skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/business-growth/claude/pmf-assessment/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
+---
+name: pmf-assessment
+type: research
+version: v0.6
+description: Sean Ellis PMF survey design + qualitative signal analysis for post-launch fit measurement
+argument-hint: "[optional: specific signal or segment to focus on]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` 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.
+
+# PMF Assessment — Product-Market Fit Measurement
+
+## 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.
+
+Designs a Sean Ellis PMF survey and qualitative signal analysis framework for measuring product-market fit post-launch. Combines the quantitative "very disappointed" threshold (40%) with qualitative signal analysis from customer feedback, usage patterns, and market indicators. This is a post-launch measurement skill — it should run after the product has real users.
+
+## 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/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/metrics` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/icp.md` — target customer segments, pain points, jobs-to-be-done
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — critical moments, aha moment, drop-off points
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real user language, complaints, praise, churn signals
+
+## Process
+
+### 0a. Product Path Manifest
+
+Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize `active_path` (singular legacy) to `active_paths` (plural list) when reading; treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived` and exclude archived/deferred/revisit/promoted paths plus `research/_archive/` scopes from active target selection. Scope the PMF assessment to the active product path by default. When PMF signals suggest a deferred product path has stronger product-market fit than the active path, add a `## Product Path Implications` section recommending `/product-line activate`.
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/metrics.md` — success targets, north star metric, current performance data
+- Read `research/icp.md` if it exists — target segments, pain points, jobs-to-be-done
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` if it exists — critical moments, aha moment, engagement patterns
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists — real user language, sentiment, churn signals
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Launch Check
+
+Detect whether the product has live users. Look for evidence:
+- `research/customer-feedback.md` exists with real user quotes
+- Analytics references in metrics or other research docs
+- Deployed URLs in README or CLAUDE.md
+- User counts, revenue figures, or usage data in any research file
+
+**If no evidence of live product:**
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "I don't see evidence of a live product with real users. PMF assessment requires actual user data. Would you like to design the survey framework now for future use, or should we focus on `/spec-interview` or `/roadmap` to get to launch first?"
+
+If the user wants to proceed anyway, continue but mark all outputs as "pre-launch framework — requires live data to score."
+
+### 3. Research Sean Ellis Methodology
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Core methodology** — "Sean Ellis PMF survey methodology", "very disappointed question PMF"
+2. **Domain-specific signals** — "product market fit signals [category]", "PMF measurement [domain]"
+3. **Advanced frameworks** — "superhuman PMF engine", "Rahul Vohra PMF framework"
+4. **Qualitative indicators** — "qualitative PMF indicators", "product market fit signs [industry]"
+5. **Threshold context** — "40% very disappointed threshold context", "PMF score benchmarks [category]"
+
+### 4. Design PMF Survey
+
+**Core question**: "How would you feel if you could no longer use [product]?"
+- Very disappointed
+- Somewhat disappointed
+- Not disappointed
+- N/A — I no longer use [product]
+
+**Follow-up questions by response:**
+
+For "Very disappointed" respondents:
+- What is the main benefit you get from [product]?
+- What would you likely use as an alternative?
+- How would you describe [product] to a friend?
+
+For "Somewhat disappointed" respondents:
+- What would you likely use instead?
+- What could we improve to make [product] indispensable?
+
+For "Not disappointed" respondents:
+- Why not? What's missing for you?
+- What were you hoping [product] would do that it doesn't?
+
+**Product-specific follow-ups** (3-5 additional questions based on product context):
+- Tailored to ICP jobs-to-be-done and journey critical moments
+- Focused on understanding *why* users feel the way they do, not just *that* they do
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Here's the PMF survey design. Are the follow-up questions tailored enough to your product? Any segments you want surveyed separately?"
