skilldrop-cli 0.13.1 → 0.13.3

package/packs/ai-engineering/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Adopt and build AI systems: readiness assessment, use-case triage, rollout and acceptable-use policy, plus agent loop design, subagent orchestration, spend budgets, agent security review, eval harnesses, and AI-usage reporting.",
+  "display_name": "AI engineering",
+  "keywords": ["ai-adoption", "agents", "evals", "governance", "budgets"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/ai-engineering/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "non-technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Find out whether a team is ready to adopt AI tools, and what blocks it first",
+    "starter-prompt": "Are we ready for AI? Our support team has 12 people on Zendesk, no AI tools today, and a legal team worried about customer data.",
+    "verification": "ai-readiness-assessment scores six dimensions (data, tooling, skills, governance, process, culture) with evidence for each, and ranks the gaps that block adoption first.",
+    "recovery": "If ai-readiness-assessment does not activate, ask for it by name and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/{skills → packs/ai-engineering/skills}/agent-adoption-stage/SKILL.md

@@ -41,12 +41,12 @@ The load-bearing idea: **the bottleneck moves.** Each stage is limited by someth
 
    | Unlock | Where it's implemented |
    |---|---|
-   | a trusted self-verification loop | [`pre-merge-review`](../pre-merge-review/SKILL.md) — a mechanical gate whose exit code decides, plus the reviewer panel |
+   | a trusted self-verification loop | [`pre-merge-review`](../../../dev-team/skills/pre-merge-review/SKILL.md) — a mechanical gate whose exit code decides, plus the reviewer panel |
    | automated review that isn't the queue | the reviewer panel (`devils-advocate`, `security-reviewer`, `code-quality`) |
    | loops and routines | [`agent-loop-design`](../agent-loop-design/SKILL.md) — generate→verify→gate with exit criteria and a cap |
    | parallel agents without collision | [`subagent-design`](../subagent-design/SKILL.md) — topology, isolation, typed contracts |
    | token efficiency as volume climbs | [`agent-budget`](../agent-budget/SKILL.md) + a provider-neutral model tier per task |
-   | encoding standards so agents inherit them | [`agents-md-generator`](../agents-md-generator/SKILL.md) and skills themselves |
+   | encoding standards so agents inherit them | [`agents-md-generator`](../../../dev-team/skills/agents-md-generator/SKILL.md) and skills themselves |
    | guardrails for autonomous work | [`agent-threat-model`](../agent-threat-model/SKILL.md) |
 
 7. **End with the re-measure date and what would prove the unlock landed.** An observable: "median agents-in-flight ≥ 3 and engineers stop reading intermediate diffs, in 6 weeks."

package/packs/claude-api/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "description": "Skills for teams building on the Anthropic API — prompt caching, token budgeting, eval generation for skills, and tool-use schema writing.",
+  "display_name": "Claude API",
+  "keywords": ["anthropic", "prompt-caching", "tokens", "tool-use", "evals"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/claude-api/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "technical",
+    "prerequisites": ["A system prompt and a typical request from your Claude API integration"],
+    "starter-task": "Find where prompt caching will cut your input costs",
+    "starter-prompt": "Here is our system prompt and a typical request: <paste them>. Where should the cache_control breakpoints go, and what hit rate should we expect?",
+    "verification": "prompt-caching-advisor marks where each cache_control checkpoint goes and estimates the cache hit rate.",
+    "recovery": "If prompt-caching-advisor does not activate, ask for it by name and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  }
+}

package/{skills → packs/claude-api/skills}/eval-harness-generator/SKILL.md

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ description: Takes a skill's SKILL.md and generates a set of eval cases — trig
 
 # eval-harness-generator
 
-Reads a SKILL.md and generates eval cases that cover the skill's happy path, edge cases, and known failure modes. The output is JSON that drops directly into `skills/<name>/evals/cases.json`. Unlike `llm-eval-harness` (which designs eval harnesses for arbitrary LLM features), this skill specifically targets the skilldrop eval format and the patterns that skilldrop skills routinely get wrong.
+Reads a SKILL.md and generates eval cases that cover the skill's happy path, edge cases, and known failure modes. The output is JSON that drops directly into the skill's `evals/cases.json` (in skilldrop, `packs/<pack>/skills/<name>/evals/`). Unlike `llm-eval-harness` (which designs eval harnesses for arbitrary LLM features), this skill specifically targets the skilldrop eval format and the patterns that skilldrop skills routinely get wrong.
 
