@zigrivers/scaffold 3.1.0 → 3.4.0

package/content/knowledge/product/vision-innovation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+---
+name: vision-innovation
+description: Techniques for discovering strategic innovation opportunities in product vision
+topics: [innovation, vision, strategy, competitive-positioning, ecosystem, market-opportunities]
+---
+
+# Vision Innovation
+
+This knowledge covers strategic-level innovation — discovering market positioning opportunities, ecosystem plays, contrarian bets, and AI-native rethinking that belong in the product vision. It operates at the strategic scope level: how should this product be positioned in the market?
+
+This is distinct from PRD innovation (`prd-innovation`), which covers feature-level gaps, and user story innovation (`user-story-innovation`), which covers UX-level enhancements. If an idea is about a specific feature or UX improvement, it belongs in those respective knowledge entries, not here.
+
+## Summary
+
+- **Scope**: Strategic-level innovation (market positioning, ecosystem plays, contrarian bets, AI-native capabilities). Feature-level innovation belongs in PRD innovation (`prd-innovation`); UX-level improvements belong in user story innovation (`user-story-innovation`).
+- **Adjacent market discovery**: Look for underserved segments adjacent to the primary target — same problem in different industries, same users with upstream/downstream needs, or existing users with unmet complementary needs.
+- **Ecosystem thinking**: Identify integration points, platform plays, and data network effects — where does the product become more valuable as usage grows or connections multiply?
+- **Contrarian positioning**: Challenge assumptions the market takes for granted — what would a solution look like if you ignored the dominant UX pattern, pricing model, or distribution channel?
+- **AI-native opportunities**: Capabilities only possible with AI (real-time personalization, natural language interfaces, predictive workflows, automated quality feedback) that would be impractical to build conventionally.
+- **Evaluation framework**: Strategic fit x Defensibility x Timing. Must-have for vision = high strategic fit with defensibility, achievable in v1 timeline.
+
+## Deep Guidance
+
+### Scope Boundary
+
+**In scope:**
+- Market positioning and competitive strategy
+- Adjacent market and segment identification
+- Ecosystem and platform plays
+- Network effect opportunities
+- Contrarian bets and assumption challenges
+- AI-native strategic rethinking of the product concept
+- Business model innovation (pricing, distribution, partnerships)
+
+**Out of scope:**
+- Specific feature ideas (belongs in PRD innovation)
+- UX improvements to existing features (belongs in user story innovation)
+- Implementation details (belongs in ADRs and architecture docs)
+- Operational concerns (belongs in operations planning)
+
+---
+
+### Strategic Innovation Framework
+
+Apply these lenses sequentially. Each builds on the previous:
+
+**1. Market Landscape Scan**
+- Who are the 3-5 closest competitors? What do they all assume?
+- Which customer segments are poorly served by existing solutions?
+- What friction points exist in the current adoption/onboarding flow industry-wide?
+- Are there geographic, regulatory, or industry verticals where existing solutions don't work?
+- What recent market shifts (technology, regulation, cultural) create new openings?
+
+**2. Ecosystem & Platform Analysis**
+- What data does this product generate that others would find valuable?
+- What integrations would make this product "sticky" (hard to leave)?
+- Could this product become a platform that others build on?
+- What network effects are possible (direct: more users = more value; indirect: more content/data = better product)?
+- Where could partnerships create mutual value that neither party could achieve alone?
+
+**3. Contrarian & Blue Ocean Opportunities**
+- What would the product look like if it cost 10x less? 10x more?
+- What if the primary interface were voice? Chat? No interface at all?
+- What if the product solved the problem *before* the user knew they had it?
+- Which "table stakes" features could be dropped entirely for a specific segment?
+- What assumptions about the target user are untested?
+
+**4. AI-Native Capabilities**
+- Where can the product anticipate user intent rather than waiting for commands?
+- What manual steps could be eliminated with LLM-powered analysis?
+- Where can the product learn from usage patterns without explicit configuration?
+- What would a "copilot" experience look like for this domain?