+
+### 5. Qualitative Signal Analysis
+
+**If `research/customer-feedback.md` exists**, analyze for PMF signals:
+
+| Signal Category | What to Look For | PMF Indicator |
+|----------------|-------------------|---------------|
+| Organic word-of-mouth | Unprompted referrals, social mentions, "told my friend about" | Strong positive |
+| Usage frequency | Daily/weekly active patterns, session depth | Engagement strength |
+| Emotional language | "love", "can't live without", "game-changer" vs. "it's fine", "okay" | Sentiment intensity |
+| Feature requests vs. complaints | Ratio of "add X" to "fix Y" — wanting more vs. wanting less broken | Product maturity |
+| Churn reasons | Why people leave — alternatives, missing features, price, no need | Fit gaps |
+| Expansion signals | Upgrades, team invites, increased usage, API adoption | Growth readiness |
+
+**If no feedback file exists**, design the signal checklist for future analysis and note which signals to start tracking immediately.
+
+### 6. Scoring Framework
+
+**Quantitative threshold** (Sean Ellis):
+- **Strong PMF**: >40% "very disappointed" responses
+- **Moderate PMF**: 25-40% "very disappointed" responses
+- **Weak PMF**: <25% "very disappointed" responses
+
+**Qualitative signals checklist**:
+1. Organic word-of-mouth happening without prompting
+2. Usage frequency increasing or stable (not declining)
+3. Emotional language in feedback (strong positive sentiment)
+4. Feature requests outnumber complaints
+5. Low voluntary churn / high retention
+6. Expansion behavior (upgrades, invites, deeper usage)
+
+**Combined scoring**:
+- **Strong PMF**: >40% "very disappointed" AND 3+ qualitative signals present
+- **Moderate PMF**: 25-40% "very disappointed" OR 2 qualitative signals present
+- **Weak PMF**: <25% "very disappointed" AND fewer than 2 qualitative signals
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Does this scoring framework match your context? Any signals more/less important for your market?"
+
+### 7. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3-5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing, conditional on PMF strength:
+
+**Weak PMF:**
+- `/customer-feedback [top user complaint]` — Deep-dive on the weakest area to understand what's broken
+- `/customer-discovery` — Re-examine customer fit; you may be selling to the wrong segment
+- `/journey-map` — Map where users drop off to find the biggest gap
+
+**Moderate PMF:**
+- `/growth-model` — Model growth levers to strengthen engagement before scaling
+- `/hook-model` — Design habit loops around what's already working
+- `/customer-feedback [most-requested feature]` — Deep-dive on what "somewhat disappointed" users want more of
+
+**Strong PMF:**
+- `/growth-model` — Model growth channels to scale what's working
+- `/roadmap` — Plan the scaling phase with confidence
+- `/gtm` — Build go-to-market plan grounded in proven fit
+
+### 8. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 9. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/metrics.md`
+- `research/growth-model.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on PMF-related sections, success thresholds, growth assumptions
+2. Identify conflicts where assumptions don't align with the PMF assessment findings
+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 PMF level changes growth assumptions, success targets need revision, segment focus shifted): Display and recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/pmf-assessment.md` (or `research/{slug}/pmf-assessment.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# PMF Assessment
+
+> Based on: research/metrics.md[, research/icp.md, research/journey-map.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Sean Ellis PMF Survey + Qualitative Signal Analysis
+> Launch Status: Live with users | Pre-launch framework
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the PMF thesis — current fit level, key evidence, primary recommendation]
+
+## Launch Status Assessment
+
+**Status**: [Live with N users / Pre-launch / Early access]
+**Evidence**: [what signals indicate launch status]
+**Data availability**: [what data exists vs. what's needed for full scoring]
+
+## PMF Survey Design
+
+### Core Question
+
+"How would you feel if you could no longer use [product]?"
