skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/business-discovery/claude/enterprise-icp/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,276 @@
+---
+name: enterprise-icp
+description: Enterprise multi-stakeholder discovery — map personas, deal-killers, and the evaluation-to-renewal lifecycle
+type: research
+version: v0.7
+argument-hint: "[optional: target industry or market segment]"
+interview_depth: full
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Enterprise ICP — Multi-Stakeholder Discovery Interview
+
+## 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>` 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.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Context Loading
+
+Read `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md` in product-path mode) if it exists — the startup ICP is a starting point but does not constrain the enterprise analysis. Enterprise is not "startup but bigger." Explicitly explore what changes at enterprise scale.
+
+Also read the codebase, README, and existing specs/research if a product exists, to ground the interview.
+
+## 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. Orient
+
+If `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) exists, summarise the startup ICP. Before asking the user, use WebSearch to research enterprise buying patterns in this product category (e.g., "[category] enterprise buying process", "[category] enterprise vs SMB", "[category] enterprise procurement requirements"). Present the startup ICP summary alongside your enterprise research findings, then ask: "How does the enterprise buyer and user differ from what we mapped here? Here's what I found about enterprise buying patterns in this space — does this match your experience?" If no ICP exists, start from scratch but still run the enterprise buying pattern research first.
+
+If a codebase exists, summarise what's built and note it as context.
+
+### 2. Interview
+
+Use the AskUserQuestion tool. Ask 1–3 focused questions per turn.
+
+**Research and recommend by default.** For each decision point, use web search, upstream research docs (`research/*.md`), and codebase analysis to gather evidence before asking the user. Present your findings with data, state your recommendation with reasoning, and ask the user to approve, adjust, or override. Only ask the user to choose without a recommendation when the decision genuinely requires insider knowledge they haven't shared (internal constraints, personal preferences, strategic bets).
+
+Cover these areas:
+
+#### A. Stakeholder Map
+Determine which personas are relevant for this product's enterprise market. For each, identify their role in the buying/adoption process:
+
+- **End users** — Daily users of the product. May have tiers (power user, casual user, read-only viewer).
+- **Team/workspace admin** — Configures the product, manages seats, sets permissions, handles team onboarding.
+- **IT / Security** — Evaluates compliance posture, SSO/SAML requirements, data residency, audit logging, network security.
+- **Procurement / Legal** — Contract terms, volume pricing, legal review, DPA/BAA requirements.
+- **Internal champion** — The person inside the customer org who advocates for adoption and drives the deal forward. See section 7 (Champion Enablement & Risk) for deep analysis of identification, enablement, risk, and multi-champion strategy.
+- **Executive sponsor** — Budget authority, signs off on spend, cares about ROI and strategic alignment.
+
+Not all personas apply to every product. Identify which are relevant and which can be skipped.
+
+#### B. Per-Persona Journeys
+For each relevant stakeholder:
+- What do they need to see, do, or approve?
+- What information do they need and in what format?
+- What's their "no" — the thing that kills the deal if missing?
+- What does success look like for them specifically?
+
+#### C. Enterprise Buying Stages
+- **Evaluation**: How do enterprises discover and assess this product? RFP? POC? Free trial? Vendor demo? What evaluation criteria matter most?
+- **Pilot**: What does a pilot look like? Team size, duration, success criteria, who owns the pilot?
+- **Rollout**: What's needed for IT to deploy at scale? What are the rollout blockers?
+- Lifecycle mapping (expansion, renewal, retention loops) belongs in `/journey-map` — capture lifecycle signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### D. Enterprise Deal-Killers
+Determine which are mandatory for the target market:
+- SSO / SAML / SCIM
+- SOC 2 Type II
+- GDPR compliance
+- HIPAA / BAA (healthcare)
+- Audit logging
+- Data residency / sovereignty
+- Role-based access control (RBAC) granularity
+- SLA / uptime guarantees
+- Data encryption at rest and in transit
+- Vendor security questionnaire readiness
+
+#### E. Onboarding Complexity
+- Self-serve onboarding (individual user signs up)
+- Team onboarding (admin invites team, configures workspace)
+- SSO-provisioned onboarding (users auto-created via IdP)
+- Migration from competitor (data import, workflow mapping)
+- Training and enablement needs
+
+#### F. Enterprise Requirements Delta
+- What do enterprise buyers specifically need to hear vs. startup ICP?
+- What enterprise-specific requirements exist that the startup ICP doesn't cover?
