claudecode-omc 5.11.0 → 5.13.0

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
+---
+name: benchmark-methodology
+description: >-
+  Use after competitive-platform-analysis has produced a tiered competitor set.
+  Scores each competitor across nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice,
+  visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought
+  leadership, pricing, client's strategic tension) with explicit 1–5 rubrics
+  and a tension-plot. Precedes competitive-report-structure.
+---
+
+# Benchmark Methodology
+
+Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible
+scores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with
+explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is
+the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same
+number for any competitor.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
+- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
+- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
+- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.
+
+## Client positioning brief (establish first)
+
+Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:
+
+- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose
+  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always
+  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
+- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which
+  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
+- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic
+  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.
+
+## Why these dimensions
+
+The client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on
+service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two
+dimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged
+together**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival
+achieves both simultaneously.
+
+## The nine dimensions (with weights)
+
+Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false
+composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.
+
+1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position
+   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
+2. **Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an
+   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
+3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
+   system; site as proof-of-craft.
+4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named
+   sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
+5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
+   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
+6. **Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land
+   and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
+7. **Thought leadership / content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
+   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
+8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
+   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
+9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,
+   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the
+   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's
+   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already
+   there?
+
+## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)
+
+Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the
+specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.
+
+- **1 — Absent / generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable
+  from a template. Active liability.
+- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.
+  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
+- **3 — Competent / table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets
+  expectation, ownable by nobody.
+- **4 — Strong / distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer
+  would notice and cite.
+- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the
+  bar others react to.
+
+### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5
+
+Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning
+brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:
+
+- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·
+  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
+- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent,
+  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.
+
+Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in
+the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most
+important finding of the benchmark.
+
+## How to collect the data
+
+For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):
+
+1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing
+   posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case
+   study.
+2. **Case studies / work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.
+   Distinguish *asserted* ("we delivered X") from *proven* (metrics, named,
+   verifiable).
+3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model
+   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
+4. **LinkedIn** — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence →
+   thought leadership, model.
+5. **Portfolio / craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to
+   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
+6. **Content channels** — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.
+
+**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the
+source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.
+
+## Bias controls
+
+- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot
+  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
+- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for
+  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
+- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic
+  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and
+  credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
+- **Recency / flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may
+  lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring
+  credibility.
+- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;
+  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
+- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read
+  scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor.
+  Adjust outliers.
+
+## Competitor profile card (output format)
+
+Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles
+from:
+
+```
+## <Competitor name>
+- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
+- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
+- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
+- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>
+
+### Dimension scores
+| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
+| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
+| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
+| Service offer & packaging | | | |
+| Evidence & credibility | | | |
+| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
+| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
+| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |
+
+### Tension plot
+- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
+- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
+- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>
+
+### Read for [client]
+- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
+- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
+- **Threat to [client]:** <…>
+```
+
+Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
+- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
+- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
+- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
+- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
+- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/benchmark-optimization-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: benchmark-optimization-loop
 description: Use when the user asks to make something faster, try many variants, run recursive optimization, benchmark latency/throughput/cost, or choose the best implementation by repeated measured tests.
-origin: ECC
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
 tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob
 ---
 

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/blender-motion-state-inspection/SKILL.md

@@ -1,7 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: blender-motion-state-inspection
 description: Use this skill when inspecting Blender characters, rigs, poses, animation retargeting, ground contact, facing direction, or model-vs-motion alignment where screenshots alone are not enough.
-origin: ECC
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
 tools: Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob
 ---
 

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/blueprint/SKILL.md

@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ description: >-
   complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions.
   DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer
   than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".
-origin: community
+metadata:
+  origin: community
 ---
 