+- Which competitive advantages become possible only with AI at the core?
+
+---
+
+### Adjacent Market Discovery
+
+Adjacent markets are the highest-value innovation targets because they leverage existing product capabilities for new audiences.
+
+#### Discovery Techniques
+
+**Same problem, different industry:**
+The product solves a problem for industry A. Which other industries have the same problem with slightly different constraints? Example: project management for software teams → project management for construction, legal, or healthcare teams.
+
+**Same users, upstream/downstream needs:**
+The product's target users have needs before and after they use the product. What happens before they arrive? What do they do with the output? Example: a reporting tool's users need data collection upstream and presentation downstream.
+
+**Existing users, unmet complementary needs:**
+What do current target users also struggle with that the product could address? Example: a CRM user also needs contract management, scheduling, and billing.
+
+#### Evaluation
+
+For each adjacent market:
+- Size: Is the adjacent market large enough to justify the positioning shift?
+- Overlap: How much of the existing product applies without modification?
+- Competition: Is the adjacent market underserved or already crowded?
+- Brand stretch: Can the product credibly serve both the original and adjacent markets?
+
+---
+
+### Ecosystem & Platform Thinking
+
+Products that become platforms or ecosystem hubs are harder to displace and grow more valuable over time.
+
+#### Integration Strategy
+
+Identify the top 5-10 tools in the target user's workflow. For each:
+- Does integrating with this tool make the product more valuable?
+- Does the integration create switching costs (data flows that are hard to replicate)?
+- Is the integration bidirectional (data flows both ways)?
+
+#### Data Network Effects
+
+The most defensible products generate data that makes the product better:
+- Usage data that improves recommendations or predictions
+- Aggregated data that provides benchmarks or insights
+- Content created by users that attracts other users
+- Training data that improves AI capabilities over time
+
+#### Platform Potential
+
+Could third parties build on this product? Signs of platform potential:
+- The product has a natural extension point (plugins, templates, integrations)
+- Users want to customize the product beyond what's built-in
+- The product generates data or output that others want to consume
+- There's a community of practitioners who would build for peers
+
+---
+
+### Contrarian Positioning
+
+The most differentiated products challenge at least one industry assumption. Contrarian positioning creates separation from competitors who all look the same.
+
+#### Assumption Mapping
+
+List the 5-10 things "everyone knows" about the product category:
+- The standard pricing model (subscription, per-seat, usage-based)
+- The standard distribution channel (direct sales, self-serve, marketplace)
+- The standard UX pattern (dashboard, wizard, chat, forms)
+- The standard feature set (what every competitor has)
+- The standard target user (who everyone is selling to)
+
+For each assumption, ask: "What if the opposite were true?" Most answers will be absurd. One or two will be genuinely interesting.
+
+#### Blue Ocean Signals
+
+A blue ocean opportunity exists when:
+- Competitors are converging on identical positioning
+- Users are forced to choose based on price because products are indistinguishable
+- A significant user segment is overserved (paying for features they don't use)
+- A significant user segment is underserved (can't afford or can't find a solution)
+
+---
+
+### AI-Native Rethinking
+
+If this product were conceived today with AI capabilities assumed from day one, what changes fundamentally?
+
+#### Categories of AI-Native Innovation
+
+**Anticipatory experiences:**
+The product acts before the user asks. Instead of "search for X," the product surfaces X when the user is likely to need it. This requires understanding user intent from context.
+
+**Natural language as primary interface:**
+Instead of forms, menus, and buttons, the user describes what they want in natural language. The product interprets intent, executes actions, and confirms results. This isn't a chatbot bolted on — it's a fundamentally different interaction model.
+
+**Automated quality and feedback:**
+The product continuously evaluates its own output and the user's work, providing real-time feedback, suggestions, and corrections without being asked.
+
+**Personalization without configuration:**