+
+| Response | Purpose |
+|----------|---------|
+| Very disappointed | PMF signal — these are your core users |
+| Somewhat disappointed | Potential — understand what's missing |
+| Not disappointed | Fit gap — understand why not |
+| N/A — no longer use | Churn signal — understand what happened |
+
+### Follow-Up Questions
+
+#### For "Very Disappointed" Respondents
+1. [Question] — *Rationale: [why this question matters for this product]*
+2. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+3. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+
+#### For "Somewhat Disappointed" Respondents
+1. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+2. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+
+#### For "Not Disappointed" Respondents
+1. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+2. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+
+#### Product-Specific Follow-Ups (All Respondents)
+1. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+2. [Question] — *Rationale: [why]*
+
+### Recommended Sample Size
+- **Minimum viable**: 40 responses (for directional signal)
+- **Statistically meaningful**: 100+ responses
+- **Ideal**: 200+ responses with segment breakdown
+
+### Segment Breakdown
+
+Survey these segments separately for segment-level PMF signals:
+
+| Segment | Why Separate | Expected Difference |
+|---------|-------------|-------------------|
+| [segment] | [reason] | [hypothesis] |
+
+## Qualitative Signal Analysis
+
+| Signal | Current Evidence | Status |
+|--------|-----------------|--------|
+| Organic word-of-mouth | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+| Usage frequency patterns | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+| Emotional language | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+| Feature requests vs. complaints | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+| Churn reasons | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+| Expansion signals | [evidence or "awaiting data"] | Present / Absent / Awaiting data |
+
+**Qualitative signals present**: [count] / 6
+
+## PMF Scoring Framework
+
+### Quantitative Threshold (Sean Ellis)
+
+| Level | "Very Disappointed" % | Interpretation |
+|-------|----------------------|----------------|
+| Strong | >40% | Clear product-market fit — scale with confidence |
+| Moderate | 25-40% | Promising but not locked in — improve before scaling |
+| Weak | <25% | Fit not established — iterate on product or segment |
+
+### Signal Weights
+
+[Note any domain-specific factors that shift the threshold. The 40% number is a guideline, not gospel — context matters.]
+
+### Combined Assessment
+
+| PMF Level | Quantitative | Qualitative (3+ of 6) | Action Mode |
+|-----------|-------------|----------------------|-------------|
+| Strong PMF | >40% | AND 3+ signals | Scale |
+| Moderate PMF | 25-40% | OR 2 signals | Strengthen |
+| Weak PMF | <25% | AND <2 signals | Iterate |
+
+## Current PMF Estimate
+
+[If data available:]
+**Quantitative score**: [X]% "very disappointed" — [Strong/Moderate/Weak]
+**Qualitative signals**: [N]/6 present
+**Combined assessment**: [Strong/Moderate/Weak] PMF
+**Confidence**: [High/Medium/Low] — based on [sample size, data quality, recency]
+
+[If pre-launch:]
+> **Pre-launch framework** — no PMF score can be calculated without live user data. Use this framework once you have 40+ active users to survey. Focus areas before measuring: [specific recommendations].
+
+## Recommended Actions by PMF Level
+
+| PMF Level | Primary Action | Secondary Action | Avoid |
+|-----------|---------------|-----------------|-------|
+| Weak | Iterate on core value prop or re-examine segment fit | Interview churned users, test with adjacent segment | Scaling spend, feature bloat |
+| Moderate | Double down on what "very disappointed" users love | Improve for "somewhat disappointed" segment | Premature scaling, pivoting away from what works |
+| Strong | Scale acquisition channels | Expand to adjacent segments | Over-iterating on core (it works), ignoring ops scaling |
+
+## Strategic Implications
+
+### What This Means for Product
+[How PMF level should influence product decisions]
+
+### What This Means for Growth
+[How PMF level should influence growth investment]
+
+### What This Means for Fundraising
+[How PMF level affects investor conversations and timing]
+
+<!-- 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 PMF assessment says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `/reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 7, based on PMF level]
+```
+
+### `research/pmf-assessment-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/pmf-assessment-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each PMF assessment 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 metrics.** PMF measurement without success targets is directionless. If `research/metrics.md` doesn't exist, stop and run `/metrics` first.
+- **Honest about data availability.** If no live users, say so clearly — do not fabricate PMF scores.
+- **The 40% threshold is a guideline, not gospel.** Context matters — note when domain-specific factors change the threshold (e.g., enterprise B2B with few customers, two-sided marketplaces, regulated industries).
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the assessment has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/pmf-assessment.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **PMF is a spectrum, not binary.** Frame results as a continuum with actionable next steps at each level. Avoid "you have PMF" / "you don't have PMF" absolutes.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/pmf-assessment-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-growth/codex/experiment/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+# Alignment Page — experiment
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+
+**Visual rendering tier.** Each alignment page declares a rendering tier:
+- `document` (default) — text, tables, approval gates. No charts or interactive elements.