 ## How to respond
 
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ After the JSON array, add a brief eval strategy note (3–5 sentences) explainin
 
 Tell the user:
 ```
-Drop this into skills/<skill-name>/evals/cases.json
+Drop this into packs/<pack>/skills/<skill-name>/evals/cases.json
 Run: python3 validate.py   # confirms the file is found
 ```
 

package/{skills → packs/claude-api/skills}/eval-harness-generator/manifest.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "eval-harness-generator",
-  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "version": "1.0.1",
   "description": "Takes a skill's SKILL.md and generates a set of eval cases — trigger queries, expected output shape, and pass/fail criteria — ready to drop into the skill's evals/ directory. Use when adding evals to a new or existing skill, verifying a skill behaves as documented, or building a regression gate before modifying a skill.",
   "entrypoint": "SKILL.md",
   "deps": { "npm": [], "pip": [] },

package/{loops → packs/core/loops}/ship-a-draft/LOOP.md

@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ check the argument and the surface after.
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). G4 emits the critique
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G4 emits the critique
 vocabulary. `SHIP WITH CHANGES` carries its changes forward to `polish`; it does not mean the
 changes are optional.
 

package/packs/core/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+{
+  "description": "The cross-role toolkit every pack builds on: structured intake, document critique, the review council, and output hygiene, plus the ship-a-draft wrapper. Installed automatically with every role pack.",
+  "display_name": "Core",
+  "keywords": ["intake", "critique", "review", "hygiene"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/core/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "non-technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Turn rough notes into a structured brief, then get a verdict on the draft",
+    "starter-prompt": "Here are my notes from today's planning call: <paste them>. Turn them into a brief, then critique the draft you write from it.",
+    "verification": "brief-intake returns a structured brief with gaps tagged, and doc-critique ends with a verdict: SHIP IT, SHIP WITH CHANGES, MAJOR REWRITE or WRONG ARTIFACT.",
+    "recovery": "If neither skill activates, check that `brief-intake/SKILL.md` and `doc-critique/SKILL.md` exist in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default). In Claude Code, start a new session after installing."
+  }
+}

package/{skills → packs/core/skills}/council-review/SKILL.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ description: Convene a council of distinct senior-engineer personas (Architect,
 
 You convene a **council of distinct expert personas** to deliberate something consequential, then reconcile their views into a decision. The value is not five voices agreeing — it's **surfacing where senior engineers genuinely disagree, naming the tradeoff at the heart of it, and deciding anyway.**
 
-This is the deliberation counterpart to the single-voice reviewers. Use [`devils-advocate`](../devils-advocate/SKILL.md) when you want one adversarial pass on code, [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md) for one pass on a doc, [`tech-comparison-matrix`](../tech-comparison-matrix/SKILL.md) for a weighted scoring of named options. Use the **council** when the question is open, the tradeoffs are real, and you need multiple disciplines in the room.
+This is the deliberation counterpart to the single-voice reviewers. Use [`devils-advocate`](../../../dev-team/skills/devils-advocate/SKILL.md) when you want one adversarial pass on code, [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md) for one pass on a doc, [`tech-comparison-matrix`](../../../solution-architect/skills/tech-comparison-matrix/SKILL.md) for a weighted scoring of named options. Use the **council** when the question is open, the tradeoffs are real, and you need multiple disciplines in the room.
 