 # Blueprint — Construction Plan Generator

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
+---
+name: brand-discovery
+description: >-
+  Use when a brand needs to discover or articulate its identity through
+  structured multi-session interviews. Covers purpose, positioning, audience,
+  personality, voice, narrative, and founder-brand tension across 8 modules
+  using laddering, 5 Whys, and projective techniques. Produces a resumable
+  session with disk-persisted state and a master brandbook (90_SYNTHESIS.md).
+---
+
+# Brand Discovery
+
+Use this skill to conduct a structured, adaptive brand identity interview.
+The goal is a complete `90_SYNTHESIS.md` — a master brandbook the
+organization can use to brief designers, writers, and external
+collaborators.
+
+The interview runs across multiple sessions. Capture answers to disk as you
+go so that no elicited knowledge is lost when a conversation ends, and so a
+later session can resume from where the last one stopped.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- A brand is being created, repositioned, or needs a written identity reference to brief collaborators.
+- Multiple sessions are expected — the conversation will span days or weeks.
+- Multiple founders or stakeholders need individual interviews before a reconciliation pass.
+- The user wants a structured, repeatable method rather than an ad-hoc chat.
+- Existing brand documentation is scattered, implicit, or founder-dependent and needs to be made explicit.
+
+## Session start protocol
+
+On every activation, perform these steps **before** asking any interview
+question:
+
+1. **Check for prior progress.** Look for an existing set of module files
+   and a `state.json` checkpoint in the project's brand-identity directory.
+   If none exists, this is a fresh start — confirm the brand name,
+   participants, and where to save the brand-identity files, then begin at
+   the first module.
+2. **Read the current module file** if one is in progress, and scan its Raw
+   section for previously captured answers.
+3. **Report to the user** in two or three sentences: which module we are
+   in, its status, and what remains. Then ask: "Continue here, or switch
+   module?"
+
+## Interview discipline
+
+Apply these rules throughout every module:
+
+1. **One question at a time.** Never present a list of questions.
+2. **After each answer:** short paraphrase → one deepening probe OR close
+   the thread if the topic is saturated. Never move on silently.
+3. **Laddering:** for every "what" answer, follow with "Why does that
+   matter to you?" until a core value surfaces (typically two to four
+   iterations).
+4. **5 Whys:** for beliefs or positioning claims — push until the root
+   reason, not the surface declaration, is on the table.
+5. **Detect thin answers:** if generic, jargon-heavy, or vague, ask for
+   one concrete example, a client story, or a number.
+6. **Projective techniques** (use once per module to break a plateau):
+   - "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
+   - Brand obituary: "If the organization closed in five years, what would
+     customers miss? What would you regret not having said?"
+   - Competitive contrast: "Name one peer you admire but would never want
+     to become. What specifically makes them the wrong model?"
+7. **Saturation signal:** when two consecutive probes produce no new
+   information, summarise and close the module.
+8. **End of module:** write a structured module file with two sections:
+   - `## Raw` — verbatim quotes and examples.
+   - `## Synthesis` — your interpretation, three candidate formulations,
+     open questions, contradictions between participants.
+   Then update the `state.json` checkpoint (see State protocol below).
+
+## Module sequence
+
+| File | Label | Frameworks used |
+|------|-------|-----------------|