+- `visual` — adds inline charts, diagrams, and spatial layouts rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG. Data is embedded as inline JSON. No external fetches.
+- `prototype` — adds functional interactive components (clickable flows, live CSS previews, drag interactions). Prototypes are ephemeral previews, not production code.
+
+The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
+
+**Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, feedback-only YAML, and final compile controls. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
+
+**Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
+
+**Alignment index categories.** The index groups alignment pages into five categories. Each alignment page belongs to exactly one category. When writing or updating the index, assign each page to a category and render the index grouped by category in the order listed below.
+
+1. **Research** (`research`) — market research, competitive analysis, investigative reports. Skill prefixes: `devtool-positioning`, `devtool-adoption`, `devtool-monetization`, `devtool-user-map`, `devtool-workflow`, `devtool-dx-journey`, `devtool-integration-map`, `deep-research`, `repo-glossary`.
+2. **Product Design & Spec** (`product-design`) — product scoping, idea briefs, design plans, specifications. Skill prefixes: `idea-scope-brief`, `fork-idea-branch`, `animation-design-planner`, `skills-showcase`, `skills-inventory`.
+3. **Utility & Maintenance** (`utility`) — diagnostics, triage, incident investigation, infrastructure maintenance. Skill prefixes: `investigate`, `session-triage`, `prompt-history-backfill`.
+4. **QA & Meta-Skill Improvement** (`qa-meta`) — code review, benchmarking, skill building/fixing, expert review. Skill prefixes: `expert-review`, `benchmark`, `targeted-skill-builder`, `devtool-docs-audit`.
+5. **Ops & Session Analysis** (`ops-analysis`) — operational intelligence, session history analysis, cost/token/workflow analysis. Skill prefixes: `analyze-sessions`, `canonical-workflow`, `run-batch`.
+
+**Category assignment rule.** Match the skill name that produced the alignment page against the prefix lists above; use the first matching category. When no prefix matches, read the page title and summary to assign the best-fit category. When the category is ambiguous, default to **Research**.
+
+**Visual tier badge.** When writing or updating the alignment index, display a visual tier badge next to each linked page: `[doc]` for document tier, `[visual]` for visual tier (pages with charts/diagrams), `[proto]` for prototype tier (interactive pages). Read the tier from the alignment page's `data-visual-tier` attribute on the `<html>` element. When the attribute is missing, default to `[doc]`.
+
+**Category data attribute.** Set `data-alignment-category` on the `<html>` element of each alignment page with the category slug (`research`, `product-design`, `utility`, `qa-meta`, or `ops-analysis`). Also set `data-visual-tier` on the `<html>` element with the rendering tier (`document`, `visual`, or `prototype`). When an existing alignment page lacks the attribute, infer the category from the skill-name prefix or page content and add it on the next update. The index should read this attribute when available; when it is missing, apply the prefix-matching rule to assign a category for display.
+
+**Category and product-path grouping.** In product-line or product-path repositories, identify product from `research/.progress.yaml` `product_paths[]`, active `research/{slug}/` or `specs/{slug}/` scopes, page metadata, page title, or the alignment page path. Group index entries by category first, then by product/product path within each category, with the repo's existing secondary sort preserved when clear. In flat repositories, group by category, then preserve the existing index organization within each category or use a clear newest-first or title order when creating a new index.
+
+**Research quality contract.** For research-producing outputs, do not synthesize research findings, recommendations, candidate rankings, or working packets until the user approves the research scope from the `review` alignment page's final compiled YAML. Before scope approval, do only minimal discovery needed to propose the research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions; label any observed files or source availability as scope evidence, not findings. After scope approval, perform the synthesized research and separate and label `claims` (what the report concludes), `evidence` (source, repo artifact or file path, quote or observation, date, and confidence), `inference` (why that evidence supports the claim), `assumptions` (what remains unproven), and `decision impact` (what the user should approve, reject, or correct). Do not collapse evidence and inference into unsupported summary prose.
