skillpacks 0.1.0 → 0.1.1

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/frameworks/w3-hypothesis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+---
+name: w3-hypothesis
+description: Schwartzfarb W3 — define WHO/WHAT/WHY for each ICP candidate, generate disproval hypotheses, and validate via targeted research
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: customer-discovery
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# W3 Hypothesis — Schwartzfarb WHO/WHAT/WHY Analysis
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
+- For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If neither exists, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/competitive-analysis.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, idea brief, specs, and codebase context when available.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md`
+- Read idea brief (`research/idea-scope-brief.md`) if it exists
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` if it exists
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+- Scan codebase and existing research for additional signal
+
+### 2. Define W3 for Each ICP Candidate
+
+For each ICP candidate, construct the three-variable hypothesis:
+
+**WHO** — narrowly defined buyer/customer:
+- Demographics: age, location, education, income level
+- Firmographics: company size, stage, industry, revenue, funding status
+- Psychographics: values, motivations, risk tolerance, decision-making style
+- Role/title, budget authority, buying power
+- Behavioral patterns: where they spend time, what they read, who they trust
+
+**WHAT** — what they're actually buying (the outcome, not the product):
+- The specific problem being solved
+- The outcome or transformation they expect
+- What success looks like in their words
+- The difference between what they say they want and what they actually need
+- How they measure whether they got what they paid for
+
+**WHY** — the business driver and measurable impact:
+- Primary business driver: revenue growth, cost reduction, compliance, competitive pressure, efficiency
+- Measurable impact: quantifiable benefit they expect
+- Urgency level: why now, not later
+- Macro trends or market forces creating the window
+- What happens if they do nothing (cost of inaction)
+
+### 3. Generate Disproval Hypotheses
+
+For each W in each candidate's W3, generate 2-3 hypotheses that would **disprove** the assumption. The goal is falsification, not confirmation.
+
+- **WHO disproval**: "If our WHO is wrong, we'd expect to see [specific evidence]. For example: the actual buyer is a different role, the company size doesn't match, the budget holder is someone else."
+- **WHAT disproval**: "If our WHAT is wrong, we'd expect to see [specific evidence]. For example: customers describe the problem differently, they measure success by different metrics, the outcome they want is adjacent but distinct."
+- **WHY disproval**: "If our WHY is wrong, we'd expect to see [specific evidence]. For example: the urgency driver is different, the business case doesn't hold at their scale, the macro trend is weaker than assumed."
+
+### 4. Targeted Research
+
+Run WebSearch queries designed to test each disproval hypothesis:
+- Search for evidence that contradicts each W assumption
+- Search for evidence that supports each W assumption
+- Log every query and its key findings
+- Look for competitor positioning that implies a different WHO/WHAT/WHY
+- Look for community discussions, job postings, industry reports that reveal actual buyer behavior
+- Prioritize disconfirming evidence — confirmation bias is the enemy
+
+### 5. Score Hypothesis Confidence
+
+For each ICP candidate, score each W dimension:
+
+- **Strong**: multiple independent sources support the assumption; disproval hypotheses tested and no significant contradicting evidence found
+- **Moderate**: some supporting evidence; one or more disproval hypotheses partially supported; key uncertainties remain
+- **Weak**: limited evidence; disproval hypotheses found supporting evidence; significant risk the assumption is wrong
+
+Calculate an overall candidate confidence based on the weakest dimension — a candidate is only as strong as its weakest W.
+
+### 6. Validate with User
+
+Present W3 definitions, disproval evidence, and confidence scores. Ask for corrections, missing context, and whether any candidates should be eliminated or refined.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/customer-discovery-w3-hypothesis.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-discovery-w3-hypothesis.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# W3 Hypothesis Analysis
+
+> Based on: [sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Schwartzfarb W3 (WHO/WHAT/WHY)
+
+## ICP Candidate: [Name]
+
+### WHO
+[Narrow buyer definition — demographics, firmographics, psychographics, role, budget authority]
+
+### WHAT
+[What they're actually buying — the outcome, not the product]
+
+### WHY
+[Business driver and measurable impact, urgency, macro trends]
+
+### Disproval Evidence
+| Hypothesis | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Confidence |
+|------------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| WHO: [specific disproval hypothesis] | [supporting evidence] | [contradicting evidence] | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
+| WHAT: [specific disproval hypothesis] | [supporting evidence] | [contradicting evidence] | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
+| WHY: [specific disproval hypothesis] | [supporting evidence] | [contradicting evidence] | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
+
+## ICP Candidate: [Name 2]
+...
+
+## Cross-Candidate Comparison
+| Candidate | WHO Confidence | WHAT Confidence | WHY Confidence | Overall |
+|-----------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|---------|
+| [name] | Strong/Moderate/Weak | Strong/Moderate/Weak | Strong/Moderate/Weak | Strong/Moderate/Weak |
+
+## Research Log
+| Query | Key Findings | Disproval Target |
+|-------|-------------|-----------------|
+| [search query] | [what was found] | [which W hypothesis this tested] |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every W3 definition and confidence score in evidence from ICP candidates, research, specs, feedback, or codebase.
+- Prioritize disconfirming evidence — the framework demands falsification, not confirmation.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the customer hypothesis, not the solution.
+- Present findings before writing.
+- Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
+- This is a sub-skill — do not emit next-step routing.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/w3-hypothesis-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/{business-discovery → business-research}/claude/customer-feedback/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
-**Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, feedback-only YAML, and final compile controls. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
+**Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Category and product-path grouping.** In product-line or product-path repositories, identify product from `research/.progress.yaml` `product_paths[]`, active `research/{slug}/` or `specs/{slug}/` scopes, page metadata, page title, or the alignment page path. Group index entries by category first, then by product/product path within each category, with the repo's existing secondary sort preserved when clear. In flat repositories, group by category, then preserve the existing index organization within each category or use a clear newest-first or title order when creating a new index.
 