+| `10_purpose-why.md` | Purpose / Why | Sinek Golden Circle, Lencioni |
+| `20_positioning.md` | Positioning | Dunford "Obviously Awesome", Moore template |
+| `30_audience-niche.md` | Audience & Niche | Baker "Business of Expertise", ICP |
+| `40_personality-archetype.md` | Personality & Archetype | Mark & Pearson 12 archetypes, J. Aaker 5 dims |
+| `50_voice-tone.md` | Voice & Tone | Brand voice guidelines |
+| `60_narrative-story.md` | Narrative / Story | Neumeier trueline, brand story arc |
+| `70_founder-tension.md` | Founder Brands vs Studio Brand | Enns "Win Without Pitching" |
+| `90_SYNTHESIS.md` | Master Brandbook | Kapferer prism, Aaker brand system |
+
+Complete modules in order. Honour a user request to jump modules and note
+the skip in `state.json`.
+
+## State write protocol
+
+After each module reaches saturation or done status, write two files:
+
+**Module file** at `modules/{moduleFile}` — full Raw and Synthesis content.
+
+**`state.json`** — a lightweight checkpoint so a later session can resume.
+Update `completedModules`, `inProgressModule`, `nextModule`, `lastUpdated`.
+Schema:
+
+```json
+{
+  "session": "{brand_name}-brand-{YYYY-MM}",
+  "outputPath": "{path_to_brand_identity_directory}",
+  "completedModules": [],
+  "inProgressModule": "10_purpose-why.md",
+  "nextModule": "20_positioning.md",
+  "participants": ["founder-A"],
+  "lastUpdated": "{ISO-8601}"
+}
+```
+
+After writing, confirm: "Module X saved. State updated. Next: Y."
+
+**Terminal module (90_SYNTHESIS.md):** when writing the final synthesis,
+set `inProgressModule` to `"90_SYNTHESIS.md"` and `nextModule` to `null`
+in `state.json`. After writing, set `completedModules` to include
+`"90_SYNTHESIS.md"`, then set `inProgressModule` to `null` — leaving it
+populated would cause a future resumption to treat the completed brandbook
+as still in progress. Confirm: "Brandbook complete. All modules saved."
+
+## Multi-founder mode
+
+When more than one founder participates, write each founder's answers to
+`founders/{participant}.md` instead of the main module files. Validate the
+`participant` name before writing: accept only alphanumeric characters and
+hyphens (e.g. `founder-a`, `anna`); reject names containing path separators
+(`/`, `\`, `..`) or special characters. Validate `moduleFile` against the
+enumerated module sequence (10 through 90 only). Validate `outputPath` to
+ensure it is an absolute path within the project directory — reject relative
+paths and paths that escape via `..` segments. After all founders complete a
+module, run a reconciliation pass: summarise convergences and divergences in
+the module file, flag "productive tensions" for the group alignment workshop.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **Starting without reading state first.** Every session must open by checking for existing module files and `state.json`. Skipping this loses all continuity from prior sessions.
+- **Asking multiple questions at once.** One question at a time is not optional — lists produce checklist answers, not real insight.
+- **Moving to Synthesis before saturation.** If the last two probes produced no new information, the module is done. If they did — it isn't.
+- **Skipping multi-founder reconciliation.** When multiple stakeholders are involved, individual interviews must complete before reconciliation. Discussing the brand collectively first introduces anchoring bias.
+- **Treating this as a one-shot session.** This skill is designed for multiple sessions. Rushing to `90_SYNTHESIS.md` in one conversation produces shallow output.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `competitive-platform-analysis` — after brand-discovery establishes the positioning brief, use this to scope and categorise the competitor set.
+- `brand-voice` (ECC) — if the brand-discovery voice-and-tone module needs a separate, source-derived writing-style profile.