 ## What the council reviews
 

package/{skills → packs/core/skills}/council-review/reference.md

@@ -68,9 +68,9 @@ When two seats genuinely converge, that's a *stronger* signal — present it as
 ## Relationship to the single-voice skills
 
 The council is heavier than the focused reviewers — use it when the multi-disciplinary tension is the point, not as a default. Rules of thumb:
-- One adversarial pass on just-written code → [`devils-advocate`](../devils-advocate/SKILL.md).
+- One adversarial pass on just-written code → [`devils-advocate`](../../../dev-team/skills/devils-advocate/SKILL.md).
 - One rubric pass on a doc → [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md).
-- Score named options on weighted criteria → [`tech-comparison-matrix`](../tech-comparison-matrix/SKILL.md).
+- Score named options on weighted criteria → [`tech-comparison-matrix`](../../../solution-architect/skills/tech-comparison-matrix/SKILL.md).
 - A decision/design/change where security, ops, maintainability, delivery, and correctness pull in different directions → **council-review**.
 
 Don't chain these internally (per the repo's no-internal-chaining rule). A human runs the council, then hands a specific finding to `devils-advocate` if they want it drilled.

package/{loops → packs/dev-team/loops}/build/LOOP.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ one. Every skill named below stays independently installable and runnable on its
 | 1 | `shape` | generate | [`user-story-splitter`](../../skills/user-story-splitter/SKILL.md), [`bug-triage`](../../skills/bug-triage/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 2 | `implement` | generate | [`feature-implement-loop`](../../skills/feature-implement-loop/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 3 | `verify` | verify | [`pre-merge-review`](../../skills/pre-merge-review/SKILL.md) | **G2** mechanical |
-| 4 | `decide` | gate | [`council-review`](../../skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G2.1** human |
+| 4 | `decide` | gate | [`council-review`](../../../core/skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G2.1** human |
 
 ## How to run this loop
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ one. Every skill named below stays independently installable and runnable on its
    generate-challenge-gate cycle internally. Do not re-implement its rounds here — this loop's
    `cap` governs returns from G2, not the inner skill's rounds.
 3. **Verify at G2.** Run `pre-merge-review`. Its script decides and its panel explains:
-   `python3 skills/pre-merge-review/scripts/gate.py`. The exit code is the verdict —
+   `python3 packs/dev-team/skills/pre-merge-review/scripts/gate.py`. The exit code is the verdict —
    `READY`, `NOT READY`, or `BLOCKED`.
 4. **Honour the gate.** `NOT READY` returns to `implement`, up to `cap` (3) times. On the
    third return, stop looping and emit `BLOCKED` naming what did not converge. Never edit the
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ one. Every skill named below stays independently installable and runnable on its
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). G2 emits
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G2 emits
 `READY` / `NOT READY` / `BLOCKED`. G2.1 emits the council vocabulary. A `revise`-class verdict
 returns to the stage named in `revise_to`; a `redirect`-class verdict leaves the loop.
 

package/{loops → packs/dev-team/loops}/build/loop.json

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
       "gate": {
         "id": "G2",
         "kind": "mechanical",
-        "script": "skills/pre-merge-review/scripts/gate.py",
+        "script": "packs/dev-team/skills/pre-merge-review/scripts/gate.py",
         "verdicts": ["READY", "NOT READY", "BLOCKED"],
         "revise_to": "implement"
       }

package/{loops → packs/dev-team/loops}/release/LOOP.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ being folded into either neighbour.
 | 1 | `plan` | generate | [`migration-plan`](../../skills/migration-plan/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 2 | `ready` | verify | [`launch-readiness`](../../skills/launch-readiness/SKILL.md) | **G2.5** review |
 | 3 | `announce` | generate | [`release-notes`](../../skills/release-notes/SKILL.md) | — |
-| 4 | `go` | gate | [`council-review`](../../skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G2.6** human |
+| 4 | `go` | gate | [`council-review`](../../../core/skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G2.6** human |
 
 ## How to run this loop
 
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ After `PROCEED`, the change is live and the work moves to `operate`. Gaps that G
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). G2.5 emits `PROCEED`,
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G2.5 emits `PROCEED`,
 `PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS`, `REVISE` or `BLOCKED`. G2.6 adds `RECONSIDER`. `PROCEED WITH
 CONDITIONS` at G2.5 is allowed only when the open rows are comms or exposure. A detection or
 response gap is always `REVISE`.