-**Research quality contract.** For research-producing outputs, do not synthesize research findings, recommendations, candidate rankings, or working packets until the user approves the research scope from the `review` alignment page's final compiled YAML. Before scope approval, do only minimal discovery needed to propose the research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions; label any observed files or source availability as scope evidence, not findings. After scope approval, perform the synthesized research and separate and label `claims` (what the report concludes), `evidence` (source, repo artifact or file path, quote or observation, date, and confidence), `inference` (why that evidence supports the claim), `assumptions` (what remains unproven), and `decision impact` (what the user should approve, reject, or correct). Do not collapse evidence and inference into unsupported summary prose.
+**Research quality contract.** For research-producing outputs, do not synthesize research findings, recommendations, candidate rankings, or working packets until the user approves the research scope from the `review` alignment page's final compiled response YAML. Before scope approval, do only minimal discovery needed to propose the research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions; label any observed files or source availability as scope evidence, not findings. After scope approval, perform the synthesized research and separate and label `claims` (what the report concludes), `evidence` (source, repo artifact or file path, quote or observation, date, and confidence), `inference` (why that evidence supports the claim), `assumptions` (what remains unproven), and `decision impact` (what the user should approve, reject, or correct). Do not collapse evidence and inference into unsupported summary prose.
 
 **Embed prohibition.** Do not use `<object>`, `<iframe>`, `<embed>`, or "open working packet" / "view full document" links as the primary rendering of any proposed deliverable, evidence matrix, interview log, or manifest entry. The alignment page HTML must contain the rendered content directly. Embedded or linked external documents are permitted only as supplemental references alongside the fully rendered content already present in the page. **Exception:** Self-contained inline `<canvas>` and `<svg>` elements are permitted for charts and diagrams within the same HTML file.
 
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-customer-feedback-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-customer-feedback-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and review page, then remains in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-customer-feedback-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-customer-feedback-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
 
 **Customer-feedback research translation.** Render feedback evidence with source, date, segment, quote or observation, confidence, and bias risk. Separate verbatim feedback from agent interpretation, and show unresolved contradictions or sample coverage gaps.
 
@@ -67,24 +67,24 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Required inline questions.** In `review` pages, each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. Confirmed pages must not keep these as required input controls; render the answered decisions as read-only records.
 