+The product adapts to each user's patterns, preferences, and context without requiring explicit settings or preferences. The more the user uses it, the better it gets.
+
+#### AI-Native vs. AI-Augmented
+
+- **AI-native**: The product could not exist without AI. The core value proposition depends on AI capabilities.
+- **AI-augmented**: The product exists without AI, but AI makes it better. AI is a feature, not the foundation.
+
+Vision innovation should prioritize AI-native opportunities over AI-augmented ones. AI-augmented features are better suited for PRD innovation.
+
+---
+
+### Evaluation Criteria
+
+For each innovation opportunity, evaluate on four dimensions:
+
+#### Strategic Fit
+- Does it reinforce the vision's core thesis?
+- Does it serve the same target users or adjacent ones?
+- Does it align with the stated guiding principles?
+- Would including it make the vision more coherent or less?
+
+#### Defensibility
+- Is this hard for competitors to replicate?
+- Does it create switching costs, network effects, or data advantages?
+- Does it require capabilities or relationships that take time to build?
+- Would a well-funded competitor need more than money to catch up?
+
+#### Timing
+- Is this a v1 differentiator or a future roadmap item?
+- Are the enabling technologies mature enough to deliver reliably?
+- Is the market ready for this approach, or would it need education?
+- Does this need to be first-mover or can it be fast-follower?
+
+#### Feasibility
+- Can current AI capabilities deliver this reliably?
+- Does the team have the expertise to execute this?
+- Are the required data sources and integrations available?
+- What's the minimum viable version of this innovation?
+
+### Decision Framework
+
+| | High Defensibility | Low Defensibility |
+|---|---|---|
+| **High Strategic Fit** | Must-have for vision | Evaluate timing — good if early-mover |
+| **Low Strategic Fit** | Backlog — may pivot into relevance | Reject — distraction |
+
+---
+
+### Presenting Strategic Innovations
+
+Group innovations by dimension (market, ecosystem, contrarian, AI-native) for structured decision-making. For each innovation:
+
+1. **What**: The strategic innovation in one sentence
+2. **Why**: Strategic rationale tied to the vision's goals or gaps
+3. **Impact**: How much stronger the product positioning becomes (high / medium / low)
+4. **Defensibility**: How hard this is to replicate (high / medium / low)
+5. **Timing**: v1 differentiator or future roadmap
+6. **Recommendation**: Must-have for vision, backlog, or reject
+
+### Example Innovation Finding
+
+```markdown
+## Innovation Finding: Ecosystem Data Benchmark Play
+
+**Dimension:** Ecosystem & Platform
+**Applies to:** Vision section "Market Positioning"
+
+**Current positioning:** The product is a standalone tool for individual teams.
+
+**Proposed strategic shift:** Position as an ecosystem hub that aggregates
+anonymized usage data across customers to provide industry benchmarks.
+Individual teams get better by seeing how they compare to peers.
+
+**Strategic rationale:** Competitors are standalone tools competing on features.
+An ecosystem play creates a data network effect — each new customer makes the
+benchmarks more valuable for all customers, creating a defensibility moat that
+feature competition cannot replicate.
+
+**Impact:** High — transforms positioning from "better tool" to "smarter tool
+that gets better with scale."
+
+**Defensibility:** High — requires critical mass of data that a new entrant
+cannot shortcut.
+
+**Timing:** v1 foundation, v2+ full realization. v1 needs data collection
+infrastructure and basic benchmarks. Full benchmarking suite is a roadmap item.
+
+**Recommendation:** Must-have for vision. Include data collection and basic
+benchmarks in v1 scope. Full benchmark platform is backlog.
+```
+
+---
+
+### Anti-Patterns
+
+- Don't innovate on commodity features (auth, billing, CRUD) — these should be standard
+- Don't propose innovations that require the product to be successful first (network effects for a product with zero users need a bootstrap strategy)
+- Don't confuse "technically interesting" with "strategically valuable"
+- Don't ignore the user's stated vision — innovations should extend it, not replace it
+- Don't conflate strategic innovation with feature requests — "add a dashboard" is a feature, "position as the intelligence layer for the industry" is strategic
+- Don't propose more than 5-7 innovations — decision fatigue reduces quality of choices
+- Don't present all innovations as must-haves — honest triage builds trust and produces better decisions

