skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/business-discovery/codex/positioning/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,378 @@
+---
+name: positioning
+description: Strategic positioning (April Dunford style) — competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value, target segment, market category
+type: research
+version: v0.1
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"category\", \"vs competitor X\"]"
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Positioning — Strategic Product Positioning
+
+Invoke as `$positioning`.
+
+## 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.
+
+Develops rigorous product positioning using the "Obviously Awesome" methodology (April Dunford). Determines competitive alternatives, unique attributes, customer value, target segment, and market category. Positioning is upstream of messaging — it determines *how you frame the product category itself*.
+
+Default stance: assume the user has no insider knowledge of the market. The positioning recommendation must stand on research, customer evidence, and codebase reality before asking for user input. Ask for corrections, proprietary differentiators, and hard constraints, not intuition.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{app}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$icp` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{app}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Strong default**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{app}/journey-map.md`) should exist before writing canonical positioning. If missing, recommend `$journey-map` first unless the user explicitly needs a provisional category/alternatives hypothesis. Early positioning may be discussed as provisional working notes, but do not write canonical `research/positioning.md` without clear user approval to proceed without journey evidence.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where value is delivered, the aha moment
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer language about what makes the product different
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing context for value perception
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)
+
+Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:
+
+1. If `$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 the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text. 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/`
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events, current-state journey
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, positioning, strengths/weaknesses, market gaps
+- Read other soft prerequisite files if they exist
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Research Positioning Approaches
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Category definition** — "how [category] is defined", "[category] vs [adjacent category]"
+2. **Positioning examples** — "[competitor] positioning statement", "how [competitor] describes itself"
+3. **Category creation** — "creating new category [domain]", "[domain] category leadership"
+4. **Customer language** — "[category] how customers describe", "[domain] buyer vocabulary"
+5. **Positioning frameworks** — "obviously awesome positioning", "April Dunford [category]"
+
+### 3. Step 1 — Competitive Alternatives (What Would Customers Use Instead?)
+
+NOT just direct competitors. Include:
+- **Direct competitors** — products in the same category
+- **Adjacent solutions** — products in nearby categories that solve the same pain differently
+- **DIY/manual workarounds** — spreadsheets, manual processes, hiring someone
+- **Do nothing** — the status quo (this is often the real competitor)
+
+Present and validate with the user. If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Here are the competitive alternatives the evidence suggests. Which, if any, are factually wrong, missing, or mis-prioritized for this product?"
+
+### 4. Step 2 — Unique Attributes (What Do You Have That Alternatives Don't?)
+
+For each competitive alternative, identify what's genuinely different about this product:
+- Features that alternatives lack
+- Approach or philosophy that's fundamentally different
+- Technical advantages (speed, accuracy, simplicity)
+- Business model advantages (pricing structure, no lock-in)
+- Community or ecosystem advantages
+
+**Be ruthless.** Only include attributes that are truly unique, not "we also do X." If competitors also have it, it's table stakes, not positioning.
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Which of these attributes are unsupported, overstated, or missing a proprietary differentiator I should include?"
+
+### 5. Step 3 — Value (What Does Uniqueness Enable for Customers?)
+
+Map each unique attribute to the customer value it creates:
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | [from ICP, feedback, or research] |
+
+Value categories:
+- **Saves time** — enables faster outcomes
+- **Saves money** — reduces cost vs. alternatives
+- **Reduces risk** — prevents failures, compliance issues
+- **Unlocks capability** — enables something previously impossible
+- **Improves quality** — better outcomes than alternatives
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Which value claims are strongest, and which need better evidence or should be removed?"
+
+### 6. Step 4 — Target Segment (Who Cares Most About This Value?)
+
+From the ICP analysis, identify the segment that values these unique attributes THE MOST. This is not the broadest market — it's the best-fit customer:
+
+- Who has the most acute pain that your unique attributes address?
+- Who would be most disappointed if the product disappeared?
+- Who gets the most value from what makes you different (not just from the category)?
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "This is the segment the evidence supports. Which commercial constraints, missing segments, or product realities should change this recommendation?"
+
+### 7. Step 5 — Market Category (What Context Makes Your Value Obvious?)
+
+This is the most consequential decision. The market category determines:
+- Who you're compared against
+- What features are expected (table stakes)
+- What "good" looks like
+- How buyers find you
+
+Three strategies:
+1. **Existing category** — position within a known category (e.g., "project management tool"). Best when the category is well-understood and you can win on a specific dimension.
+2. **Subcategory** — carve out a niche within an existing category (e.g., "project management for creative teams"). Best when you serve a specific segment much better than generic tools.