-**Section feedback controls.** Every major section of the page (each deliverable section, evidence matrix, confidence register, gate, and any anchor-linked top-level heading) carries a lightweight section-feedback control near its heading: three mutually exclusive choices -- "emphasize" (add more weight to this section or to the point named in the notes), thumbs down (reject or flag a concern), and "clarification needed". Selecting any one reveals a multi-line section-feedback textarea placed directly under or beside that section's emphasize/down/clarify controls; deselecting hides the textarea and any local feedback YAML output for that section. This textarea is separate from required gate-question text inputs: even when the same section has gate questions with their own text boxes, selecting emphasize/down/clarify must still reveal the section-feedback textarea near the feedback controls. Use `--green` for active "emphasize", `--red` for the active thumbs-down, and `--orange` for active "clarification needed", with muted/inactive states otherwise. These controls are optional for final approval and do not replace required gate questions. They also power the separate feedback-only YAML path so the user can send emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification requests before answering every required gate question. When a section contains nested subsections (h3 or deeper), duplicate the section-feedback control at the bottom of the section, just before the closing `</section>` tag. The bottom copy mirrors the top copy — same `data-section`, same id with a `-bottom` suffix, same button set. Sections without nested subsections keep only the top control. Pair top and bottom controls by matching `data-section` attribute. When a feedback button is clicked on one copy, mirror the active state, `has-feedback` class, and `dataset.feedback` value to the paired copy. Textarea content should sync on compile — whichever textarea has content takes precedence (prefer the one the user last typed in). Both copies' local compile/copy buttons produce the same YAML. Use the top copy's `id` (without `-bottom`) as the canonical feedback id for YAML output.
+**Section feedback controls.** Every major section of the page (each deliverable section, evidence matrix, confidence register, gate, and any anchor-linked top-level heading) carries a lightweight section-feedback control near its heading: three mutually exclusive choices -- "emphasize" (add more weight to this section or to the point named in the notes), thumbs down (reject or flag a concern), and "clarification needed". The section feedback textarea, local compile/copy controls, and local read-only YAML output are hidden by default. Selecting any one feedback choice reveals a multi-line section-feedback textarea plus local "Compile Feedback YAML", "Copy YAML", and read-only YAML controls placed directly under or beside that section's emphasize/down/clarify controls; deselecting the active choice hides the textarea, local compile/copy controls, and local read-only YAML output again and omits that section from compiled responses. This textarea is separate from required gate-question text inputs: even when the same section has gate questions with their own text boxes, selecting emphasize/down/clarify must still reveal the section-feedback textarea near the feedback controls. Use `--green` for active "emphasize", `--red` for the active thumbs-down, and `--orange` for active "clarification needed", with muted/inactive states otherwise. These controls are optional for final approval and do not replace required gate questions. They also contribute `section_feedback` entries to the unified response payload so the user can send emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification requests before answering every required gate question. When a section contains nested subsections (h3 or deeper), duplicate the section-feedback control at the bottom of the section, just before the closing `</section>` tag. The bottom copy mirrors the top copy — same `data-section`, same id with a `-bottom` suffix, same button set. Sections without nested subsections keep only the top control. Pair top and bottom controls by matching `data-section` attribute. When a feedback button is clicked on one copy, mirror the active state, `has-feedback` class, and `dataset.feedback` value to the paired copy. Textarea content should sync on compile — whichever textarea has content takes precedence (prefer the one the user last typed in). Both copies' local compile/copy buttons produce the same YAML. Use the top copy's `id` (without `-bottom`) as the canonical feedback id for YAML output.
 
-**Feedback-only YAML contract.** Provide feedback-only YAML in two places: locally under each selected section-feedback textarea, and globally in the bottom compile section. When a section-feedback control is selected, show local "Compile Feedback YAML" and "Copy YAML" controls plus a read-only YAML textarea directly under that section's feedback textarea. The local feedback compile generates YAML with `alignment_page: alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`, `feedback_status: revision-request`, `approval_status: not-approved`, `unanswered_required_questions`, and a `section_feedback` list containing the single selected section-feedback entry for that local control. The bottom "Compile Feedback YAML" control generates the same YAML shape but aggregates every selected section-feedback entry on the page. Enable both local and bottom feedback compile controls as soon as at least one section-feedback control is set, even if required inline gate questions are unanswered. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. Each feedback entry uses the shape `section`, `feedback` (`emphasize`, `down`, or `needs-clarification`), optional `notes` from that section's feedback textarea, and `requested_agent_action` (`add-weight-to-section`, `investigate-and-revise`, or `clarify-before-approval`). For `emphasize` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should add more weight, prominence, evidence, detail, or recommendation emphasis to that section or to the specific point named in the notes; this is a revision request, not approval of the section as-is. For `down` and `needs-clarification` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, and contextually amend the HTML alignment page before asking again for final approval answers. Automatically attempt to copy feedback YAML to the clipboard, display local or bottom copy status, display it in the matching read-only textarea, and provide a "Copy YAML" button with the same retry and fallback behavior as final gate YAML. Do not render the bottom feedback compile controls as a sticky or fixed banner.
+**Section feedback YAML contract.** Provide local section-feedback YAML only under each selected section-feedback textarea. When a section-feedback control is selected, show local "Compile Feedback YAML" and "Copy YAML" controls plus a read-only YAML textarea directly under that section's feedback textarea; when the control is deselected, hide those local controls and output again. The local feedback compile generates YAML with `alignment_page: alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`, `feedback_status: revision-request`, `approval_status: not-approved`, `unanswered_required_questions`, and a `section_feedback` list containing the single selected section-feedback entry for that local control. Enable local feedback compile controls as soon as that section-feedback control is set, even if required inline gate questions are unanswered. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. Each feedback entry uses the shape `section`, `feedback` (`emphasize`, `down`, or `needs-clarification`), optional `notes` from that section's feedback textarea, and `requested_agent_action` (`add-weight-to-section`, `investigate-and-revise`, or `clarify-before-approval`). For `emphasize` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should add more weight, prominence, evidence, detail, or recommendation emphasis to that section or to the specific point named in the notes; this is a revision request, not approval of the section as-is. For `down` and `needs-clarification` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, and contextually amend the HTML alignment page before asking again for final approval responses. Automatically attempt to copy local feedback YAML to the clipboard, display local copy status, display it in the matching read-only textarea, and provide a "Copy YAML" button with the same retry and fallback behavior as response YAML.
 