+- What's the ROI story for the executive sponsor?
+- Strategic value framing and positioning belong in `/positioning` — capture value language signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### G. Champion Enablement & Risk
+- **Champion identification** — how to find/recognize, typical role, motivations (career, productivity, innovation mandate)
+- **Champion enablement toolkit** — ROI calculator, case studies, exec summary deck, security whitepaper, competitive comparison; format preferences
+- **Champion risk assessment** — single-champion dependency, role change, political capital loss, mitigation
+- **Multi-champion strategy** — second/third champions across departments and levels
+- **Champion-to-executive bridge** — how champion gets exec sponsor buy-in, what they need from you
+- **Post-sale champion** — do they become admin, evangelist, renewal driver?
+
+#### H. Procurement Reality
+- **Budget cycle timing** — annual planning, quarterly review, deal timing impact
+- **Budget source** — IT, departmental, innovation, executive discretionary
+- **Procurement path** — vendor registration, RFP, security questionnaire, legal review, MSA; duration per step
+- **Approval chain** — who signs, what thresholds trigger additional approvals, fiscal year timing
+- Pricing justification, custom pricing models, and competitive displacement analysis belong in `/monetization` — capture budget signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### I. Land-and-Expand Patterns (Observed)
+- **Initial landing zone** — smallest deployable unit (team, department, use case)
+- **Expansion triggers** — usage metrics, user requests, exec visibility (observed patterns, not strategy recommendations)
+- **Expansion blockers** — budget, IT resistance, competing priorities, integration requirements
+- GTM strategy recommendations and account growth projections belong in `/gtm` — capture expansion signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### J. Enterprise Segmentation
+- **Segment definitions** — mid-market (100–1000), large enterprise (1000–10000), strategic/Global 2000
+- **Segment differences** — buying process, stakeholders, deal size, requirements
+- **Target segment** — which to target first and why
+- **Segment-specific deal-killers** — what's mandatory at each tier
+
+> Areas G–J often surface together in conversation. Group related questions across areas when the user's answers naturally span them.
+
+### 3. Present Findings & Validate
+
+After covering all areas, **present the complete findings to the user before writing**. Summarise with evidence:
+1. The stakeholder map and which personas matter most — cite interview responses and research data that identified each persona
+2. The critical deal-killers (the "must-haves" vs. "nice-to-haves") — cite competitor requirements, industry standards, or research findings that validate each
+3. The enterprise lifecycle and where the biggest friction points are — cite specific examples or research findings for each friction point
+4. The enterprise value prop and how it differs from startup
+5. The most important insight from the interview
+
+Use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask:
+- "Does this capture everything? Any gaps or corrections before I write this up?"
+- If anything is ambiguous or under-specified, ask targeted follow-up questions to nail it down
+
+Continue until the user confirms the findings are complete and accurate. Only then proceed to writing.
+
+### 4. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF codebase exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if `business-ops` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` first; if `business-ops` is enabled, recommend `/scale-audit` — Evaluate enterprise readiness against stakeholder map and deal-killers
+- IF no enterprise feature specs in `specs/`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if `business-ops` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` first; if `business-ops` is enabled, recommend `/scale-audit` — Evaluate enterprise readiness against stakeholder map and deal-killers
+- IF `research/journey-map.md` exists but doesn't cover enterprise: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map enterprise` — Map enterprise stakeholder journeys
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map` — Map user and customer journeys first
+- IF `research/icp.md` exists but no `research/competitive-analysis.md`: `/competitive-analysis` — Research how competitors serve enterprise
+
+### 5. Write Output
+
+Only after the user has validated the findings, write the output files.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/enterprise-icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/enterprise-icp.md`)
+Structured enterprise discovery document:
+1. **Stakeholder Map** — which personas are involved, their role in buying/adoption
+2. **Per-Persona Journeys** — what each stakeholder needs, their deal-killer "no"
+3. **Enterprise Buying Stages** — evaluation → pilot → rollout, with requirements and blockers at each stage
+4. **Deal-Killer Requirements** — mandatory compliance, security, and infrastructure requirements
+5. **Onboarding Matrix** — onboarding paths and their requirements
+6. **Enterprise Requirements Delta** — enterprise-specific requirements vs. startup ICP, ROI story
+7. **Champion Enablement & Risk** — identification, enablement toolkit, risk assessment, multi-champion strategy, champion-to-executive bridge, post-sale champion role
+8. **Procurement Reality** — budget cycle timing, budget source, procurement path, approval chain
+9. **Land-and-Expand Patterns** — initial landing zone, observed expansion triggers, expansion blockers
+10. **Enterprise Segmentation** — (conditional — include only if product serves multiple enterprise tiers) segment definitions, segment differences, target segment, segment-specific deal-killers
+11. **Next Steps** — contextual next actions (populated from step 4)
+12. **Signals for Downstream Research** — unvalidated observations routed to downstream skills
+
+The Signals appendix uses this structure:
+```
+## Signals for Downstream Research
+
+> Raw signals captured during research. These are unvalidated observations —
+> use the linked skill to verify, validate, and explore alternatives.