package/{knowledge → content/knowledge}/tools/post-implementation-review-methodology.md

@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Review the whole codebase for systemic concerns:
 Codex and Gemini cannot read files directly. Build a context bundle:
 
 1. Full file tree (excluding node_modules, .git, dist, build, coverage)
-2. Architecture docs (docs/architecture.md, docs/adrs/*.md if present)
+2. Architecture docs (docs/system-architecture.md, docs/adrs/*.md if present)
 3. Coding standards (docs/coding-standards.md)
 4. Up to 15 strategically selected files:
    - Entry points (main.*, index.*, app.*, server.* at root/src level)

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/consolidation/workflow-audit.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ summary: "Audits every document that mentions workflow (CLAUDE.md, git-workflow,
 phase: "consolidation"
 order: 1120
 dependencies: [claude-md-optimization]
-outputs: [CLAUDE.md, docs/git-workflow.md]
+outputs: [CLAUDE.md, docs/git-workflow.md, docs/coding-standards.md, tasks/lessons.md]
 conditional: null
 reads: [operations]
 knowledge-base: [cross-phase-consistency, claude-md-patterns, git-workflow-patterns]

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/decisions/review-adrs.md

@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ independent review validation.
 - docs/reviews/adrs/gemini-review.json (depth 4+, if available) — raw Gemini findings
 
 ## Quality Criteria
-- (mvp) All ADR-specific review passes executed
+- (mvp) Contradiction check executed with findings documented
 - (mvp) Every finding categorized P0-P3 with specific ADR number, section, and issue. Severity definitions: P0 = Breaks downstream work. P1 = Prevents quality milestone. P2 = Known tech debt. P3 = Polish.
 - (deep) Missing decisions identified and documented
 - (mvp) Contradictions resolved

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/environment/design-system.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ summary: "Creates a visual language — color palette (WCAG-compliant), typograp
 phase: "environment"
 order: 320
 dependencies: [dev-env-setup]
-outputs: [docs/design-system.md, tailwind.config.js, docs/coding-standards.md]
+outputs: [docs/design-system.md, docs/coding-standards.md]
 reads: [create-prd]
 conditional: "if-needed"
 knowledge-base: [design-system-tokens]

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/finalization/implementation-playbook.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ description: Create the playbook that AI agents follow during implementation
 summary: "Writes the playbook agents reference during every coding session — task execution order, which docs to read before each task, the TDD loop to follow, quality gates to pass, and the handoff format between agents."
 phase: "finalization"
 order: 1430
-dependencies: [developer-onboarding-guide]
+dependencies: [developer-onboarding-guide, implementation-plan]
 outputs: [docs/implementation-playbook.md]
-reads: [story-tests, create-evals, implementation-plan, database-schema, api-contracts, ux-spec, design-system, system-architecture, tdd, coding-standards, security, operations, domain-modeling, adrs, create-prd, project-structure]
+reads: [story-tests, create-evals, implementation-plan, database-schema, api-contracts, ux-spec, design-system, system-architecture, tdd, coding-standards, security, operations, domain-modeling, adrs, create-prd, project-structure, git-workflow, user-stories]
 conditional: null
 knowledge-base: [implementation-playbook]
 ---

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/foundation/tech-stack.md

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ about ecosystem maturity, alternatives, and gotchas.
 - (mvp) Every choice is a decision, not a menu of options
 - (mvp) Quick Reference section lists every dependency with version
 - (deep) Each technology choice documents AI compatibility assessment (training data availability, convention strength); total direct dependencies counted and justified
-- (depth 4+) Multi-model recommendations synthesized: Consensus (all models agree), Majority (2+ models agree), or Divergent (models disagree — present to user for decision)
+- (depth 4+) Multi-model findings synthesized: Consensus (all models agree), Majority (2+ models agree), or Divergent (models disagree — present to user for decision)
 
 ## Methodology Scaling
 - **deep**: Comprehensive research with competitive analysis for each category.

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/modeling/review-domain-modeling.md

@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ independent review validation.
 - docs/reviews/domain-modeling/gemini-review.json (depth 4+, if available) — raw Gemini findings
 
 ## Quality Criteria
-- (mvp) All review passes executed with findings documented
+- (mvp) Consistency check executed with blocking issues documented
 - (mvp) Every finding categorized by severity (P0-P3). Severity definitions: P0 = Breaks downstream work. P1 = Prevents quality milestone. P2 = Known tech debt. P3 = Polish.
 - (mvp) Fix plan created for P0 and P1 findings
 - (mvp) Fixes applied and re-validated

