skillpacks 0.1.0 → 0.1.2

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
+## v0.1
+
+- Added strict scope-first staged research: scope-review alignment page, preliminary working packet, artifact approval page, and approved canonical scan artifact.
+- Added evidence-aware feedback handling and the generated alignment-page bundle stub.
+- Updated Codex command examples to `$ord-scan` and `$ord-align`.
+
+## v0.0
+
+- Initial ORD opportunity scan workflow.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/SKILL.md

@@ -2,55 +2,96 @@
 name: ord-scan
 description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
 type: research
-version: v0.0
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # ORD Scan
 
-Invoke as `/ord-scan`.
+Invoke as `$ord-scan`.
 
-Rapid opportunity scanner for open-source developer tools. Identifies gaps in the npm ecosystem, trending developer pain points, and CLI/library opportunities.
+Rapid opportunity scanner for open-source developer tools. Identifies gaps in the npm ecosystem, trending developer pain points, and CLI/library opportunities after scope and artifact approval.
+
+## 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, developer ecosystem areas, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the rapid ORD scan and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with the candidate briefs and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, task, or alignment files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language before final artifact approval. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit `$ord-align` routing after the approved canonical scan 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. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`.
+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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the 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. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/ord-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. 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.
 
 ## Process
 
-1. **Gather signals:** Scan for opportunities across:
+1. **Resolve scope:** Use `$ARGUMENTS` to narrow developer domain, package ecosystem, tool category, target developer persona, timing window, or product path. If a non-archived `research/{slug}/` product path is in scope, use product-path output locations; otherwise use flat `research/` output locations.
+2. **Gather signals:** After Stage 1 approval, scan for opportunities across:
    - npm packages with high download counts but poor DX, stale maintenance, or missing features
    - GitHub trending repos and discussions revealing unmet developer needs
    - Stack Overflow / Reddit / HN threads where developers complain about tooling gaps
    - Build tool, testing, CLI, and workflow automation gaps
    - Wrapper/adapter opportunities (bridging two popular tools that don't talk to each other)
-2. **Filter for ORD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+3. **Filter for ORD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
    - Buildable and publishable in 1-3 days
    - Clear value proposition explainable in one sentence
    - npm namespace likely available (or scoped package viable)
    - No heavy runtime dependencies or complex native bindings
    - Solves a real, recurring developer pain point (not a toy)
-3. **Produce brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), output:
+4. **Produce preliminary brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), write the Stage 2 working packet with:
    - One-line concept
    - Problem it solves (the pain point)
    - Why it doesn't exist yet (or why existing solutions fall short)
    - Build estimate (hours)
    - Distribution: npm, GitHub, dev community channels
    - Monetization potential (none / sponsorware / freemium CLI / premium features)
-4. **Rank and recommend:** Order candidates by (developer pain × feasibility × ecosystem gap size) and highlight the top pick.
+   - Evidence notes and confidence level
+5. **Rank for artifact review:** Order candidates by developer pain, feasibility, and ecosystem gap size. Highlight the proposed top pick only in the Stage 2 working packet and artifact-review alignment page.
+6. **Finalize after approval:** After final artifact approval, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical scan artifact, confirm the alignment page, and then recommend `$ord-align`.
 
 ## Output
 
-A ranked list of 2-5 OSS tool candidates with lightweight briefs. End with:
+Stage 1 output is only the scope-review alignment page and a concise request for final compiled YAML approving scope.
+
+Stage 2 output is the working packet at `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`, plus the updated artifact-review alignment page.
+
+Stage 3 output is the approved canonical scan artifact at `research/ord-scan.md` or `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. End the final approved artifact with:
 
 ```md
 **Top pick:** <concept name>
 **Next work:** validate top pick feasibility and namespace
-**Recommended next command:** /ord-align
+**Recommended next command:** $ord-align
 ```
 
 ## Constraints
 
-- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth — keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth - keep each candidate to a few lines.
 - Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
 - Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
 - If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint (e.g., "CLI tools" or "testing"), narrow the scan.
+- Do not write canonical scan artifacts, specs, tasks, or next-command routing before final artifact approval.
+
+## 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/ord-scan-{topic}.html`.
 