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/10_purpose-why.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# Module 10 — Purpose / Why
+
+> **Frameworks:** Sinek Golden Circle · Lencioni organisational purpose
+>
+> **Goal:** Surface the brand's core belief — the Why that exists independently
+> of what the organisation sells or how it delivers. Captures the founding
+> conviction, not the elevator pitch.
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes, stories, and examples captured during the interview.
+     Record exact language — paraphrase belongs in Synthesis, not here.
+     Include speaker attribution if multi-founder session. -->
+
+### Core belief (why does this exist?)
+
+### The behavioural How (values in action, not poster slogans)
+
+### What the brand refuses to be or do
+
+### Founder quotes strong enough to become internal anchors
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+<!-- Your interpretation of the raw material.
+     Write three sections: formulations, open questions, contradictions. -->
+
+### Candidate Why formulations (offer 2–3 versions, vary register and specificity)
+
+1.
+2.
+3. ### Open questions / threads to pursue in later modules
+
+### Contradictions or tensions between participants (multi-founder only)
+
+### How does this Why constrain or enable positioning? (bridge to Module 20)

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/20_positioning.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Module 20 — Positioning
+
+> **Frameworks:** Dunford *Obviously Awesome* · Moore crossing-the-chasm template ·
+> Jobs-to-be-done lens
+>
+> **Goal:** Define the brand's competitive frame — who it's for, what category it
+> competes in, what it does uniquely, and why that matters to the target client.
+> Output is the raw material for a positioning statement the brand can act on.
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. Record exact language. -->
+
+### Who is the target client? (role, company type, situation)
+
+### What category does the brand compete in? (how clients currently solve this problem)
+
+### What makes the brand different from alternatives in that category?
+
+### What does the target client care about most? (the value they get that others can't match)
+
+### Competitive alternatives named by the founder (include "do nothing" / "hire in-house")
+
+### Phrases or metaphors the founder uses naturally to describe what they do
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+### Positioning statement draft (Dunford template)
+> For **[target client]** who **[situation / JTBD]**, **[brand name]** is the
+> **[category]** that **[unique value]**. Unlike **[alternatives]**, we
+> **[key differentiator]**.
+
+### Alternative framings (vary the category or the differentiator)
+
+1.
+2. ### White-space hypothesis (what no competitor is claiming that this brand could own)
+
+### Open questions / ambiguities
+
+### Tensions with Module 10 Why (flag any contradictions for Module 90 reconciliation)

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/30_audience-niche.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+# Module 30 — Audience & Niche
+
+> **Frameworks:** Baker *The Business of Expertise* · Ideal Client Profile (ICP) ·
+> Pain / trigger / desired outcome lens
+>
+> **Goal:** Make the target audience concrete enough to brief a copywriter or run
+> a paid campaign — not a demographic sketch, but a psychographic and situational
+> portrait of the best client the brand wants more of.
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples. -->
+
+### Who is the ideal client? (describe a specific person, not a segment)
+
+### What situation or trigger brings them to look for help?
+
+### What have they tried before and why did it fall short?
+
+### What does success look like to them? (in their words, not the brand's)
+
+### What do they fear or want to avoid?
+
+### Worst-fit clients (who the brand doesn't want to work with, and why)
+
+### Quotes or stories from real past clients that illustrate the ideal fit
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+### Ideal Client Profile (ICP)
+
+| Dimension | Description |
+|---|---|
+| Role / title | |
+| Organisation type & size | |
+| Trigger situation | |
+| Primary pain | |
+| Desired outcome | |
+| Budget signal | |
+| Red-flag / disqualifier | |
+
+### Psychographic portrait (2–3 sentences: how this person thinks, what they value, what they distrust)
+
+### Niche hypothesis (the smallest viable market the brand could credibly own)
+
+### Audience segments to test (if there is ambiguity about primary vs secondary ICP)
+
+### Open questions / threads for Module 20 positioning reconciliation

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/40_personality-archetype.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# Module 40 — Personality & Archetype
+
+> **Frameworks:** Mark & Pearson 12 brand archetypes · J. Aaker 5 brand personality
+> dimensions (sincerity / excitement / competence / sophistication / ruggedness)
+>
+> **Goal:** Establish the brand's character — how it would behave if it were a
+> person. Personality governs tone, visual register, and what feels "on brand"
+> versus "wrong". A sharp archetype makes a hundred small decisions automatic.
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes and projective-technique responses. -->
+
+### "If the brand were a person, how would they walk into a room?"
+
+### Archetype instinct (which of the 12 resonates immediately, and why?)
+> Creator · Caregiver · Ruler · Jester · Regular Person · Lover · Hero ·
+> Outlaw · Magician · Innocent · Sage · Explorer
+
+### Three adjectives the founder uses most naturally to describe the brand's character
+
+### One brand or public figure the founder admires but the brand should NOT become (and specifically what to avoid)
+
+### One brand or public figure whose personality register the brand aspires to
+
+### How should the brand make clients feel? (not think — feel)
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+### Primary archetype + shadow
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| **Primary archetype** | (name + 1-line why) |
+| **Secondary / shadow** | (what the primary archetype risks becoming; what keeps it honest) |
+
+### J. Aaker personality scores (1–5, 5 = strongly applies)
+
+| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
+|---|---|---|
+| Sincerity (warm, honest, down-to-earth) | | |
+| Excitement (daring, spirited, imaginative) | | |
+| Competence (reliable, intelligent, successful) | | |
+| Sophistication (upper-class, charming) | | |
+| Ruggedness (outdoorsy, tough) | | |
+
+### Personality in action (3 behavioural guidelines derived from the archetype)
+
+1.
+2.
+3. ### What the brand must never sound or look like (the anti-personality)
+
+### Open questions / tensions with Module 50 Voice