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/planning/implementation-plan-review.md

@@ -36,7 +36,8 @@ and produce a structured coverage matrix and review summary.
 - docs/reviews/implementation-plan/gemini-review.json — raw Gemini findings (depth 4+, if available)
 
 ## Quality Criteria
-- (mvp) Architecture coverage verified (every component has tasks)
+- (deep) Architecture coverage verified (every component has tasks)
+- (mvp) Every user story maps to at least one implementation task
 - (mvp) Dependency graph is valid DAG
 - (mvp) No task is too large for a single agent session
 - (deep) Critical path is accurate

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/quality/review-testing.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ phase: "quality"
 order: 910
 dependencies: [tdd, system-architecture]
 outputs: [docs/reviews/review-testing.md, docs/reviews/testing/review-summary.md, docs/reviews/testing/codex-review.json, docs/reviews/testing/gemini-review.json]
-reads: [domain-modeling, system-architecture]
+reads: [domain-modeling]
 conditional: null
 knowledge-base: [review-methodology, review-testing-strategy, multi-model-review-dispatch, review-step-template]
 ---

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/quality/story-tests.md

@@ -6,9 +6,9 @@ phase: "quality"
 order: 915
 dependencies: [tdd, review-user-stories, review-architecture]
 outputs: [tests/acceptance/, docs/story-tests-map.md]
-reads: [tech-stack, coding-standards, project-structure, api-contracts, database-schema, ux-spec]
+reads: [tech-stack, coding-standards, project-structure, system-architecture, api-contracts, database-schema, ux-spec]
 conditional: null
-knowledge-base: [testing-strategy, user-stories]
+knowledge-base: [testing-strategy, user-stories, test-skeleton-generation]
 ---
 
 ## Purpose

package/{pipeline → content/pipeline}/vision/innovate-vision.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ order: 030
 dependencies: [review-vision]
 outputs: [docs/vision.md]
 conditional: "if-needed"
-knowledge-base: [vision-craft, prd-innovation]
+knowledge-base: [vision-craft, vision-innovation]
 ---
 
 ## Purpose

package/content/skills/mmr/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+name: mmr
+description: Multi-model code review — dispatch, poll, and collect results from multiple AI model CLIs
+topics:
+  - code review
+  - multi-model review
+  - review gate
+  - mmr
+---
+
+# mmr — Multi-Model Review
+
+Dispatch code reviews to multiple AI model CLIs, poll for results, and collect reconciled findings with severity gating.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+```bash
+# Dispatch a review for a PR
+mmr review --pr <number> --focus "description of what to focus on"
+
+# Check progress
+mmr status <job-id>
+
+# Collect reconciled results
+mmr results <job-id>
+
+# Pre-flight: verify all channels are authenticated
+mmr config test
+```
+
+## After Creating a PR
+
+1. Run `mmr review --pr <number>`
+2. Note the job ID from the output
+3. Continue working on other tasks
+4. Periodically run `mmr status <job-id>` until all channels complete
+5. Run `mmr results <job-id>` to get reconciled findings
+6. If gate failed: fix findings at or above the threshold severity
+7. If gate passed: proceed to merge
+
+## Auth Failures
+
+If `mmr review` reports auth failures, follow the recovery instructions in the output:
+- **Claude:** `claude login`
+- **Gemini:** `gemini -p 'hello'` (interactive, opens browser)
+- **Codex:** `codex login`
+
+Re-run `mmr config test` after re-authenticating to verify.
+
+## Severity Gate
+
+Default threshold is P2 (fix P0/P1/P2, skip P3). Override per-review:
+
+```bash
+mmr review --pr 47 --fix-threshold P1   # Only fix P0 and P1
+mmr review --pr 47 --fix-threshold P0   # Only fix critical issues
+```
+
+## Output Formats
+
+```bash
+mmr results <job-id>                    # JSON (default)
+mmr results <job-id> --format text      # Human-readable terminal output
+mmr results <job-id> --format markdown  # For PR comments
+```