 ## Default Shipping Contract
 

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/archive/v0.0/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+---
+name: ord-scan
+description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
+type: research
+version: v0.0
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Scan
+
+Invoke as `/ord-scan`.
+
+Rapid opportunity scanner for open-source developer tools. Identifies gaps in the npm ecosystem, trending developer pain points, and CLI/library opportunities.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Gather signals:** Scan for opportunities across:
+   - npm packages with high download counts but poor DX, stale maintenance, or missing features
+   - GitHub trending repos and discussions revealing unmet developer needs
+   - Stack Overflow / Reddit / HN threads where developers complain about tooling gaps
+   - Build tool, testing, CLI, and workflow automation gaps
+   - Wrapper/adapter opportunities (bridging two popular tools that don't talk to each other)
+2. **Filter for ORD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+   - Buildable and publishable in 1-3 days
+   - Clear value proposition explainable in one sentence
+   - npm namespace likely available (or scoped package viable)
+   - No heavy runtime dependencies or complex native bindings
+   - Solves a real, recurring developer pain point (not a toy)
+3. **Produce brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), output:
+   - One-line concept
+   - Problem it solves (the pain point)
+   - Why it doesn't exist yet (or why existing solutions fall short)
+   - Build estimate (hours)
+   - Distribution: npm, GitHub, dev community channels
+   - Monetization potential (none / sponsorware / freemium CLI / premium features)
+4. **Rank and recommend:** Order candidates by (developer pain × feasibility × ecosystem gap size) and highlight the top pick.
+
+## Output
+
+A ranked list of 2-5 OSS tool candidates with lightweight briefs. End with:
+
+```md
+**Top pick:** <concept name>
+**Next work:** validate top pick feasibility and namespace
+**Recommended next command:** /ord-align
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth — keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
+- Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint (e.g., "CLI tools" or "testing"), narrow the scan.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: ord-scan
+description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
+type: research
+version: v0.1
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Scan
+
+Invoke as `$ord-scan`.
+
+Rapid opportunity scanner for open-source developer tools. Identifies gaps in the npm ecosystem, trending developer pain points, and CLI/library opportunities after scope and artifact approval.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, developer ecosystem areas, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the rapid ORD scan and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with the candidate briefs and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, task, or alignment files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language before final artifact approval. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit `$ord-align` routing after the approved canonical scan 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. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`.
+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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/ord-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. 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.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Resolve scope:** Use `$ARGUMENTS` to narrow developer domain, package ecosystem, tool category, target developer persona, timing window, or product path. If a non-archived `research/{slug}/` product path is in scope, use product-path output locations; otherwise use flat `research/` output locations.
+2. **Gather signals:** After Stage 1 approval, scan for opportunities across:
+   - npm packages with high download counts but poor DX, stale maintenance, or missing features
+   - GitHub trending repos and discussions revealing unmet developer needs
+   - Stack Overflow / Reddit / HN threads where developers complain about tooling gaps
+   - Build tool, testing, CLI, and workflow automation gaps
+   - Wrapper/adapter opportunities (bridging two popular tools that don't talk to each other)
+3. **Filter for ORD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+   - Buildable and publishable in 1-3 days
+   - Clear value proposition explainable in one sentence
+   - npm namespace likely available (or scoped package viable)
+   - No heavy runtime dependencies or complex native bindings
+   - Solves a real, recurring developer pain point (not a toy)
+4. **Produce preliminary brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), write the Stage 2 working packet with:
+   - One-line concept
+   - Problem it solves (the pain point)
+   - Why it doesn't exist yet (or why existing solutions fall short)
+   - Build estimate (hours)
+   - Distribution: npm, GitHub, dev community channels
+   - Monetization potential (none / sponsorware / freemium CLI / premium features)
+   - Evidence notes and confidence level
+5. **Rank for artifact review:** Order candidates by developer pain, feasibility, and ecosystem gap size. Highlight the proposed top pick only in the Stage 2 working packet and artifact-review alignment page.
+6. **Finalize after approval:** After final artifact approval, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical scan artifact, confirm the alignment page, and then recommend `$ord-align`.
+
+## Output
+
+Stage 1 output is only the scope-review alignment page and a concise request for final compiled YAML approving scope.
+
+Stage 2 output is the working packet at `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`, plus the updated artifact-review alignment page.
+
+Stage 3 output is the approved canonical scan artifact at `research/ord-scan.md` or `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. End the final approved artifact with:
+
+```md
+**Top pick:** <concept name>
+**Next work:** validate top pick feasibility and namespace
+**Recommended next command:** $ord-align
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth - keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
+- Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint (e.g., "CLI tools" or "testing"), narrow the scan.
+- Do not write canonical scan artifacts, specs, tasks, or next-command routing before final artifact approval.
+
+## 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/ord-scan-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-ship/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-11
+
+- Added an `npx skillpacks install devtool` alternative to the graduation route while preserving Codex `$pack install` guidance.
+
 ## v0.1
 