+
+### → /journey-map
+- [signal]: lifecycle stages observed during enterprise interviews
+- [signal]: renewal triggers or churn signals mentioned
+- [signal]: post-rollout adoption patterns described
+
+### → /monetization
+- [signal]: budget ranges or thresholds mentioned
+- [signal]: procurement constraints that affect pricing
+- [signal]: expansion revenue triggers observed
+
+### → /gtm
+- [signal]: land-and-expand patterns described by interviewees
+- [signal]: champion enablement signals for GTM planning
+- [signal]: account growth trajectory observations
+
+### → /competitive-analysis
+- [signal]: enterprise competitor names mentioned
+- [signal]: incumbent displacement patterns described
+- [signal]: enterprise-specific competitive dynamics observed
+```
+
+### `research/enterprise-icp-interview.md` (or `research/{slug}/enterprise-icp-interview.md`)
+Raw interview log — questions, options, responses, and a closing summary of key insights.
+
+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
+
+- **Stay in problem space.** Do not prescribe architecture, features, or solutions — that's for `/spec-interview` and `/scale-audit`.
+- **Do not assume enterprise ICP is startup ICP scaled up.** Explicitly challenge: "What changes when you sell to a 500-person company vs. a 10-person team?"
+- **Interview style matches `/spec-interview`** — 1–3 focused questions per turn, options with pros/cons, recommendations with reasoning.
+- **Continue until all 10 areas are covered.** Confirm with the user before concluding.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/enterprise-icp.md`** (or `research/{slug}/enterprise-icp.md`) without asking the user first.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented to the user and validated. The user must see and approve the analysis before anything is written to disk.
+
+## Interview Protocol
+
+**Step 1 — Gather context.** Read `.agents/project.json`, README, CLAUDE.md, existing research and specs, git history, and any argument-provided context. Build an internal evidence base before asking questions.
+
+**Step 2 — Assumptions manifest.** Present 3–7 assumptions about the user's situation, goals, and constraints. Tag each with source (`[from prompt]`, `[from repo]`, `[from research]`, `[inferred]`). Ask the user to confirm, correct, or flag before proceeding.
+
+**Step 3 — Focused interview.** Ask 1–3 questions per turn via `AskUserQuestion`. Research and recommend by default — present options with a recommended default. Continue until all areas are covered or the user signals enough.
+
+**Step 4 — Coverage checkpoint.** Present a summary of everything established. Ask the user to confirm completeness before building the alignment page.
+
+## 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/enterprise-icp-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-discovery/claude/enterprise-icp/archive/v0.0/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,273 @@
+---
+name: enterprise-icp
+description: Enterprise multi-stakeholder discovery — map personas, deal-killers, and the evaluation-to-renewal lifecycle
+type: research
+version: v0.0
+argument-hint: "[optional: target industry or market segment]"
+---
+
+# Enterprise ICP — Multi-Stakeholder Discovery Interview
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.
+
+When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. 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.
+
+Interview the founder to map the enterprise problem space. Enterprise sales involve multiple stakeholders, each with their own journey and their own "no" that kills the deal. This skill maps all of them and the lifecycle from evaluation through renewal.
+
+## Context Loading
+
+Read `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md` in monorepo mode) if it exists — the startup ICP is a starting point but does not constrain the enterprise analysis. Enterprise is not "startup but bigger." Explicitly explore what changes at enterprise scale.
+
+Also read the codebase, README, and existing specs/research if a product exists, to ground the interview.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)
+
+Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of `research/`, use it.
+2. If `research/` contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically.
+3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).