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/50_voice-tone.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+# Module 50 — Voice & Tone
+
+> **Frameworks:** Brand voice spectrum (formal <-> casual, serious <-> playful,
+> distant <-> warm, conventional <-> irreverent) · Content-type tone matrix
+>
+> **Goal:** Codify the brand's verbal register precisely enough that two different
+> writers produce copy that sounds like the same person. Voice is constant;
+> tone shifts by context (home page vs. error message vs. proposal cover).
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes and examples from the interview.
+     Collect actual copy samples the founder likes or hates. -->
+
+### Copy the founder admires (from their own brand or others) — include the source
+
+### Copy the founder dislikes or finds "wrong register" — what specifically is wrong?
+
+### Words or phrases the brand uses all the time (even informally)
+
+### Words or phrases the brand actively avoids
+
+### How should the brand sound on: a sales page? an error message? a proposal?
+
+### "We always…" / "We never…" statements about how the brand communicates
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+### Voice spectrum (mark the brand's position on each axis)
+
+| Axis | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Notes |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Formal ←→ Casual | | | | | | |
+| Serious ←→ Playful | | | | | | |
+| Distant ←→ Warm | | | | | | |
+| Conventional ←→ Irreverent | | | | | | |
+| Minimal ←→ Expressive | | | | | | |
+
+### Voice statement (one paragraph a writer can internalise)
+
+### Tone matrix by content type
+
+| Content type | Tone shift | Example phrase |
+|---|---|---|
+| Homepage headline | | |
+| Case study / evidence | | |
+| Proposal / commercial | | |
+| Error / apology | | |
+| Social / informal | | |
+
+### The three things to check every draft against
+
+1.
+2.
+3. ### Open questions / tensions with Module 40 Personality

package/bundled/upstream/ecc/skills/brand-discovery/references/60_narrative-story.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Module 60 — Narrative / Story
+
+> **Frameworks:** Neumeier trueline · Brand story arc (context → conflict →
+> resolution → invitation) · Hero's journey (brand as guide, client as hero)
+>
+> **Goal:** Crystallise the brand's founding story and its narrative arc — the
+> conflict it was built to resolve, the transformation it delivers, and the
+> invitation it extends to clients. The trueline is the single sentence that
+> holds every story the brand tells.
+
+---
+
+## Raw
+
+<!-- Verbatim quotes and stories. -->
+
+### The founding story (what happened, when, why this — not the polished version)
+
+### The conflict or frustration that made the brand necessary
+
+### What the world looks like when the brand's work succeeds (the transformation)
+
+### A client story that best illustrates what the brand does and why it matters
+
+### What would be lost if the brand didn't exist? (brand obituary prompt)
+
+### The invitation: what does the brand ask clients to do or believe?
+
+---
+
+## Synthesis
+
+### Trueline draft (Neumeier: "[Brand] is the only [category] that [unique claim].")
+
+> ### Alternative truelines (2–3 variations, vary level of abstraction)
+
+1.
+2.
+3. ### Brand story arc
+
+| Beat | Content |
+|---|---|
+| **Context** (the world before) | |
+| **Conflict** (what's broken / wrong) | |
+| **Resolution** (what the brand does about it) | |
+| **Invitation** (what the client is asked to do) | |
+
+### The brand as guide (not hero) — what the client achieves, not the brand
+
+### Open questions / tensions with Module 20 Positioning and Module 10 Why