+
+**Embed prohibition.** Do not use `<object>`, `<iframe>`, `<embed>`, or "open working packet" / "view full document" links as the primary rendering of any proposed deliverable, evidence matrix, interview log, or manifest entry. The alignment page HTML must contain the rendered content directly. Embedded or linked external documents are permitted only as supplemental references alongside the fully rendered content already present in the page. **Exception:** Self-contained inline `<canvas>` and `<svg>` elements are permitted for charts and diagrams within the same HTML file.
+
+**Visual accessibility contract.** Every chart or diagram in a `visual` or `prototype` tier alignment page must include: (1) a `<table>` or text fallback rendering the same data, (2) an `aria-label` attribute on every `<canvas>` and `<svg>` element describing the chart type and data summary, and (3) a "View as table" toggle button that swaps between the chart and its table fallback. The toggle must default to showing the chart, with the table hidden via a `hidden` attribute that is toggled by the button.
+
+**Inline chart contract.** Visual and prototype tier pages must inline all chart rendering code as a `<script>` block within the HTML file. No external CDN references, relative file imports, or `<script src="...">` tags for chart libraries. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as the reference implementation — copy the needed functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for colors and adapt to the dark-mode palette.
+
+**No context loss rule.** The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item -- plus the decision-relevant substance from search logs, interview logs, source notes, repo scans, and approval notes. If a fact, source, caveat, uncertainty, alternative, rejected or lower-confidence finding, or decision rationale appears in a proposed deliverable or research log, it must either appear in the HTML page or be explicitly linked from the exact section that depends on it. The page 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.
+
+**Page layout contract.** After the page title and short summary, include a top-of-page "Table of Contents" section with anchor links to the major review sections and the bottom compile section. Keep the Table of Contents in normal document flow. Do not use a sidebar, side rail, drawer, split-shell layout, or sticky navigation for the Table of Contents unless the user explicitly asks for that layout. Do not place compile, copy, feedback, or answer controls in a sticky or fixed bottom banner/footer. Bottom compile controls must appear as ordinary content in a bottom compile section, so they scroll with the page and do not cover content at high zoom.
+
+**Research translation requirements.** For research outputs, the HTML page must include an evidence matrix, confidence/assumption register, alternatives considered, rejected or lower-confidence findings, source coverage gaps, and downstream implications. The evidence matrix must map each major claim to source or repo evidence, inference, confidence, assumption status, and decision impact. The confidence/assumption register must show which conclusions are evidence-backed, which are provisional, and what evidence would change them.
+
+**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;`. Data visualization palette (for `visual` and `prototype` tier pages): `--chart-1: #58a6ff; --chart-2: #3fb950; --chart-3: #d29922; --chart-4: #bc8cff; --chart-5: #f85149; --chart-6: #79c0ff; --chart-7: #f0883e; --chart-8: #a5d6ff;`. Apply `background: var(--bg); color: var(--text);` on body. Use `--surface` for cards, the top Table of Contents, 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`.
+
+**Responsive layout.** Include `<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">` in the head. Use at most two breakpoints: `@media (max-width: 860px)` for tablet and `@media (max-width: 560px)` for phone. Wrap every `<table>` in a `<div style="overflow-x: auto">` so tables scroll horizontally instead of breaking layout. All interactive elements (buttons, radio labels, feedback controls) must have a minimum touch target of `44px` height and at least `10px 16px` padding. Use `rem` for font sizes and respect the user's base font size — do not set a fixed `font-size` on `html` or `body`. Flex containers that place a heading beside controls (`display: flex; justify-content: space-between`) must include `flex-wrap: wrap; gap: 8px` so controls drop below the heading on narrow screens. Grid layouts must use `minmax(min(210px, 100%), 1fr)` instead of bare `minmax(210px, 1fr)` to prevent horizontal overflow when the viewport is narrower than the minimum. Set `max-width: 100%; overflow-wrap: break-word;` on `main` and any fixed-width container so no element forces a horizontal scrollbar at any zoom level.
+
+**Alignment gates.** In `review` pages, treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization only while the page is in `review`, 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. In `confirmed` pages, preserve the gate decisions as read-only approval records instead of active approval controls.