+3. **New category** — create a new category (e.g., "collaborative work management"). Best when existing categories don't capture your value — but expensive and slow.
+
+Use WebSearch to research how customers and analysts describe the space. Present recommendation with reasoning:
+- "I recommend positioning in [category/subcategory/new category] because [rationale]. Here's how it frames you against alternatives..."
+
+### 8. Synthesize Positioning Statement
+
+Combine all five steps into a positioning statement:
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+Present the full positioning framework and statement to the user. Ask:
+- "Which parts of this positioning need stronger evidence, better wording, or adjustment for product realities?"
+- "Would this change how you describe the product on your homepage?"
+- "Ready to write this to `research/positioning.md`?"
+
+### 9. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include a **Recommended** item (the single highest-impact next step given current project state) with a one-line reason, followed by **Other options** (2–4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$ux-variations [positioning-backed product direction]` — explore prototype directions now that ICP, competitive, journey, and positioning evidence are aligned
+
+Other options:
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: `$journey-map` — map the customer journey to ground the business model in reality
+- IF solution-customer fit is weak, disputed, or needs explicit scoring: `$value-prop-canvas` — optional detour to validate contested fit before UX or spec work
+- IF revenue, channels, cost, defensibility, or unfair-advantage assumptions are material risks: `$lean-canvas` — optional business-model synthesis before growth or ops work
+- IF no `research/gtm.md`: `$gtm` — Build go-to-market plan grounded in this positioning
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists: `$gtm` — Refresh messaging framework to align with positioning
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: `$monetization` — Positioning informs pricing — "premium" vs "value" positioning changes price expectations
+- IF codebase exists: `$mvp-gap` — Check if the product delivers on the positioning promise
+
+The recommendation (`$ux-variations`) is the default AFPS route after positioning. `$value-prop-canvas` and `$lean-canvas` are optional detours only when their risk conditions are present.
+
+### 10. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 11. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{app}/` prefix when app scope is active):
+- `research/gtm.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `## Messaging Framework` and `## Positioning vs. Competitors`
+2. Identify conflicts where messaging doesn't align with the new positioning
+3. Note each conflict: file, section, stale claim, what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream docs exist, or no conflicts. Skip display.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR market category changed, primary alternative shifted, value framing changed): Display and recommend `$reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Positioning
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/journey-map.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: "Obviously Awesome" (April Dunford)
+
+## Positioning Statement
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the positioning thesis — what category you're in, why, and what makes you different]
+
+## Step 1: Competitive Alternatives
+
+What customers would use if this product didn't exist:
+
+| Alternative | Type | Strengths | Weaknesses |
+|------------|------|-----------|------------|
+| [alternative] | Direct / Adjacent / DIY / Status quo | [strengths] | [weaknesses] |
+
+**Primary competitive alternative**: [the one most customers would default to]
+
+## Step 2: Unique Attributes
+
+What this product has that alternatives genuinely don't:
+
+| Attribute | Why It's Unique | Table Stakes? |
+|-----------|----------------|---------------|
+| [attribute] | [explanation] | No — alternatives lack this |
+
+**Attributes explicitly excluded** (table stakes):
+- [common feature] — [which alternatives also have this]
+
+## Step 3: Value Mapping
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer Value | Value Type | Evidence |
+|-----------------|----------------|------------|----------|
+| [attribute] | [what it enables] | Time / Money / Risk / Capability / Quality | [source] |
+
+**Primary value**: [the single most important value customers get from what's unique]
+
+## Step 4: Best-Fit Target Segment
+
+**Segment**: [specific description]
+**Why they care most**: [why this segment values the unique attributes more than others]
+**From ICP**: [reference to ICP segment — how this aligns or narrows the ICP]
+
+### Characteristics of Best-Fit Customers
+- [characteristic 1]
+- [characteristic 2]
+- [characteristic 3]
+
+### Who This Is NOT For
+- [segment that's a bad fit and why]
+
+## Step 5: Market Category
+
+**Category**: [chosen category]
+**Strategy**: [Existing category / Subcategory / New category]
+**Why**: [rationale for this category choice]
+
+### How This Category Frames Us
+- **Compared against**: [who buyers will compare us to in this category]
+- **Table stakes**: [what's expected in this category — we must have these]
+- **Our edge**: [where we excel relative to category expectations]
+
+### Categories Considered & Rejected
+| Category | Why Considered | Why Rejected |
+|----------|---------------|-------------|
+| [category] | [reason] | [reason] |
+
+## Positioning Implications
+
+### For Messaging
+[How this positioning should shape homepage copy, tagline, and pitch]
+
+### For Product
+[What this positioning means for feature prioritization — what to build, what to skip]
+
+### For Sales
+[How to talk about the product in sales conversations — what to emphasize, what to avoid]
+
+### For Pricing
+[How this positioning affects price perception — premium vs. value, what to anchor against]
+
+<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
+## Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote]"
+   - **Now**: [what positioning says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `$reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$gtm` — [one-line reason based on whether gtm.md exists or needs refresh]
+
+Other options:
+- [conditional items from step 9 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+### `research/positioning-search-log.md` (or `research/{app}/positioning-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each positioning decision.