package/packs/dev-team/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Build-and-ship: story splitting, implementation with adversarial review, test plans, triage, migrations, launch readiness, release notes, agent-policy files, and code-quality gates.",
+  "display_name": "Dev team",
+  "keywords": ["review", "merge", "testing", "release", "code-quality"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/dev-team/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "technical",
+    "prerequisites": ["A git repository with changes on a branch", "The reviewer subagents, for the full panel: `skilldrop install --panel review` (the Claude plugin includes them)"],
+    "starter-task": "Find out whether your current branch is safe to merge",
+    "starter-prompt": "Is this branch safe to merge? Run a pre-merge review on the current diff.",
+    "verification": "pre-merge-review runs the project's lint, typecheck and tests through its gate script, then the reviewer panel, and ends with READY or NOT READY.",
+    "recovery": "If the gate script cannot find your lint or test commands, tell it what they are. If the panel is skipped, install the reviewer subagents with `skilldrop install --panel review`."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/{skills → packs/dev-team/skills}/agents-md-generator/reference.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 ## Who reads what
 
-Confirmed in the July 2026 survey ([`docs/designs/ide-primitive-coverage.md`](../../docs/designs/ide-primitive-coverage.md)). A root `AGENTS.md` is the broadest single file; satellites are a reach fix for specific tools, not the norm.
+Confirmed in the July 2026 survey ([`docs/designs/ide-primitive-coverage.md`](../../../../docs/designs/ide-primitive-coverage.md)). A root `AGENTS.md` is the broadest single file; satellites are a reach fix for specific tools, not the norm.
 
 | Tool | Reads |
 |---|---|

package/{skills → packs/dev-team/skills}/contribution-wizard/SKILL.md

@@ -94,12 +94,12 @@ Eight eval cases covering: 2 happy-path, 2 minimal/edge input, 2 anti-pattern (t
 One row for the skill table, matching the format of existing rows:
 
 ```
-| [`<skill-name>`](skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md) | <One sentence describing what the skill does and the output it produces.> |
+| [`<skill-name>`](packs/<pack>/skills/<skill-name>/SKILL.md) | <One sentence describing what the skill does and the output it produces.> |
 ```
 
-#### `packs.json` addition
+#### Pack and outcome
 
-State which pack to add the skill to and the exact line to add to the skills array.
+State which one pack the skill belongs in (`core` only if every role needs it) — its folder goes at `packs/<pack>/skills/<skill-name>/` — and which `outcomes` entry in `catalogue.json` to add it to.
 
 ### Step 3 — Install check reminder
 
@@ -107,11 +107,11 @@ After generating, tell the author:
 
 ```
 Next steps:
-1. mkdir skills/<skill-name> && cd skills/<skill-name>
+1. mkdir -p packs/<pack>/skills/<skill-name> && cd packs/<pack>/skills/<skill-name>
 2. Drop in manifest.json, SKILL.md, and evals/cases.json
 3. python3 validate.py    # must pass before opening a PR
 4. Add the README row to the correct section
-5. Add the skill to packs.json under the right pack
+5. Add the skill to an outcome in catalogue.json
 6. If the skill has a how-to guide, add it to guides/how-to/ and guides/README.md
 ```
 

package/{skills → packs/dev-team/skills}/contribution-wizard/manifest.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "contribution-wizard",
-  "version": "1.0.0",
+  "version": "1.0.1",
   "description": "Guides an author through creating a new skilldrop skill from scratch — generates the manifest, SKILL.md, eval cases, and README entry from a plain-language description of the skill's purpose. Use when authoring a new skill for this repo or a private fork, ensuring a new skill meets the schema and validation requirements before submission.",
   "entrypoint": "SKILL.md",
   "deps": { "npm": [], "pip": [] },

package/{skills → packs/dev-team/skills}/devils-advocate/SKILL.md

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ description: Adversarial review of just-generated code, run *after* an agent (or
 
 You play the role of a **senior engineer in code review who is trying to find what the implementation missed**. Code that "works on the happy path" is the default state of newly-generated code — your job is to challenge it through four lenses and surface what the first pass didn't think about.
 
-This skill is the **code counterpart to [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md)** — same adversarial framing, applied to code instead of artifacts.
+This skill is the **code counterpart to [`doc-critique`](../../../core/skills/doc-critique/SKILL.md)** — same adversarial framing, applied to code instead of artifacts.
 