+
+**Output gate semantics and de-duplication.** The `artifact destination` gate approves the durable or review artifact location, such as the alignment page, working packet, report, spec, plan, prototype, or document path. The `proposed file changes` gate approves downstream mutation scope, timing, and the allowed file set after review. Keep these as separate approval concepts. If both gate concepts ask only the same path-destination question, render one combined visual section such as `Artifact Destination & Proposed File Changes` instead of duplicating path-only sections. If the decisions differ, render separate gates. Do not duplicate YAML entries solely because one visual section title names both concepts: emit separate YAML items only when the page asked separate decisions, and keep each item's `gate_type` equal to the decision it controls (`artifact destination` or `proposed file changes`).
+
+**Research completeness gate.** For research outputs, include a research completeness gate with inline questions asking whether the evidence is sufficient for the recommendation, which claims need more support, and whether missing context could change the recommendation. Place these questions directly under the evidence matrix or recommendation section they govern.
+
+**Source coverage expectations.** For web research, organize source coverage by category rather than citation list alone; use categories such as competitors, pricing, user sentiment, positioning, integrations, and recent activity when relevant to the topic. For repo or codebase research, include file/path evidence and clearly distinguish observed code facts from inferred product, workflow, or user conclusions.
+
+**Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
+
+**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-experiment-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-experiment-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and review page, then remains in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Risk-validation gates.** Render assumption/risk evidence coverage, confidence, candidate verdicts or mitigations, output-location/change-scope decisions, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route as gates. Durable tracker outputs remain canonical markdown artifacts and must also be fully rendered in the alignment page. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
+
+**Required inline questions.** In `review` pages, each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. Confirmed pages must not keep these as required input controls; render the answered decisions as read-only records.
+
+**Section feedback controls.** Every major section of the page (each deliverable section, evidence matrix, confidence register, gate, and any anchor-linked top-level heading) carries a lightweight section-feedback control near its heading: three mutually exclusive choices -- "emphasize" (add more weight to this section or to the point named in the notes), thumbs down (reject or flag a concern), and "clarification needed". Selecting any one reveals a multi-line section-feedback textarea placed directly under or beside that section's emphasize/down/clarify controls; deselecting hides the textarea and any local feedback YAML output for that section. This textarea is separate from required gate-question text inputs: even when the same section has gate questions with their own text boxes, selecting emphasize/down/clarify must still reveal the section-feedback textarea near the feedback controls. Use `--green` for active "emphasize", `--red` for the active thumbs-down, and `--orange` for active "clarification needed", with muted/inactive states otherwise. These controls are optional for final approval and do not replace required gate questions. They also power the separate feedback-only YAML path so the user can send emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification requests before answering every required gate question. When a section contains nested subsections (h3 or deeper), duplicate the section-feedback control at the bottom of the section, just before the closing `</section>` tag. The bottom copy mirrors the top copy — same `data-section`, same id with a `-bottom` suffix, same button set. Sections without nested subsections keep only the top control. Pair top and bottom controls by matching `data-section` attribute. When a feedback button is clicked on one copy, mirror the active state, `has-feedback` class, and `dataset.feedback` value to the paired copy. Textarea content should sync on compile — whichever textarea has content takes precedence (prefer the one the user last typed in). Both copies' local compile/copy buttons produce the same YAML. Use the top copy's `id` (without `-bottom`) as the canonical feedback id for YAML output.
+
+**Feedback-only YAML contract.** Provide feedback-only YAML in two places: locally under each selected section-feedback textarea, and globally in the bottom compile section. When a section-feedback control is selected, show local "Compile Feedback YAML" and "Copy YAML" controls plus a read-only YAML textarea directly under that section's feedback textarea. The local feedback compile generates YAML with `alignment_page: alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`, `feedback_status: revision-request`, `approval_status: not-approved`, `unanswered_required_questions`, and a `section_feedback` list containing the single selected section-feedback entry for that local control. The bottom "Compile Feedback YAML" control generates the same YAML shape but aggregates every selected section-feedback entry on the page. Enable both local and bottom feedback compile controls as soon as at least one section-feedback control is set, even if required inline gate questions are unanswered. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. Each feedback entry uses the shape `section`, `feedback` (`emphasize`, `down`, or `needs-clarification`), optional `notes` from that section's feedback textarea, and `requested_agent_action` (`add-weight-to-section`, `investigate-and-revise`, or `clarify-before-approval`). For `emphasize` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should add more weight, prominence, evidence, detail, or recommendation emphasis to that section or to the specific point named in the notes; this is a revision request, not approval of the section as-is. For `down` and `needs-clarification` feedback, the YAML must make clear that the agent should evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, and contextually amend the HTML alignment page before asking again for final approval answers. Automatically attempt to copy feedback YAML to the clipboard, display local or bottom copy status, display it in the matching read-only textarea, and provide a "Copy YAML" button with the same retry and fallback behavior as final gate YAML. Do not render the bottom feedback compile controls as a sticky or fixed banner.