+
+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
+
+- **Requires ICP + competitive analysis.** Positioning without knowing the customer and the competition is guesswork.
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every positioning decision must connect to real customer behavior or research evidence, not aspirational branding.
+- **Be honest about uniqueness.** If nothing is truly unique, say so — that's a critical finding. Don't manufacture differentiation.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the positioning has been presented and validated.
+- **Positioning ≠ messaging.** This skill produces the strategic foundation. Messaging (the actual copy and taglines) is `$gtm`'s job.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **One positioning per product.** Don't try to position differently for different segments — pick the best-fit segment and position for them.
+
+## 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/positioning-{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/positioning-{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.

package/packs/business-discovery/codex/positioning/archive/v0.10/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,240 @@
+---
+name: positioning
+description: Orchestrator — detect market vs product mode, recommend positioning frameworks, synthesize outputs into unified positioning
+type: research
+version: v0.10
+argument-hint: "[optional: \"product\" | \"--synthesize\" | focus area]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+invocation: orchestrator
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Positioning — Orchestrator
+
+Invoke as `$positioning`.
+
+This is an **orchestrator skill** using the parent router delegation pattern. It detects context, recommends applicable positioning frameworks, and synthesizes their outputs. Individual frameworks live as child skills under `frameworks/`.
+
+## 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.
+
+## 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 - Research and clarify.** Perform the research, run required source/code checks, and ask any needed clarification questions. 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. Do not create or update canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet.
+2. **Stage 2 - Review alignment.** Consume the working packet and build the `review` HTML alignment page. The page must render the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and 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 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.
+
+Default stance: assume the user has no insider knowledge of the market. The positioning recommendation must stand on research, customer evidence, and codebase reality before asking for user input.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$icp` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Strong default**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) should exist before writing canonical positioning. If missing, recommend `$journey-map` first unless the user explicitly needs a provisional positioning analysis.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where value is delivered, the aha moment
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer language about what makes the product different
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing context for value perception
+
+## Operational Modes
+
+### Mode A: Framework Selection (default first invocation)
+
+Activated by: `$positioning` or `$positioning [focus area]` (no special flags).
+
+### Mode B: Synthesis
+
+Activated by: `$positioning --synthesize`
+
+### Mode C: Product-Positioning Shortcut
+
+Activated by: `$positioning product` or `$positioning post-launch` or `$positioning obviously-awesome`
+
+---
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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 `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Mode Detection
+
+Detect **market-positioning mode** (default) or **product-positioning mode**:
+
+**Market-positioning mode** activates when:
+- No `research/customer-feedback.md` with post-launch customer evidence, AND
+- No production codebase with live users detected, AND
+- `$ARGUMENTS` does not contain "product", "post-launch", or "obviously-awesome"
+
+Available frameworks in market mode:
+- `jtbd-positioning` — Jobs-to-be-Done positioning analysis
+- `strategic-canvas` — Blue Ocean strategic canvas
+- `moore-positioning` — Geoffrey Moore positioning hypothesis
+- `category-design` — Play Bigger category creation
+
+**Product-positioning mode** activates when:
+- `research/customer-feedback.md` exists with real customer data, OR
+- `$ARGUMENTS` contains "product", "post-launch", or "obviously-awesome", OR
+- Production spec exists AND customer feedback references real users
+
+Available frameworks in product mode:
+- `obviously-awesome` — April Dunford (requires real customer evidence)
+- `strategic-canvas` — optionally, for category refresh
+
+### 2. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md`, `research/competitive-analysis.md`
+- Read soft prerequisites if they exist
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+- Read any existing `research/positioning-*.md` intermediate artifacts
+
+### 3. Mode A — Framework Selection
+
+Build an alignment page with:
+
+1. **Mode explanation**: which mode was detected and why
+2. **Available evidence summary**
+3. **Multi-select framework section**: checkboxes with pre-checked defaults:
+   - Market mode: `jtbd-positioning` + `strategic-canvas` + `moore-positioning` pre-checked; `category-design` unchecked
+   - Product mode: `obviously-awesome` pre-checked; `strategic-canvas` unchecked
+4. **Execution plan**: selected frameworks written to `tasks/todo.md` for sequential `$exec` execution
+5. **Approval gate**
+
+After user approval (compiled YAML with `selected_frameworks` list):
+
+Write selected frameworks as sequential steps in `tasks/todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Positioning Framework Execution
+
+- [ ] Run `$positioning/frameworks/jtbd-positioning` — JTBD analysis
+- [ ] Run `$positioning/frameworks/strategic-canvas` — Blue Ocean gap analysis
+- [ ] Run `$positioning/frameworks/moore-positioning` — Positioning hypothesis
+- [ ] Synthesize: `$positioning --synthesize` — Combine framework outputs into research/positioning.md
+```
+
+Only include selected frameworks. Always append synthesis step last. Stop after writing.