-**Gate YAML contract.** In `review` pages, at the bottom of the page, include an ordinary in-flow compile section with a "Compile Feedback YAML" button for selected section feedback and a separate "Compile Answers" button for final approval answers. The bottom compile section must not be sticky, fixed, floating, or styled as a persistent banner. The "Compile Answers" button aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The final approval button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with `alignment_page: alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`, `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review`, one item per gate answer using this stable shape: `section`, `gate_type`, `status` (`answered`, `other`, or `needs-clarification`), `answer`, optional `notes`, and optional `target_artifact` or `target_path` when the gate controls file output. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. The same final compiled output also includes any section-feedback controls that the user set, using the `section_feedback` shape from the feedback-only YAML contract. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked.
+**Response YAML contract.** In `review` pages, at the bottom of the page, include an ordinary in-flow compile section with a single "Compile Responses" button. The bottom compile section must not be sticky, fixed, floating, or styled as a persistent banner. "Compile Responses" aggregates all answered inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes, plus every selected section-feedback entry. Enable it as soon as at least one gate question has an answer or at least one section-feedback control is selected; do not require every required gate question to be answered before compiling partial responses. If clicked with no answered gates and no selected section feedback, show a response status that asks the user to answer a gate question or select section feedback. The compiled YAML is a mixed response payload with `alignment_page: alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`, `response_status` (`partial` or `complete`), `approval_status` (`not-approved` or `ready-for-agent-review`), `required_gate_status` (`incomplete` or `complete`), and `unanswered_required_questions`. It may include a `gate_answers` list where each answered gate item preserves the stable gate-answer shape: `section`, `gate_type`, `status` (`answered`, `other`, or `needs-clarification`), `answer`, optional `notes`, and optional `target_artifact` or `target_path` when the gate controls file output. It may also include a `section_feedback` list using the section-feedback shape from the section feedback YAML contract. Set `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` only when every required gate is answered and there are no unresolved `down`, unresolved `needs-clarification`, or other unresolved negative feedback items; otherwise set `approval_status: not-approved` and keep the response in review. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked.
 
-**Confirmed page contract.** After final approval has been applied, convert the active alignment page from `review` to `confirmed`. Include a visible status block with `alignment_status: confirmed`, confirmation date, confirmed artifact paths, approval source summary, and explicit finished but amendable language: the page is current for the completed alignment cycle, and later research can amend it only by archiving the prior confirmed page and highlighting the amendment. Remove required gate-question controls, the final "Compile Answers" button, unanswered-question counters, disabled approval buttons, and approval-blocking language. Preserve the full research and approval record: answered decisions, user requests, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source gaps, proposed file changes, final compiled YAML or faithful approval summary, and what changed during confirmation. Keep research caveats visible; `confirmed` means approved/current, not immutable or permanently true.
+**Confirmed page contract.** After final approval has been applied, convert the active alignment page from `review` to `confirmed`. Include a visible status block with `alignment_status: confirmed`, confirmation date, confirmed artifact paths, approval source summary, and explicit finished but amendable language: the page is current for the completed alignment cycle, and later research can amend it only by archiving the prior confirmed page and highlighting the amendment. Remove required gate-question controls, section feedback input controls, local compile/copy controls, local read-only YAML outputs, the final "Compile Responses" button, response counters, disabled approval buttons, and approval-blocking language. Preserve the full research and approval record: answered decisions, user requests, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source gaps, proposed file changes, final compiled response YAML or faithful approval summary, and what changed during confirmation. Keep research caveats visible; `confirmed` means approved/current, not immutable or permanently true.
 