 - Added the `devtool` pack installation prerequisite before recommending `$devtool-adoption` as the graduation route.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-ship/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: ord-ship
 description: Publish to npm, create README, set up repo, and log the shipment
 type: ops
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.3
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # ORD Ship
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ End with:
 ```md
 **Shipped:** <package name> — <npm URL>
 **Next work:** monitor adoption for 1-2 weeks, then decide: iterate, graduate to Devtool AFPS, or move on
-**Recommended next command:** $ord-scan (next experiment) or $pack install devtool then $devtool-adoption (graduate)
+**Recommended next command:** $ord-scan (next experiment) or npx skillpacks install devtool from the project shell, then $devtool-adoption (graduate)
 ```
 
 ## Constraints

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-ship/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: ord-ship
+description: Publish to npm, create README, set up repo, and log the shipment
+type: ops
+version: v0.1
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Ship
+
+Invoke as `/ord-ship`.
+
+Rapid shipping for ORD packages. Publishes to npm, creates a developer-friendly README, sets up the GitHub repo, and appends to the running ship log.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Pre-flight:** Confirm the package is ready to publish.
+   - Read the ord-align doc for scope, package name, and API surface.
+   - Run the build and tests. Fix blockers.
+   - Verify the core API works as documented.
+   - Check `package.json` has correct name, version, description, keywords, license, and repository fields.
+   - Ensure `files` or `.npmignore` is configured to publish only intended files.
+2. **README:** Create or verify `README.md` with:
+   - Package name and one-line description
+   - Install command (`npm install <name>`)
+   - Quick start (3-10 lines showing the primary use case)
+   - API reference (brief — each exported function/command with signature and one-line description)
+   - License
+3. **Publish to npm:**
+   - Run `npm publish` (or `npm publish --access public` for scoped packages).
+   - Verify the package appears on npmjs.com.
+   - If publish fails due to auth, report the blocker and provide the manual command.
+4. **GitHub repo setup:**
+   - Ensure the repo has a description, topics/tags, and the homepage URL set.
+   - Add a `.github/FUNDING.yml` if the user has sponsorship configured.
+5. **Ship log:** Append entry to `research/ord-ship-log.md`:
+   - Date, package name, npm URL, GitHub URL
+   - Tech stack used
+   - Build time (estimated hours)
+   - v1 API surface summary
+   - Success metric from alignment doc
+   - Status: `published`
+6. **Distribution:** Execute launch-day distribution:
+   - Identify relevant channels: dev Twitter, Reddit r/node or r/javascript, HN Show, relevant Discord servers
+   - Draft a launch post (the user posts it manually)
+
+## Output
+
+End with:
+
+```md
+**Shipped:** <package name> — <npm URL>
+**Next work:** monitor adoption for 1-2 weeks, then decide: iterate, graduate to Devtool AFPS, or move on
+**Recommended next command:** $ord-scan (next experiment) or $pack install devtool then $devtool-adoption (graduate)
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not gold-plate. Ship the minimum useful version.
+- Do not run `npm publish` without user confirmation if this is the first publish for this package.
+- Do not modify unrelated packages or repositories.
+- If npm auth is not configured, provide the manual publish command and stop.
+- Create `research/ord-ship-log.md` with a header if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-ship/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: ord-ship
+description: Publish to npm, create README, set up repo, and log the shipment
+type: ops
+version: v0.2
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Ship
+
+Invoke as `/ord-ship`.
+