+
+### 4. Mode B — Synthesis (`$positioning --synthesize`)
+
+Read all intermediate framework outputs (`research/positioning-*.md`). At least one must exist.
+
+Synthesize into unified `research/positioning.md`:
+
+**Market-positioning synthesis**: combined hypothesis, Moore template filled with cross-framework evidence, evidence matrix, confidence levels, validation plan. Header: `> Mode: Market Positioning (hypothesized, pre-product)`
+
+**Product-positioning synthesis**: positioning statement from Obviously Awesome, customer-grounded evidence matrix, confidence levels. Header: `> Mode: Product Positioning (customer-grounded)`
+
+Build alignment page for synthesis approval. After approval: write `research/positioning.md`, emit next-step routing.
+
+### 5. Mode C — Product-Positioning Shortcut
+
+Skip multi-select. Build an alignment page for the shortcut execution plan with:
+
+1. **Shortcut explanation**: product-positioning shortcut selected and why `obviously-awesome` is the only queued framework
+2. **Evidence readiness**: customer-feedback requirement and any missing evidence caveats
+3. **Proposed execution plan**: the exact `tasks/todo.md` framework queue shown below
+4. **Approval gate**: require final compiled YAML approval before writing `tasks/todo.md`
+
+Do not write `tasks/todo.md` before alignment approval. The next action is review of the HTML alignment page.
+
+After user approval via final compiled YAML, write this execution plan to `tasks/todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Positioning Framework Execution
+
+- [ ] Run `$positioning/frameworks/obviously-awesome` — April Dunford positioning
+- [ ] Synthesize: `$positioning --synthesize` — Write research/positioning.md
+```
+
+Stop — user runs `$exec`.
+
+### 6. Next Steps (after synthesis only)
+
+- ALWAYS: check for `product-design` pack → recommend `$ux-variations`
+- IF no journey-map: check for `customer-lifecycle` pack → recommend `$journey-map`
+- IF solution-customer fit weak/disputed: `$value-prop-canvas`
+- IF business-model risks: `$lean-canvas`
+- IF no GTM: check for `business-growth` pack → recommend `$gtm`
+- IF GTM exists: recommend `$gtm` refresh
+- IF no monetization: check for `business-growth` pack → recommend `$monetization`
+- IF codebase exists: check for `business-ops` pack → recommend `$mvp-gap`
+
+### 7. Downstream Impact Check (after synthesis write)
+
+Check `research/gtm.md`. Classify impact as None/Minor/Major per standard pattern.
+
+## Optional Research Trigger Map
+
+These detours are conditional framework owners, not required AFPS chain links.
+
+| Positioning signal | Owner | Trigger threshold |
+|---|---|---|
+| Solution-customer fit weak/disputed, value mapping low confidence | `$value-prop-canvas` | Trigger: unique attributes can't be confidently mapped to value. Skip: value mapping clear. |
+| Business-model risk exposed by category strategy | `$lean-canvas` | Trigger: risk would change UX or prototype choices. Skip: normal competitive findings. |
+| Pricing architecture central to positioning | `$monetization` | Trigger: category/value mapping requires grounded pricing. Skip: pricing not a differentiator. |
+
+## Output
+
+### Mode A: `tasks/todo.md` update (framework execution steps)
+### Mode B: `research/positioning.md` (unified synthesis — see claude variant for full template)
+### Mode C: pre-approval alignment page, then `tasks/todo.md` update after final compiled YAML approval (obviously-awesome + synthesis)
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions go in `tasks/manual-todo.md`.
+- Condition-gated records go in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Cadence-based reviews go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP + competitive analysis.**
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every decision connects to real evidence.
+- **Mode detection is evidence-based.** Do not override without user confirmation.
+- **Parent does not execute frameworks.** It selects and queues them. `$exec` handles execution.
+- **Synthesis requires at least one framework output.**
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning.md`** without asking first.
+
+## 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/positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.