-**Pre-approval stop.** While an alignment page is in `review`, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide either local or bottom feedback-only YAML for emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification, or final compiled YAML answers when ready. Do not require the user to answer every gate before sending emphasis requests, negative feedback, or clarification needs. When feedback-only YAML is provided, treat it as a revision request: evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, archive and amend the HTML page contextually, highlight the changes, and ask again for review. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after final compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.
+**Pre-approval stop.** While an alignment page is in `review`, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide either local section-feedback YAML for one section or bottom compiled response YAML for gate answers and/or selected section feedback. Do not require the user to answer every gate before sending emphasis requests, negative feedback, clarification needs, or other partial responses. When compiled response YAML is partial or has `approval_status: not-approved`, treat it as a revision request: evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, archive and amend the HTML page contextually, highlight the changes, and ask again for review. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after final compiled response YAML with `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.
 
-**After approval handling.** When final compiled YAML is provided, inspect it before confirming the page. If it contains approvals plus user-requested edits, first update the page, research, and proposed canonical artifacts to satisfy the request; then write or update the approved canonical artifacts and confirm the page. If it contains `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or any unresolved negative feedback, revise the page and return it to `review` instead of marking it `confirmed`. Before replacing any existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`. Future amendments to confirmed pages follow the same archive-first rule and must show what changed from the prior confirmed record.
+**After approval handling.** When final compiled response YAML with `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` is provided, inspect it before confirming the page. If it contains approvals plus user-requested edits, first update the page, research, and proposed canonical artifacts to satisfy the request; then write or update the approved canonical artifacts and confirm the page. If it contains `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or any unresolved negative feedback, revise the page and return it to `review` instead of marking it `confirmed`. Before replacing any existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`. Future amendments to confirmed pages follow the same archive-first rule and must show what changed from the prior confirmed record.
 
 **Diff highlighting on updates.** When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving feedback, compiled answers, confirmation edits, or later amendment evidence, the rendered HTML must visibly indicate what changed since the previous version. Highlight changed sections or blocks in-place with a `Changed`/`Updated` badge, distinct border or background, `<ins>`/`<del>` markup, or a side-by-side before/after comparison when that is clearer. A top-level change summary is useful but not sufficient by itself unless the changed content is also visibly marked where the reader reviews it. Remove or refresh stale change markers on later updates so the highlights describe the current revision only.
 