+Rapid shipping for ORD packages. Publishes to npm, creates a developer-friendly README, sets up the GitHub repo, and appends to the running ship log.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Pre-flight:** Confirm the package is ready to publish.
+   - Read the ord-align doc for scope, package name, and API surface.
+   - Run the build and tests. Fix blockers.
+   - Verify the core API works as documented.
+   - Check `package.json` has correct name, version, description, keywords, license, and repository fields.
+   - Ensure `files` or `.npmignore` is configured to publish only intended files.
+2. **README:** Create or verify `README.md` with:
+   - Package name and one-line description
+   - Install command (`npm install <name>`)
+   - Quick start (3-10 lines showing the primary use case)
+   - API reference (brief — each exported function/command with signature and one-line description)
+   - License
+3. **Publish to npm:**
+   - Run `npm publish` (or `npm publish --access public` for scoped packages).
+   - Verify the package appears on npmjs.com.
+   - If publish fails due to auth, report the blocker and provide the manual command.
+4. **GitHub repo setup:**
+   - Ensure the repo has a description, topics/tags, and the homepage URL set.
+   - Add a `.github/FUNDING.yml` if the user has sponsorship configured.
+5. **Ship log:** Append entry to `research/ord-ship-log.md`:
+   - Date, package name, npm URL, GitHub URL
+   - Tech stack used
+   - Build time (estimated hours)
+   - v1 API surface summary
+   - Success metric from alignment doc
+   - Status: `published`
+6. **Distribution:** Execute launch-day distribution:
+   - Identify relevant channels: dev Twitter, Reddit r/node or r/javascript, HN Show, relevant Discord servers
+   - Draft a launch post (the user posts it manually)
+
+## Output
+
+End with:
+
+```md
+**Shipped:** <package name> — <npm URL>
+**Next work:** monitor adoption for 1-2 weeks, then decide: iterate, graduate to Devtool AFPS, or move on
+**Recommended next command:** $ord-scan (next experiment) or $pack install devtool inside Codex, or npx skillpacks install devtool from the project shell, then $devtool-adoption (graduate)
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not gold-plate. Ship the minimum useful version.
+- Do not run `npm publish` without user confirmation if this is the first publish for this package.
+- Do not modify unrelated packages or repositories.
+- If npm auth is not configured, provide the manual publish command and stop.
+- Create `research/ord-ship-log.md` with a header if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/product-design/PACK.md

@@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ scripts/pack.sh refresh
 
 - `brainstorm`: Generate and explore ideas for a product or feature direction.
 - `feature-interview`: Conduct a structured interview to define feature requirements and constraints.
-- `user-flow-map`: Map positioned product goals into screen flow, branches, decisions, states, handoffs, and low-fidelity wireframe notes before UI requirements.
-- `ui-interview`: Conduct a structured interview focused on UI layout, interaction, and visual design decisions.
+- `user-flow-map`: Map positioned product goals into the root of a wireframe tree with user-flow branches, decisions, states, handoffs, and low-fidelity wireframe notes.
+- `ui-interview`: Investigate a specific UX variation branch, propose an HTML visual mockup, interview for alignment, and approve/reject/retry the branch before routing onward.
 - `spec-interview`: Conduct a structured interview to produce a detailed product specification.
-- `ux-variations`: Generate multiple UX variation candidates for a given flow or interaction.
+- `ux-variations`: Expand a selected user flow into alternate progression branches users can compare before one branch moves into UI proposal work.
 - `consolidate-variations`: Evaluate and consolidate UX variations into a final recommended direction.
 - `prototype`: Build a working prototype from a specification or design direction.
 - `design-system`: Define or extend a design system with tokens, components, and usage guidelines.