+
+When app scope `{app}` is active:
+- Read/write research from `research/{app}/` instead of `research/`
+- Read/write specs from `specs/{app}/` instead of `specs/`
+- Also read `research/icp.md` (cross-app overview) for broader context
+
+### 1. Orient
+
+If `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md`) exists, summarise the startup ICP. Before asking the user, use WebSearch to research enterprise buying patterns in this product category (e.g., "[category] enterprise buying process", "[category] enterprise vs SMB", "[category] enterprise procurement requirements"). Present the startup ICP summary alongside your enterprise research findings, then ask: "How does the enterprise buyer and user differ from what we mapped here? Here's what I found about enterprise buying patterns in this space — does this match your experience?" If no ICP exists, start from scratch but still run the enterprise buying pattern research first.
+
+If a codebase exists, summarise what's built and note it as context.
+
+### 2. Interview
+
+Use the AskUserQuestion tool. Ask 1–3 focused questions per turn.
+
+**Research and recommend by default.** For each decision point, use web search, upstream research docs (`research/*.md`), and codebase analysis to gather evidence before asking the user. Present your findings with data, state your recommendation with reasoning, and ask the user to approve, adjust, or override. Only ask the user to choose without a recommendation when the decision genuinely requires insider knowledge they haven't shared (internal constraints, personal preferences, strategic bets).
+
+Cover these areas:
+
+#### A. Stakeholder Map
+Determine which personas are relevant for this product's enterprise market. For each, identify their role in the buying/adoption process:
+
+- **End users** — Daily users of the product. May have tiers (power user, casual user, read-only viewer).
+- **Team/workspace admin** — Configures the product, manages seats, sets permissions, handles team onboarding.
+- **IT / Security** — Evaluates compliance posture, SSO/SAML requirements, data residency, audit logging, network security.
+- **Procurement / Legal** — Contract terms, volume pricing, legal review, DPA/BAA requirements.
+- **Internal champion** — The person inside the customer org who advocates for adoption and drives the deal forward. See section 7 (Champion Enablement & Risk) for deep analysis of identification, enablement, risk, and multi-champion strategy.
+- **Executive sponsor** — Budget authority, signs off on spend, cares about ROI and strategic alignment.
+
+Not all personas apply to every product. Identify which are relevant and which can be skipped.
+
+#### B. Per-Persona Journeys
+For each relevant stakeholder:
+- What do they need to see, do, or approve?
+- What information do they need and in what format?
+- What's their "no" — the thing that kills the deal if missing?
+- What does success look like for them specifically?
+
+#### C. Enterprise Buying Stages
+- **Evaluation**: How do enterprises discover and assess this product? RFP? POC? Free trial? Vendor demo? What evaluation criteria matter most?
+- **Pilot**: What does a pilot look like? Team size, duration, success criteria, who owns the pilot?
+- **Rollout**: What's needed for IT to deploy at scale? What are the rollout blockers?
+- Lifecycle mapping (expansion, renewal, retention loops) belongs in `/journey-map` — capture lifecycle signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### D. Enterprise Deal-Killers
+Determine which are mandatory for the target market:
+- SSO / SAML / SCIM
+- SOC 2 Type II
+- GDPR compliance
+- HIPAA / BAA (healthcare)
+- Audit logging
+- Data residency / sovereignty
+- Role-based access control (RBAC) granularity
+- SLA / uptime guarantees
+- Data encryption at rest and in transit
+- Vendor security questionnaire readiness
+
+#### E. Onboarding Complexity
+- Self-serve onboarding (individual user signs up)
+- Team onboarding (admin invites team, configures workspace)
+- SSO-provisioned onboarding (users auto-created via IdP)
+- Migration from competitor (data import, workflow mapping)
+- Training and enablement needs
+
+#### F. Enterprise Requirements Delta
+- What do enterprise buyers specifically need to hear vs. startup ICP?
+- What enterprise-specific requirements exist that the startup ICP doesn't cover?
+- What's the ROI story for the executive sponsor?
+- Strategic value framing and positioning belong in `/positioning` — capture value language signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### G. Champion Enablement & Risk
+- **Champion identification** — how to find/recognize, typical role, motivations (career, productivity, innovation mandate)
+- **Champion enablement toolkit** — ROI calculator, case studies, exec summary deck, security whitepaper, competitive comparison; format preferences
+- **Champion risk assessment** — single-champion dependency, role change, political capital loss, mitigation
+- **Multi-champion strategy** — second/third champions across departments and levels
+- **Champion-to-executive bridge** — how champion gets exec sponsor buy-in, what they need from you
+- **Post-sale champion** — do they become admin, evangelist, renewal driver?
