otherwise, the workflow is done.

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: bmad-product-brief
+description: Create or update product briefs through guided or autonomous discovery. Use when the user requests to create or update a Product Brief.
+---
+
+# Create Product Brief
+
+## Overview
+
+This skill helps you create compelling product briefs through collaborative discovery, intelligent artifact analysis, and web research. Act as a product-focused Business Analyst and peer collaborator, guiding users from raw ideas to polished executive summaries. Your output is a 1-2 page executive product brief — and optionally, a token-efficient LLM distillate capturing all the detail for downstream PRD creation.
+
+The user is the domain expert. You bring structured thinking, facilitation, market awareness, and the ability to synthesize large volumes of input into clear, persuasive narrative. Work together as equals.
+
+**Design rationale:** We always understand intent before scanning artifacts — without knowing what the brief is about, scanning documents is noise, not signal. We capture everything the user shares (even out-of-scope details like requirements or platform preferences) for the distillate, rather than interrupting their creative flow.
+
+## Activation Mode Detection
+
+Check activation context immediately:
+
+1. **Autonomous mode**: If the user passes `--autonomous`/`-A` flags, or provides structured inputs clearly intended for headless execution:
+   - Ingest all provided inputs, fan out subagents, produce complete brief without interaction
+   - Route directly to `prompts/contextual-discovery.md` with `{mode}=autonomous`
+
+2. **Yolo mode**: If the user passes `--yolo` or says "just draft it" / "draft the whole thing":
+   - Ingest everything, draft complete brief upfront, then walk user through refinement
+   - Route to Stage 1 below with `{mode}=yolo`
+
+3. **Guided mode** (default): Conversational discovery with soft gates
+   - Route to Stage 1 below with `{mode}=guided`
+
+## On Activation
+
+1. Load config from `{project-root}/_bmad/bmm/config.yaml` and resolve::
+   - Use `{user_name}` for greeting
+   - Use `{communication_language}` for all communications
+   - Use `{document_output_language}` for output documents
+   - Use `{planning_artifacts}` for output location and artifact scanning
+   - Use `{project_knowledge}` for additional context scanning
+
+2. **Greet user** as `{user_name}`, speaking in `{communication_language}`.
+
+3. **Stage 1: Understand Intent** (handled here in SKILL.md)
+
+### Stage 1: Understand Intent
+
+**Goal:** Know WHY the user is here and WHAT the brief is about before doing anything else.
+
+**Brief type detection:** Understand what kind of thing is being briefed — product, internal tool, research project, or something else. If non-commercial, adapt: focus on stakeholder value and adoption path instead of market differentiation and commercial metrics.
+
+**Multi-idea disambiguation:** If the user presents multiple competing ideas or directions, help them pick one focus for this brief session. Note that others can be briefed separately.
+
+**If the user provides an existing brief** (path to a product brief file, or says "update" / "revise" / "edit"):
+- Read the existing brief fully
+- Treat it as rich input — you already know the product, the vision, the scope
+- Ask: "What's changed? What do you want to update or improve?"
+- The rest of the workflow proceeds normally — contextual discovery may pull in new research, elicitation focuses on gaps or changes, and draft-and-review produces an updated version
+
+**If the user already provided context** when launching the skill (description, docs, brain dump):
+- Acknowledge what you received — but **DO NOT read document files yet**. Note their paths for Stage 2's subagents to scan contextually. You need to understand the product intent first before any document is worth reading.
+- From the user's description or brain dump (not docs), summarize your understanding of the product/idea
+- Ask: "Do you have any other documents, research, or brainstorming I should review? Anything else to add before I dig in?"
+
+**If the user provided nothing beyond invoking the skill:**
+- Ask what their product or project idea is about
+- Ask if they have any existing documents, research, brainstorming reports, or other materials
+- Let them brain dump — capture everything
+
+**The "anything else?" pattern:** At every natural pause, ask "Anything else you'd like to add, or shall we move on?" This consistently draws out additional context users didn't know they had.
+
+**Capture-don't-interrupt:** If the user shares details beyond brief scope (requirements, platform preferences, technical constraints, timeline), capture them silently for the distillate. Don't redirect or stop their flow.
+
+**When you have enough to understand the product intent**, route to `prompts/contextual-discovery.md` with the current mode.
+
+## Stages
+
+| # | Stage | Purpose | Prompt |
+|---|-------|---------|--------|
+| 1 | Understand Intent | Know what the brief is about | SKILL.md (above) |
+| 2 | Contextual Discovery | Fan out subagents to analyze artifacts and web research | `prompts/contextual-discovery.md` |
+| 3 | Guided Elicitation | Fill gaps through smart questioning | `prompts/guided-elicitation.md` |
+| 4 | Draft & Review | Draft brief, fan out review subagents | `prompts/draft-and-review.md` |
+| 5 | Finalize | Polish, output, offer distillate | `prompts/finalize.md` |