 **Archiving.** Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`.
 
-**Brief Me (text-to-speech).** Every alignment page must include a `<script src="../scripts/alignment-tts-kokoro.js"></script>` tag before `</body>`. The script adds a "Brief Me" button that reads the page aloud section-by-section using Kokoro TTS (an 82M-parameter model running client-side via WebGPU/WASM from `kokoro-js`). The transport bar includes play/pause/stop/skip controls, a voice selector (persisted in localStorage), and speed selection. On first click the voice model downloads (~92MB quantized on WASM; ~326MB fp32 on WebGPU). Weights persist between visits via Cache API origin storage, and this works on `file://` origins in Chrome — including `file://wsl.localhost` UNC paths (verified 2026-06-09 with an instrumented probe in Windows Chrome: `caches` is available, entries survive reloads and browser restarts, and Chrome shares a single `file://` origin across all local pages, so one download serves every alignment page). Repeat visits pay model initialization only, not re-download. If `caches` is undefined (non-Chromium or locked-down browsers), the model re-downloads each visit; serving pages from a local HTTP origin (e.g. `node scripts/serve-alignment.mjs` in the repo root, then `http://localhost:8907/alignment/<page>.html`) guarantees caching there — note `http://localhost` is a separate origin from `file://`, so the first localhost visit downloads once even when the `file://` cache is already warm. After the first successful load on a machine, the script preloads the model during browser idle time on later page loads (gated by a `tts-kokoro-used` localStorage flag, so users who never click pay nothing). Text is prepared for speech before synthesis: block boundaries (headings, paragraphs, list items, table cells) get sentence punctuation so the model does not read them as run-ons, and speech-hostile symbols are normalized (`~92MB` reads as "approximately 92MB", `v0.3` as "version 0.3", em-dashes as comma pauses, `e.g.`/`i.e.`/`vs.` expanded). Synthesis is pipelined with small chunks: the first audio chunk is kept short (~250 chars) for fast time-to-first-audio, later chunks stay small (~300 chars, cut at sentence or clause boundaries) with up to two chunks synthesizing ahead during playback, and the next section's opening chunk is prefetched while the current section's last chunk plays, so chunk and section boundaries are gapless. If Kokoro fails to load (old browser, network error), it falls back to the Web Speech API automatically. It skips gate controls, compile UI, feedback textareas, and stat grids. Charts and tables use narrative summaries instead of raw data: containers with a `data-tts-narrative` attribute have the narrative read aloud; containers without the attribute are silently skipped. To inject TTS into existing pages, run `node scripts/inject-tts.mjs` (idempotent). Use `--force` to replace the existing TTS block with an updated version. Do not inline the TTS script; always use the `src` tag. Do not use `type="module"` — module scripts are blocked by CORS on `file://` URLs.
+**Brief Me (text-to-speech).** Every alignment page must include a `<script src="../scripts/alignment-tts-kokoro.js"></script>` tag before `</body>`. The script adds a "Brief Me" button that reads the page aloud section-by-section using Kokoro TTS (an 82M-parameter model running client-side via WebGPU/WASM from `kokoro-js`). The transport bar includes play/pause/stop/skip controls, a voice selector (persisted in localStorage), and speed selection. On first click the voice model downloads (~92MB quantized on WASM; ~326MB fp32 on WebGPU). Weights persist between visits via Cache API origin storage, and this works on `file://` origins in Chrome — including `file://wsl.localhost` UNC paths (verified 2026-06-09 with an instrumented probe in Windows Chrome: `caches` is available, entries survive reloads and browser restarts, and Chrome shares a single `file://` origin across all local pages, so one download serves every alignment page). Repeat visits pay model initialization only, not re-download. If `caches` is undefined (non-Chromium or locked-down browsers), the model re-downloads each visit; serving pages from a local HTTP origin (e.g. `node scripts/serve-alignment.mjs` in the repo root, then `http://localhost:8907/alignment/<page>.html`) guarantees caching there — note `http://localhost` is a separate origin from `file://`, so the first localhost visit downloads once even when the `file://` cache is already warm. After the first successful load on a machine, the script preloads the model during browser idle time on later page loads (gated by a `tts-kokoro-used` localStorage flag, so users who never click pay nothing). Text is prepared for speech before synthesis: block boundaries (headings, paragraphs, list items, table cells) get sentence punctuation so the model does not read them as run-ons, and speech-hostile symbols are normalized (`~92MB` reads as "approximately 92MB", `v0.3` as "version 0.3", em-dashes as comma pauses, `e.g.`/`i.e.`/`vs.` expanded). Synthesis is pipelined with small chunks: the first audio chunk is kept short (~250 chars) for fast time-to-first-audio, later chunks stay small (~300 chars, cut at sentence or clause boundaries) with up to two chunks synthesizing ahead during playback, and the next section's opening chunk is prefetched while the current section's last chunk plays, so chunk and section boundaries are gapless. If Kokoro fails to load (old browser, network error), it falls back to the Web Speech API automatically. It skips gate controls, compile UI, feedback textareas, and stat grids. Charts and tables use narrative summaries instead of raw data: containers with a `data-tts-narrative` attribute have the narrative read aloud; containers without the attribute are silently skipped. To inject TTS into existing pages, run `node scripts/inject-tts.mjs` (idempotent). Use `--force` to replace the existing TTS block with an updated version. Do not inline the TTS script; always use the `src` tag. Do not use `type="module"` — module scripts are blocked by CORS on `file://` URLs. Narration follows along visually: the blocks currently being read (paragraphs, list items, table rows, headings, chart narratives) receive a `.tts-active-chunk` highlight at ~1–2-sentence chunk granularity, and the page auto-scrolls to keep them centered (instantly rather than smoothly under `prefers-reduced-motion: reduce`), while the active section keeps a lightened outline frame. The Web Speech fallback stays section-level — outline plus section-start scroll, no per-chunk highlight.
 
 **TTS narrative contract.** Every `.chart-container` and `.table-wrap` element should carry a `data-tts-narrative` attribute with a 1-3 sentence human-readable summary of what the chart or table shows. Chart functions in `scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js` auto-generate a baseline narrative from their data; author-provided `data-tts-narrative` attributes take precedence. When authoring alignment pages manually, add `data-tts-narrative` to chart containers and table wrappers so that Brief Me reads a meaningful summary instead of skipping the element.
 