 ## When this skill runs
 

package/{skills → packs/dev-team/skills}/pre-merge-review/SKILL.md

@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Two gates, and they are different kinds. The mechanical gate is **not a judgment
    - **`NOT READY`** — the gate is RED, **or** any blocker/major stands. List every blocking item (gate failures first, then blocker/major findings) and what must change. 🟨 minor / ⚪ nit are listed but never block.
    - **`BLOCKED`** — the gate couldn't run (unknown commands, no test setup). Name what's missing.
 
-5. **Escalate design disagreements — don't adjudicate them.** If the panel surfaces a genuine *tradeoff* dispute (not a bug — "should this be a queue or a cron?"), the verdict still gates on gate+blocker/major, but **offer [`council-review`](../council-review/SKILL.md)** for the open decision rather than settling a design debate here.
+5. **Escalate design disagreements — don't adjudicate them.** If the panel surfaces a genuine *tradeoff* dispute (not a bug — "should this be a queue or a cron?"), the verdict still gates on gate+blocker/major, but **offer [`council-review`](../../../core/skills/council-review/SKILL.md)** for the open decision rather than settling a design debate here.
 
 6. **Report.** Lead with the verdict. Then: the gate results table (command → PASS/FAIL), the merged panel findings by severity, and a **must-fix** list for `NOT READY`.
 

package/{loops → packs/product-manager/loops}/discover/LOOP.md

@@ -14,9 +14,9 @@ script: no check can tell you that you solved the wrong problem well.
 | # | Stage | Type | Skills | Gate |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | 1 | `gather` | generate | [`requirements-interview`](../../skills/requirements-interview/SKILL.md), [`user-journey-map`](../../skills/user-journey-map/SKILL.md), [`strategy-analysis`](../../skills/strategy-analysis/SKILL.md) | — |
-| 2 | `structure` | generate | [`brief-intake`](../../skills/brief-intake/SKILL.md) | — |
+| 2 | `structure` | generate | [`brief-intake`](../../../core/skills/brief-intake/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 3 | `specify` | generate | [`prd-draft`](../../skills/prd-draft/SKILL.md) | — |
-| 4 | `ratify` | gate | [`doc-critique`](../../skills/doc-critique/SKILL.md) | **G0** human |
+| 4 | `ratify` | gate | [`doc-critique`](../../../core/skills/doc-critique/SKILL.md) | **G0** human |
 
 ## How to run this loop
 
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ script: no check can tell you that you solved the wrong problem well.
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). G0 emits `PROCEED`,
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G0 emits `PROCEED`,
 `PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS`, `REVISE`, `RECONSIDER`, or `BLOCKED`. `RECONSIDER` leaves the loop:
 the problem itself is wrong, and no amount of re-briefing fixes that.
 

package/packs/product-manager/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Direction to requirements: PR/FAQs, strategy frameworks, OKRs, business cases, interviews, PRDs, journey maps, and success measurement.",
+  "display_name": "Product manager",
+  "keywords": ["prfaq", "prd", "strategy", "okr", "discovery"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/product-manager/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "non-technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Pressure-test a product idea before anyone builds it",
+    "starter-prompt": "Write a PR/FAQ for a feature that lets customers pause their subscription for up to three months instead of cancelling.",
+    "verification": "prfaq returns a launch press release, a customer FAQ and an internal FAQ that names the hard questions.",
+    "recovery": "If prfaq does not activate, ask for it by name (\"use prfaq\") and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/{loops → packs/solution-architect/loops}/design/LOOP.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ a script, and why the decision is recorded only *after* the panel agrees.
 | 1 | `constrain` | generate | [`nfr-spec`](../../skills/nfr-spec/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 2 | `shape` | generate | [`design-doc`](../../skills/design-doc/SKILL.md), [`architecture-diagrams`](../../skills/architecture-diagrams/SKILL.md) | — |
 | 3 | `threat` | verify | [`threat-model`](../../skills/threat-model/SKILL.md) | — |
-| 4 | `ratify` | gate | [`council-review`](../../skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G1** review |
+| 4 | `ratify` | gate | [`council-review`](../../../core/skills/council-review/SKILL.md) | **G1** review |
 | 5 | `record` | generate | [`adr-generator`](../../skills/adr-generator/SKILL.md) | — |
 