+
+**Gate YAML contract.** In `review` pages, at the bottom of the page, include an ordinary in-flow compile section with a "Compile Feedback YAML" button for selected section feedback and a separate "Compile Answers" button for final approval answers. The bottom compile section must not be sticky, fixed, floating, or styled as a persistent banner. The "Compile Answers" button aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The final approval button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with `alignment_page: alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`, `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review`, one item per gate answer using this stable shape: `section`, `gate_type`, `status` (`answered`, `other`, or `needs-clarification`), `answer`, optional `notes`, and optional `target_artifact` or `target_path` when the gate controls file output. Populate `alignment_page` from the known repo-relative output path used to write the HTML page, not from the page title, browser URL, window location, or any display label. The same final compiled output also includes any section-feedback controls that the user set, using the `section_feedback` shape from the feedback-only YAML contract. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked.
+
+**Confirmed page contract.** After final approval has been applied, convert the active alignment page from `review` to `confirmed`. Include a visible status block with `alignment_status: confirmed`, confirmation date, confirmed artifact paths, approval source summary, and explicit finished but amendable language: the page is current for the completed alignment cycle, and later research can amend it only by archiving the prior confirmed page and highlighting the amendment. Remove required gate-question controls, the final "Compile Answers" button, unanswered-question counters, disabled approval buttons, and approval-blocking language. Preserve the full research and approval record: answered decisions, user requests, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source gaps, proposed file changes, final compiled YAML or faithful approval summary, and what changed during confirmation. Keep research caveats visible; `confirmed` means approved/current, not immutable or permanently true.
+
+**Pre-approval stop.** While an alignment page is in `review`, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide either local or bottom feedback-only YAML for emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification, or final compiled YAML answers when ready. Do not require the user to answer every gate before sending emphasis requests, negative feedback, or clarification needs. When feedback-only YAML is provided, treat it as a revision request: evaluate the feedback, investigate further when needed, archive and amend the HTML page contextually, highlight the changes, and ask again for review. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after final compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.
+
+**After approval handling.** When final compiled YAML is provided, inspect it before confirming the page. If it contains approvals plus user-requested edits, first update the page, research, and proposed canonical artifacts to satisfy the request; then write or update the approved canonical artifacts and confirm the page. If it contains `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or any unresolved negative feedback, revise the page and return it to `review` instead of marking it `confirmed`. Before replacing any existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`. Future amendments to confirmed pages follow the same archive-first rule and must show what changed from the prior confirmed record.
+
+**Diff highlighting on updates.** When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving feedback, compiled answers, confirmation edits, or later amendment evidence, the rendered HTML must visibly indicate what changed since the previous version. Highlight changed sections or blocks in-place with a `Changed`/`Updated` badge, distinct border or background, `<ins>`/`<del>` markup, or a side-by-side before/after comparison when that is clearer. A top-level change summary is useful but not sufficient by itself unless the changed content is also visibly marked where the reader reviews it. Remove or refresh stale change markers on later updates so the highlights describe the current revision only.
+
+**Archiving.** Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`.