-**Browser open.** After writing the resulting HTML page, run `node scripts/open-html-page.mjs alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html --browser auto` from the repository root, replacing the path with the actual page path when needed. Report the script status (`focused`, `opened`, `fallback-opened`, `blocked`, or `failed`) in the handoff. Continue when opening is `blocked` if the files were written and verified correctly; a blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail.
+**Browser open.** After writing the resulting HTML page, attempt to open it from the repository root with this ordered fallback, replacing `alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html` with the actual page path when needed. First, if `scripts/open-html-page.mjs` exists, run `node scripts/open-html-page.mjs alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html --browser auto`. If the helper is missing or cannot open the page and the environment is WSL (`grep -qi microsoft /proc/version`) with `/mnt/c/WINDOWS/System32/WindowsPowerShell/v1.0/powershell.exe` available, open a browser-friendly file URI through PowerShell: build `file://wsl.localhost/${WSL_DISTRO_NAME:-Ubuntu}/<absolute-linux-path>` from the HTML page's absolute path and run PowerShell `Start-Process '<file-uri>'`. Try `xdg-open <absolute-linux-path>` only after the helper path and WSL PowerShell bridge are unavailable or blocked. Report the final status (`focused`, `opened`, `fallback-opened`, `blocked`, or `failed`) in the handoff, and include the absolute path when the status is `blocked` or `failed`. Continue when opening is `blocked` if the files were written and verified correctly; a blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail.