+
+#### H. Procurement Reality
+- **Budget cycle timing** — annual planning, quarterly review, deal timing impact
+- **Budget source** — IT, departmental, innovation, executive discretionary
+- **Procurement path** — vendor registration, RFP, security questionnaire, legal review, MSA; duration per step
+- **Approval chain** — who signs, what thresholds trigger additional approvals, fiscal year timing
+- Pricing justification, custom pricing models, and competitive displacement analysis belong in `/monetization` — capture budget signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### I. Land-and-Expand Patterns (Observed)
+- **Initial landing zone** — smallest deployable unit (team, department, use case)
+- **Expansion triggers** — usage metrics, user requests, exec visibility (observed patterns, not strategy recommendations)
+- **Expansion blockers** — budget, IT resistance, competing priorities, integration requirements
+- GTM strategy recommendations and account growth projections belong in `/gtm` — capture expansion signals in the appendix below.
+
+#### J. Enterprise Segmentation
+- **Segment definitions** — mid-market (100–1000), large enterprise (1000–10000), strategic/Global 2000
+- **Segment differences** — buying process, stakeholders, deal size, requirements
+- **Target segment** — which to target first and why
+- **Segment-specific deal-killers** — what's mandatory at each tier
+
+> Areas G–J often surface together in conversation. Group related questions across areas when the user's answers naturally span them.
+
+### 3. Present Findings & Validate
+
+After covering all areas, **present the complete findings to the user before writing**. Summarise with evidence:
+1. The stakeholder map and which personas matter most — cite interview responses and research data that identified each persona
+2. The critical deal-killers (the "must-haves" vs. "nice-to-haves") — cite competitor requirements, industry standards, or research findings that validate each
+3. The enterprise lifecycle and where the biggest friction points are — cite specific examples or research findings for each friction point
+4. The enterprise value prop and how it differs from startup
+5. The most important insight from the interview
+
+Use the AskUserQuestion tool to ask:
+- "Does this capture everything? Any gaps or corrections before I write this up?"
+- If anything is ambiguous or under-specified, ask targeted follow-up questions to nail it down
+
+Continue until the user confirms the findings are complete and accurate. Only then proceed to writing.
+
+### 4. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF codebase exists: `/scale-audit` — Evaluate enterprise readiness against stakeholder map and deal-killers
+- IF no enterprise feature specs in `specs/`: `/spec-interview enterprise [feature]` — Spec the top deal-killer that needs a spec
+- IF `research/journey-map.md` exists but doesn't cover enterprise: `/journey-map enterprise` — Map enterprise stakeholder journeys
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: `/journey-map` — Map user and customer journeys first
+- IF `research/icp.md` exists but no `research/competitive-analysis.md`: `/competitive-analysis` — Research how competitors serve enterprise
+
+### 5. Write Output
+
+Only after the user has validated the findings, write the output files.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/enterprise-icp.md` (or `research/{app}/enterprise-icp.md`)
+Structured enterprise discovery document:
+1. **Stakeholder Map** — which personas are involved, their role in buying/adoption
+2. **Per-Persona Journeys** — what each stakeholder needs, their deal-killer "no"
+3. **Enterprise Buying Stages** — evaluation → pilot → rollout, with requirements and blockers at each stage
+4. **Deal-Killer Requirements** — mandatory compliance, security, and infrastructure requirements
+5. **Onboarding Matrix** — onboarding paths and their requirements
+6. **Enterprise Requirements Delta** — enterprise-specific requirements vs. startup ICP, ROI story
+7. **Champion Enablement & Risk** — identification, enablement toolkit, risk assessment, multi-champion strategy, champion-to-executive bridge, post-sale champion role
+8. **Procurement Reality** — budget cycle timing, budget source, procurement path, approval chain
+9. **Land-and-Expand Patterns** — initial landing zone, observed expansion triggers, expansion blockers
+10. **Enterprise Segmentation** — (conditional — include only if product serves multiple enterprise tiers) segment definitions, segment differences, target segment, segment-specific deal-killers
+11. **Next Steps** — contextual next actions (populated from step 4)
+12. **Signals for Downstream Research** — unvalidated observations routed to downstream skills
+
+The Signals appendix uses this structure:
+```
+## Signals for Downstream Research
+
+> Raw signals captured during research. These are unvalidated observations —
+> use the linked skill to verify, validate, and explore alternatives.