+
+**Brief Me (text-to-speech).** Every alignment page must include a `<script src="../scripts/alignment-tts-kokoro.js"></script>` tag before `</body>`. The script adds a "Brief Me" button that reads the page aloud section-by-section using Kokoro TTS (an 82M-parameter model running client-side via WebGPU/WASM from `kokoro-js`). The transport bar includes play/pause/stop/skip controls, a voice selector (persisted in localStorage), and speed selection. On first click the voice model downloads (~92MB quantized on WASM; ~326MB fp32 on WebGPU). Weights persist between visits via Cache API origin storage, and this works on `file://` origins in Chrome — including `file://wsl.localhost` UNC paths (verified 2026-06-09 with an instrumented probe in Windows Chrome: `caches` is available, entries survive reloads and browser restarts, and Chrome shares a single `file://` origin across all local pages, so one download serves every alignment page). Repeat visits pay model initialization only, not re-download. If `caches` is undefined (non-Chromium or locked-down browsers), the model re-downloads each visit; serving pages from a local HTTP origin (e.g. `node scripts/serve-alignment.mjs` in the repo root, then `http://localhost:8907/alignment/<page>.html`) guarantees caching there — note `http://localhost` is a separate origin from `file://`, so the first localhost visit downloads once even when the `file://` cache is already warm. After the first successful load on a machine, the script preloads the model during browser idle time on later page loads (gated by a `tts-kokoro-used` localStorage flag, so users who never click pay nothing). Text is prepared for speech before synthesis: block boundaries (headings, paragraphs, list items, table cells) get sentence punctuation so the model does not read them as run-ons, and speech-hostile symbols are normalized (`~92MB` reads as "approximately 92MB", `v0.3` as "version 0.3", em-dashes as comma pauses, `e.g.`/`i.e.`/`vs.` expanded). Synthesis is pipelined with small chunks: the first audio chunk is kept short (~250 chars) for fast time-to-first-audio, later chunks stay small (~300 chars, cut at sentence or clause boundaries) with up to two chunks synthesizing ahead during playback, and the next section's opening chunk is prefetched while the current section's last chunk plays, so chunk and section boundaries are gapless. If Kokoro fails to load (old browser, network error), it falls back to the Web Speech API automatically. It skips gate controls, compile UI, feedback textareas, and stat grids. Charts and tables use narrative summaries instead of raw data: containers with a `data-tts-narrative` attribute have the narrative read aloud; containers without the attribute are silently skipped. To inject TTS into existing pages, run `node scripts/inject-tts.mjs` (idempotent). Use `--force` to replace the existing TTS block with an updated version. Do not inline the TTS script; always use the `src` tag. Do not use `type="module"` — module scripts are blocked by CORS on `file://` URLs.
+
+**TTS narrative contract.** Every `.chart-container` and `.table-wrap` element should carry a `data-tts-narrative` attribute with a 1-3 sentence human-readable summary of what the chart or table shows. Chart functions in `scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js` auto-generate a baseline narrative from their data; author-provided `data-tts-narrative` attributes take precedence. When authoring alignment pages manually, add `data-tts-narrative` to chart containers and table wrappers so that Brief Me reads a meaningful summary instead of skipping the element.
+
+**Browser open.** After writing the resulting HTML page, run `node scripts/open-html-page.mjs alignment/experiment-{topic}.html --browser auto` from the repository root, replacing the path with the actual page path when needed. Report the script status (`focused`, `opened`, `fallback-opened`, `blocked`, or `failed`) in the handoff. Continue when opening is `blocked` if the files were written and verified correctly; a blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail.

package/packs/business-growth/codex/experiment/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## v0.4 - 2026-06-07
+
+- Routed invalidated customer-fit assumptions to `$customer-discovery` instead of the retired `$icp` executable while preserving `research/icp.md` evidence usage.
+
+## v0.3 - 2026-05-30
+
+- Added product-path scope resolution that prefers non-archived `research/{slug}/` paths and active manifest paths before code or monorepo hints.
+- Excluded `research/_archive/`, legacy `abandoned`, `archived`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, and `promoted` paths from active target selection while preserving flat `research/*.md` compatibility.
+
+
+## v0.0
+
+- Archived previous skill contract.
+
+## v0.1 - 2026-05-25
+
+- Added research-quality alignment requirements covering claim/evidence/inference separation, no-context-loss HTML translation, evidence matrices, confidence/assumption registers, source coverage, and research completeness gates.
+
+## v0.2
+
+- Archived previous skill contract.