package/packs/{business-discovery → business-research}/claude/customer-feedback/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.7 - 2026-06-11
+
+- Added npm-aware install-route guidance so unavailable-pack fallbacks keep `/pack install` while also offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.
+
 ## v0.6 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-feedback/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+---
+name: customer-feedback
+description: Ingest and synthesize customer feedback — categorize findings against ICP and journey map, maintain a running log
+type: research
+version: v0.7
+argument-hint: "[file path, pasted text, or empty to be prompted]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Customer Feedback — Ingest & Synthesize
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Soft Prerequisites
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md` in product-path mode) if it exists — grounds categorization in ICP segments and pain points.
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md` in product-path mode) if it exists — tags findings to journey stages.
+
+These are not required. The skill works without them but categorization will be less precise.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) if it exists — extract ICP segments, user profiles, pain points, value props
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) if it exists — extract journey stages, use cases, critical moments
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) if it exists — load all previous sessions for synthesis context
+
+### 2. Ingest Feedback
+
+Check `$ARGUMENTS`:
+- **File path provided**: Read the file and use its contents as the feedback input
+- **Text provided**: Use the argument text directly as feedback
+- **Empty**: Use AskUserQuestion to ask the user to paste or describe the feedback
+
+Accept any format: interview notes, support tickets, survey responses, NPS comments, user testing observations, sales call notes, social media mentions, app store reviews.
+
+### 3. Categorize Findings
+
+For each distinct finding in the feedback:
+
+1. **Classification**: One of:
+   - **Confirmed** — validates an existing ICP assumption, pain point, or journey step
+   - **Wrong** — contradicts an ICP assumption, pain point, or mapped journey
+   - **New** — reveals something not captured in ICP or journey map
+
+2. **ICP Tag** (when `research/icp.md` exists): Which ICP section does this relate to? (pain point, value prop, user profile, trigger event, etc.)
+
+3. **Journey Stage** (when `research/journey-map.md` exists): Which journey stage does this touch? (discovery, evaluation, onboarding, aha moment, retention, etc.)
+
+4. **Severity**: High / Medium / Low — based on how many users it affects and how strongly
+
+5. **Quote or Evidence**: The specific words or behavior that support this finding
+
+### 4. Present & Validate
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the categorized findings to the user:
+
+- Show each finding with its classification, tags, and evidence
+- Ask: "Does this categorization look right? Any findings I've miscategorized or missed?"
+- If the user corrects anything, update before writing
+
+### 5. Check Staleness Triggers
+
+Count the number of **Wrong** and **New** findings across ALL sessions (including previous ones):
+
+- If 3+ **Wrong** findings relate to ICP assumptions: recommend re-running `/customer-discovery`
+- If 3+ **Wrong** findings relate to journey stages: recommend re-running `/journey-map`
+- If 3+ **New** findings suggest an unserved segment: recommend re-running `/customer-discovery`
+
+Display these recommendations after the categorized findings.
+
+### 6. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist and synthesis results to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF staleness alert for ICP: `/customer-discovery` — Re-run discovery — feedback has invalidated key assumptions
+- IF staleness alert for journey map: `/journey-map` — Re-map journeys — real behavior differs from mapped experience
+- IF 3+ New findings: `/brainstorm` — Generate ideas for newly revealed customer needs
+- IF New findings relate to a gap: `/ux-variations [topic]` — Explore UX solutions for the most impactful finding
+- IF no staleness alerts: `/research-roadmap` — Check overall project status
+- IF feedback came from experiment results: `/assumption-tracker` — Update assumption validation status with experiment findings
+- IF 3+ research docs exist and no `research/assumption-tracker.md`: `/assumption-tracker` — Build the assumptions register to track what feedback is validating
+
+**Impact-aware adjustments:**
+- IF downstream impact is **Major**: prepend `/reconcile-research — [N] conflicts found in downstream docs` as the first item
+- IF downstream impact is **Minor**: annotate relevant skill suggestions with "(stale — [brief description])"
+- If downstream impact has not been classified yet, run the downstream impact check against the proposed output before selecting the final recommendation. Do not emit a Minor/Major impact recommendation speculatively.
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Only after the user validates, write to `research/customer-feedback.md`:
+
+**If the file doesn't exist**: Create it with the structure below.
+**If the file exists**: Append the new session section, then regenerate the `## Synthesis` section at the top.
+
+### 8. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected by what was just decided. Only check documents that exist on disk.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/gtm.md`
+- `research/monetization.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `> Based on:` header, `## Summary`, and sections that reference concepts this skill just defined or changed
+2. Identify **specific conflicts**: claims, assumptions, or references that contradict what was just decided. Examples:
+   - Customer language or pain point framing in GTM messaging that feedback has invalidated
+   - Pricing assumptions in monetization anchored to customer willingness-to-pay signals that have shifted
+   - Channel strategy built on customer behavior patterns that new feedback contradicts
+3. Note each conflict: downstream file, section, the stale claim (quote it), and what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream documents exist, or no conflicts found. Skip display entirely.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display conflicts to user inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR a foundational assumption changed — e.g., primary pain point invalidated, willingness-to-pay signals contradicted, key customer behavior pattern disproved): Display conflicts and strongly recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+Display to the user after showing the written file confirmation. This should be quick — one read per downstream doc, scan for conflicts against key decisions. Not a deep reconciliation.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Customer Feedback
+
+> Last updated: [current date]
+> Sessions: [total count]
+
+## Synthesis
+
+[Regenerated each run. Summarizes patterns across ALL sessions:]
+
+### Confirmed Assumptions
+[ICP and journey assumptions that feedback consistently validates]
+
+### Invalidated Assumptions
+[ICP and journey assumptions that feedback contradicts — with evidence count]
+
+### New Discoveries
+[Findings not captured in any existing research — potential ICP updates or new journey stages]
+
+### Staleness Alerts
+[If 3+ Wrong/New findings accumulated, list which research docs should be re-run and why]
+
+<!-- Only include the Downstream Impact section when impact is Minor or Major. Omit entirely for None. -->
+### Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+#### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote from downstream doc]"
+   - **Now**: [what this skill's output says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `/reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+### Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 6 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+
+---
+
+## Feedback Session: [date]
+
+> Source: [file path, "pasted text", or "interview"]
+> ICP context: [yes/no — whether research/icp.md was loaded]
+> Journey context: [yes/no — whether research/journey-map.md was loaded]
+
+### Findings
+
+| # | Finding | Classification | ICP Tag | Journey Stage | Severity |
+|---|---------|---------------|---------|---------------|----------|
+| 1 | [finding] | Confirmed/Wrong/New | [tag] | [stage] | H/M/L |
+
+### Details
+
+#### Finding 1: [title]
+**Classification**: [Confirmed/Wrong/New]
+**Evidence**: "[quote or observation]"
+**ICP Tag**: [which ICP section]
+**Journey Stage**: [which stage]
+**Severity**: [High/Medium/Low]
+**Implication**: [what this means for the product]
+
+[Repeat for each finding]
+
+---
+
+[Previous sessions remain below, newest first]
+```
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Append-only.** Never delete or overwrite previous sessions in `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`). Only the `## Synthesis` section at the top is regenerated.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write until the user validates the categorization.
+- **Tag to existing research.** When ICP and journey map exist, every finding must be tagged. When they don't exist, skip tagging but note "no ICP/journey context" in the session header.
+- **Count across sessions.** Staleness triggers are based on cumulative findings, not just the current session.
+- **Accept any format.** The skill should handle messy, unstructured input gracefully.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/customer-feedback-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.