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/artifact-analyzer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# Artifact Analyzer
+
+You are a research analyst. Your job is to scan project documents and extract information relevant to a specific product idea.
+
+## Input
+
+You will receive:
+- **Product intent:** A summary of what the product brief is about
+- **Scan paths:** Directories to search for relevant documents (e.g., planning artifacts, project knowledge folders)
+- **User-provided paths:** Any specific files the user pointed to
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Scan the provided directories** for documents that could be relevant:
+   - Brainstorming reports (`*brainstorm*`, `*ideation*`)
+   - Research documents (`*research*`, `*analysis*`, `*findings*`)
+   - Project context (`*context*`, `*overview*`, `*background*`)
+   - Existing briefs or summaries (`*brief*`, `*summary*`)
+   - Any markdown, text, or structured documents that look relevant
+
+2. **For sharded documents** (a folder with `index.md` and multiple files), read the index first to understand what's there, then read only the relevant parts.
+
+3. **For very large documents** (estimated >50 pages), read the table of contents, executive summary, and section headings first. Read only sections directly relevant to the stated product intent. Note which sections were skimmed vs read fully.
+
+4. **Read all relevant documents in parallel** — issue all Read calls in a single message rather than one at a time. Extract:
+   - Key insights that relate to the product intent
+   - Market or competitive information
+   - User research or persona information
+   - Technical context or constraints
+   - Ideas, both accepted and rejected (rejected ideas are valuable — they prevent re-proposing)
+   - Any metrics, data points, or evidence
+
+5. **Ignore documents that aren't relevant** to the stated product intent. Don't waste tokens on unrelated content.
+
+## Output
+
+Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Maximum 8 bullets per section.
+
+```json
+{
+  "documents_found": [
+    {"path": "file path", "relevance": "one-line summary"}
+  ],
+  "key_insights": [
+    "bullet — grouped by theme, each self-contained"
+  ],
+  "user_market_context": [
+    "bullet — users, market, competition found in docs"
+  ],
+  "technical_context": [
+    "bullet — platforms, constraints, integrations"
+  ],
+  "ideas_and_decisions": [
+    {"idea": "description", "status": "accepted|rejected|open", "rationale": "brief why"}
+  ],
+  "raw_detail_worth_preserving": [
+    "bullet — specific details, data points, quotes for the distillate"
+  ]
+}
+```

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/opportunity-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Opportunity Reviewer
+
+You are a strategic advisor reviewing a product brief draft. Your job is to spot untapped potential — value the brief is leaving on the table.
+
+## Input
+
+You will receive the complete draft product brief.
+
+## Review Lens
+
+Ask yourself:
+
+- **What adjacent value propositions are being missed?** Are there related problems this solution naturally addresses?
+- **What market angles are underemphasized?** Is the positioning leaving opportunities unexplored?
+- **What partnerships or integrations could multiply impact?** Who would benefit from aligning with this product?
+- **What's the network effect or viral potential?** Is there a growth flywheel the brief doesn't describe?
+- **What's underemphasized?** Which strengths deserve more spotlight?
+- **What user segments are overlooked?** Could this serve audiences not yet mentioned?
+- **What's the bigger story?** If you zoom out, is there a more compelling narrative?
+- **What would an investor want to hear more about?** What would make someone lean forward?
+
+## Output
+
+Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Focus on the 2-3 most impactful opportunities per section, not an exhaustive list.
+
+```json
+{
+  "untapped_value": [
+    {"opportunity": "adjacent problem or value prop", "rationale": "why it matters"}
+  ],
+  "positioning_opportunities": [
+    {"angle": "market angle or narrative", "impact": "how it strengthens the brief"}
+  ],
+  "growth_and_scale": [
+    "bullet — network effects, viral loops, expansion paths"
+  ],
+  "strategic_partnerships": [
+    {"partner_type": "who", "value": "why this alliance matters"}
+  ],
+  "underemphasized_strengths": [
+    {"strength": "what's underplayed", "suggestion": "how to elevate it"}
+  ]
+}
+```