+
+### → /journey-map
+- [signal]: lifecycle stages observed during enterprise interviews
+- [signal]: renewal triggers or churn signals mentioned
+- [signal]: post-rollout adoption patterns described
+
+### → /monetization
+- [signal]: budget ranges or thresholds mentioned
+- [signal]: procurement constraints that affect pricing
+- [signal]: expansion revenue triggers observed
+
+### → /gtm
+- [signal]: land-and-expand patterns described by interviewees
+- [signal]: champion enablement signals for GTM planning
+- [signal]: account growth trajectory observations
+
+### → /competitive-analysis
+- [signal]: enterprise competitor names mentioned
+- [signal]: incumbent displacement patterns described
+- [signal]: enterprise-specific competitive dynamics observed
+```
+
+### `research/enterprise-icp-interview.md` (or `research/{app}/enterprise-icp-interview.md`)
+Raw interview log — questions, options, responses, and a closing summary of key insights.
+
+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
+
+- **Stay in problem space.** Do not prescribe architecture, features, or solutions — that's for `/spec-interview` and `/scale-audit`.
+- **Do not assume enterprise ICP is startup ICP scaled up.** Explicitly challenge: "What changes when you sell to a 500-person company vs. a 10-person team?"
+- **Interview style matches `/spec-interview`** — 1–3 focused questions per turn, options with pros/cons, recommendations with reasoning.
+- **Continue until all 10 areas are covered.** Confirm with the user before concluding.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/enterprise-icp.md`** (or `research/{app}/enterprise-icp.md`) without asking the user first.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented to the user and validated. The user must see and approve the analysis before anything is written to disk.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/enterprise-icp-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+
+**Full content requirement.** The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item. It is a thorough interactive review document, not a summary. Render the full deliverable content in clean, readable HTML with appropriate hierarchy, styling, and navigation. If the skill writes multiple scoped deliverables in one run, build one alignment page that contains all deliverables with anchor-linked navigation. Durable tracker artifacts, such as `research/assumption-tracker.md`, remain canonical markdown outputs but must also be fully rendered into the alignment page before approval.
+
+**Dark-mode styling.** Use a dark color scheme by default. Base CSS variables: `--bg: #0d1117; --surface: #161b22; --border: #30363d; --text: #c9d1d9; --text-muted: #8b949e; --accent: #58a6ff; --green: #3fb950; --red: #f85149; --orange: #d29922; --purple: #bc8cff;`. Apply `background: var(--bg); color: var(--text);` on body. Use `--surface` for cards, nav, and table headers. Use `--border` for all borders. Use `--purple` for question blocks and gate headings. Use `--accent` for links and section headings. Keep headings `color: #fff` or `var(--accent)` for hierarchy. Question block backgrounds should use `#1c2333`.
+
+**Alignment gates.** Treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization until its required inline questions are answered and compiled into YAML. Include every gate that applies to the skill output, and include these gate types whenever relevant: evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, scope/non-goals, candidate/verdict decisions, artifact destination, proposed file changes, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route.
+
+**Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the alignment page must explicitly contain evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before any canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
+
+
+**Required inline questions.** 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.
+
+**Gate YAML contract.** At the bottom of the page, include a "Compile Answers" button that aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The 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 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. 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.
+
+**Pre-approval stop.** Before user approval, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide the compiled YAML answers. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.
+
+**Diff highlighting on updates.** When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving compiled answers, highlight what changed since the previous version. The agent chooses inline annotation or side-by-side layout per situation.
+
+**Archiving.** Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/enterprise-icp-{topic}.html`.
+
+**Browser open.** Attempt to open the resulting HTML page in the browser and report whether the open succeeded or was blocked. A blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail when the files were written correctly.
+
+## Archive-First Replacement Policy
+
+- Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+- Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
+- After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
+- Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
+- New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
+- Keep any existing user approval requirement before overwriting or replacing a document; archiving does not replace asking when the skill already requires approval.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+- **Default next-step routing:** when reporting completion, include either `Recommended next skill: <command>` or the two-line pair `**Next work:** <specific task or "none">` and `**Recommended next command:** <one command or route>` so the next operator has a concrete handoff.
+- If this skill creates or modifies tracked repository files, finish by committing and pushing all intended changes to the repository primary branch (`main` when present, otherwise `master`) before stopping, even if the user did not explicitly ask for commit/push.
+- Do not leave tracked changes or unpushed commits behind. If unrelated tracked work is already present, either include it in sensible commits too or stop and explain the blocker.
+- This contract does not override stricter safety rules about secrets, destructive history changes, release publication/tag confirmation, or production deploy confirmation.