 ## How to run this loop
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ a script, and why the decision is recorded only *after* the panel agrees.
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). `PROCEED WITH
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). `PROCEED WITH
 CONDITIONS` is the common outcome and the most abused: the conditions are part of the
 decision, and `record` must carry them into the ADR.
 

package/packs/solution-architect/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Design-phase artifacts: diagrams, decision records, design docs, contracts, schemas, threat models, and the reviews that gate them.",
+  "display_name": "Solution architect",
+  "keywords": ["architecture", "adr", "design-doc", "threat-model", "diagrams"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/solution-architect/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Record an architecture decision your team already made",
+    "starter-prompt": "Write an ADR: we're moving our session store from Redis to DynamoDB. We considered staying on Redis, DynamoDB, and Postgres; we chose DynamoDB for managed scaling and lower ops load.",
+    "verification": "adr-generator returns an ADR with context, the options considered with their trade-offs, the decision, and its consequences.",
+    "recovery": "If adr-generator does not activate, ask for it by name (\"use adr-generator\") and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/{loops → packs/sre-oncall/loops}/operate/LOOP.md

@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ starts at `instrument`. Do not replay earlier stages for their own sake.
 
 ## Verdicts
 
-Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../contracts/terminals.json). G3 emits `PROCEED`,
+Defined in [`contracts/terminals.json`](../../../../contracts/terminals.json). G3 emits `PROCEED`,
 `PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS`, `REVISE`, or `BLOCKED`. `PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS` means the
 incident is closed but named follow-ups are outstanding — they travel with the postmortem.
 

package/packs/sre-oncall/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Operate the service: runbooks, observability design, incident communications, postmortems, and capacity/cost models.",
+  "display_name": "SRE / on-call",
+  "keywords": ["runbook", "incident", "postmortem", "observability", "slo"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/sre-oncall/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Write the runbook an on-call engineer can follow at 3am",
+    "starter-prompt": "Write a runbook for our payments-api service: it runs in the Kubernetes namespace payments, depends on Postgres and Stripe, and pages the payments on-call rotation.",
+    "verification": "runbook-generator returns a runbook with rollback commands, the common incidents and what to do for each, and an escalation path. Facts you did not give it are marked missing, not invented.",
+    "recovery": "If runbook-generator does not activate, ask for it by name (\"use runbook-generator\") and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/packs/stakeholder-comms/pack.json

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+{
+  "description": "Non-technical audiences: audience profiling, deck outlines and real .pptx decks, exec summaries, decision logs, and guides.",
+  "display_name": "Stakeholder comms",
+  "keywords": ["exec-summary", "deck", "audience", "decision-log"],
+  "links": {
+    "documentation": "https://sananthanarayan.github.io/skilldrop/packs/stakeholder-comms/"
+  },
+  "maintainers": [
+    {
+      "name": "sananthanarayan"
+    }
+  ],
+  "first-value": {
+    "audience-posture": "non-technical",
+    "prerequisites": [],
+    "starter-task": "Turn a long document into a one-page summary for leadership",
+    "starter-prompt": "Turn this design doc into a one-page executive summary for our steering committee: <paste the doc>.",
+    "verification": "exec-summary returns a one-page summary that a time-poor reader can act on in 30 seconds, written without jargon.",
+    "recovery": "If exec-summary does not activate, ask for it by name (\"use exec-summary\") and check that its folder exists in your skills folder (`~/.claude/skills/` by default)."
+  },
+  "requires": ["core"]
+}

package/{skills → packs/stakeholder-comms/skills}/deck-builder/SKILL.md

@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ A generated deck is a strong first draft. Always tell the user to:
 - Review the speaker notes — the agent wrote them, and they get read aloud
 - Replace any placeholder box with the real diagram
 - Do one audience pass: read every slide title in order, does the *narrative* land for that audience?
-- Run [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md) against the deck rubric before it goes out
+- Run [`doc-critique`](../../../core/skills/doc-critique/SKILL.md) against the deck rubric before it goes out
 
 ## Useful references