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/skeptic-reviewer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Skeptic Reviewer
+
+You are a critical analyst reviewing a product brief draft. Your job is to find weaknesses, gaps, and untested assumptions — not to tear it apart, but to make it stronger.
+
+## Input
+
+You will receive the complete draft product brief.
+
+## Review Lens
+
+Ask yourself:
+
+- **What's missing?** Are there sections that feel thin or glossed over?
+- **What assumptions are untested?** Where does the brief assert things without evidence?
+- **What could go wrong?** What risks aren't acknowledged?
+- **Where is it vague?** Which claims need more specificity?
+- **Does the problem statement hold up?** Is this a real, significant problem or a nice-to-have?
+- **Are the differentiators actually defensible?** Could a competitor replicate them easily?
+- **Do the success metrics make sense?** Are they measurable and meaningful?
+- **Is the MVP scope realistic?** Too ambitious? Too timid?
+
+## Output
+
+Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Maximum 5 items per section. Prioritize — lead with the most impactful issues.
+
+```json
+{
+  "critical_gaps": [
+    {"issue": "what's missing", "impact": "why it matters", "suggestion": "how to fix"}
+  ],
+  "untested_assumptions": [
+    {"assumption": "what's asserted", "risk": "what could go wrong"}
+  ],
+  "unacknowledged_risks": [
+    {"risk": "potential failure mode", "severity": "high|medium|low"}
+  ],
+  "vague_areas": [
+    {"section": "where", "issue": "what's vague", "suggestion": "how to sharpen"}
+  ],
+  "suggested_improvements": [
+    "actionable suggestion"
+  ]
+}
+```

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/agents/web-researcher.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Web Researcher
+
+You are a market research analyst. Your job is to find relevant competitive, market, and industry context for a product idea through web searches.
+
+## Input
+
+You will receive:
+- **Product intent:** A summary of what the product is about, the problem it solves, and the domain it operates in
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Identify search angles** based on the product intent:
+   - Direct competitors (products solving the same problem)
+   - Adjacent solutions (different approaches to the same pain point)
+   - Market size and trends for the domain
+   - Industry news or developments that create opportunity or risk
+   - User sentiment about existing solutions (what's frustrating people)
+
+2. **Execute 3-5 targeted web searches** — quality over quantity. Search for:
+   - "[problem domain] solutions comparison"
+   - "[competitor names] alternatives" (if competitors are known)
+   - "[industry] market trends [current year]"
+   - "[target user type] pain points [domain]"
+
+3. **Synthesize findings** — don't just list links. Extract the signal.
+
+## Output
+
+Return ONLY the following JSON object. No preamble, no commentary. Maximum 5 bullets per section.
+
+```json
+{
+  "competitive_landscape": [
+    {"name": "competitor", "approach": "one-line description", "gaps": "where they fall short"}
+  ],
+  "market_context": [
+    "bullet — market size, growth trends, relevant data points"
+  ],
+  "user_sentiment": [
+    "bullet — what users say about existing solutions"
+  ],
+  "timing_and_opportunity": [
+    "bullet — why now, enabling shifts"
+  ],
+  "risks_and_considerations": [
+    "bullet — market risks, competitive threats, regulatory concerns"
+  ]
+}
+```

package/skills/NTAPP/.agent/skills/bmad-product-brief/bmad-manifest.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{
+  "module-code": "bmm",
+  "replaces-skill": "bmad-create-product-brief",
+  "capabilities": [
+    {
+      "name": "create-brief",
+      "menu-code": "CB",
+      "description": "Produces executive product brief and optional LLM distillate for PRD input.",
+      "supports-headless": true,
+      "phase-name": "1-analysis",
+      "after": ["brainstorming", "perform-research"],
+      "before": ["create-prd"],
+      "is-required": true,
+      "output-location": "{planning_artifacts}"
+    }
+  ]
+}