skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/business-ops/codex/platform-strategy/archive/v0.5/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+name: platform-strategy
+description: Expand from a single product into a multi-product platform — map vertical and horizontal growth vectors, score candidates, design validation experiments, and sequence the portfolio
+type: research
+version: v0.5
+argument-hint: "[optional: expansion direction e.g. \"vertical\", \"horizontal\", or specific adjacent market]"
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Platform Strategy — Multi-Product Expansion Planning
+
+Invoke as `$platform-strategy`.
+
+## 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.
+
+Takes a single-product company and maps the path to a multi-product platform. Identifies vertical (deeper into same customer base) and horizontal (new related product for new customer base) expansion vectors, scores them, designs cheap validation experiments, and produces a sequenced portfolio plan.
+
+## 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
+
+**Required (at least one):**
+- `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — who you serve today
+- A working product/codebase to analyse for extensibility
+
+If neither exists, tell the user: "Platform expansion requires a foundation. Run `$icp` first to define who you serve today, then come back."
+
+**Strongly recommended** (read if they exist):
+- `research/competitive-analysis.md` — market gaps
+- `research/journey-map.md` — user flows, drop-off points
+- `research/metrics.md` — retention, activation baselines
+
+**Optional:** `research/monetization.md`, `research/positioning.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/enterprise-icp.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md`
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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. Assess Core Product Health
+
+Read the codebase, existing research, and metrics to evaluate: PMF signals (retention, activation, satisfaction), technical extensibility (shared infra — auth, billing, data — vs. tightly coupled), team/resource signals, revenue stability.
+
+**Checkpoint 1 — Present core health assessment.** Show health summary, shareable infrastructure, red flags. Ask: "Does this match your sense of where the core product is? Resource constraints to factor in?"
+
+### 2. Map Expansion Vectors
+
+Use web search with **8-12 diverse queries**: adjacent markets, vertical depth (enterprise features, advanced use cases), horizontal breadth (related categories, tools used alongside), platform precedents, user workflow gaps, ecosystem opportunities, acquisition patterns, market trends, adjacent pain points, bundling precedents.
+
+Also analyse codebase and existing research for internal signals: adjacent feature requests from customer feedback, competitor product lines, journey map drop-offs, data/infra that could power new products.
+
+### 3. Identify Expansion Candidates — Present & Validate
+
+Cluster findings into **4-8 candidates** across two axes:
+
+**Vertical:** advanced tiers, deeper workflow coverage, industry-specific variants, data products from existing data.
+
+**Horizontal:** complementary tools, adjacent persona products, same tech applied to different problem, marketplace/platform plays.
+
+For each: problem, audience, relationship to core, market signal, vertical vs. horizontal.
+
+Record the 4-8 candidates in `research/.progress.yaml` as `product_paths[]` entries with `source_skill: platform-strategy`. The top candidate may be `status: active` or `status: revisit_candidate` depending on whether the user is ready to validate it now; non-selected candidates should default to `status: deferred` with validation triggers. Include `id`, `label`, `source_skill: platform-strategy`, `pipeline_stage: platform-strategy`, `scope_path`, `status`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, and `last_touched`.
+
+**Checkpoint 2 — Present candidates.** Group by vertical/horizontal with rationale and evidence. Ask: "Expansion directions I missed? Any clearly wrong? Internal signals pointing toward any of these?"
+
+### 4. Score Expansion Candidates
+
+Score each across five dimensions (1-5 each):
+
+- **Synergy** — shared users, data, infra, cross-sell potential
+- **Market Opportunity** — size, competitive density, willingness to pay, growth
+- **Effort & Risk** — build complexity, time to revenue, tech risk, cannibalization
+- **Strategic Value** — defensibility, brand coherence, sequencing value
+- **Validation Cost** — how cheaply can we test demand
+
+Build a scoring matrix with weighted totals.
+
+### 5. Design Validation Experiments for Top Candidates
+
+For **top 2-3 candidates**: cheapest test method (landing page, fake-door, survey, pre-sale, concierge), audience, success criteria, timeline (1-4 weeks), decision rules (proceed/pivot/kill). Reference `$experiment` for full experiment design.
+
+### 6. Sequence the Portfolio — Present & Validate
+
+Recommend a portfolio sequence: **Now** (next quarter), **Next** (quarter +1), **Later** (6-12 months), **Watch** (12+ months). For each: shared infra needed, dependencies, revenue expectation, kill criteria.
+
+**Checkpoint 3 — Present full portfolio plan.** Show scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations. Ask: "Sequencing match your priorities? Different experiments to run first? Dependencies I'm missing?"
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Only after user validates, write the output files.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) — Full platform strategy: summary, core health, expansion vector map, scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations, next steps.
+- `research/platform-strategy-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy-search-log.md`) — Raw research log: every query, findings, source attribution, scoring rationale.
+- `research/.progress.yaml` — product-path manifest updated with 4-8 expansion candidates. This does not require every candidate to become a full research track.
+
+`## Next Steps` section with a **Recommended** item and **Other options** (2–4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$experiment [top candidate]` — validate demand for the highest-scored expansion candidate before committing resources
+
+Other options:
+- `$assumption-tracker` — track which platform assumptions need validation (if no `research/assumption-tracker.md`)
+- `$competitive-analysis [adjacent category]` — research the competitive landscape for the top expansion candidate
+- `$icp [new audience]` — define the ICP for the new audience the top candidate targets
+- `$enterprise-icp` — map enterprise requirements if the expansion targets enterprise (if no `research/enterprise-icp.md`)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist for the candidate)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist)
+
+The recommendation (`$experiment [top candidate]`) is always applicable — platform expansion should be validated before built.
+
+## 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
+
+- Use web search extensively — every market signal must trace to research evidence.
+- Cite sources for market signals, competitor product lines, trend data.
+- Be honest about uncertainty.
+- Stay in strategy mode — no architecture, features, or technical solutions.
+- Core health is gating — flag PMF problems directly.
+- Score honestly — low-synergy, high-effort candidates should score low.
+- Present before writing — never write until findings are validated.
+- Do not overwrite existing `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) without asking.
+- Keep validation experiments lightweight — full design belongs in `$experiment`.
+- `## Next Steps` must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other options.
+
+## 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/platform-strategy-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/codex/platform-strategy/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: platform-strategy
+description: Expand from a single product into a multi-product platform — map vertical and horizontal growth vectors, score candidates, design validation experiments, and sequence the portfolio
+type: research
+version: v0.6
+argument-hint: "[optional: expansion direction e.g. \"vertical\", \"horizontal\", or specific adjacent market]"
+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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Platform Strategy — Multi-Product Expansion Planning
+
+Invoke as `$platform-strategy`.
+
+## 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.
+
+Takes a single-product company and maps the path to a multi-product platform. Identifies vertical (deeper into same customer base) and horizontal (new related product for new customer base) expansion vectors, scores them, designs cheap validation experiments, and produces a sequenced portfolio plan.
+
+## 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
+
+**Required (at least one):**
+- `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — who you serve today
+- A working product/codebase to analyse for extensibility
+
+If neither exists, tell the user: "Platform expansion requires a foundation. Run `$icp` first to define who you serve today, then come back."
+
+**Strongly recommended** (read if they exist):
+- `research/competitive-analysis.md` — market gaps
+- `research/journey-map.md` — user flows, drop-off points
+- `research/metrics.md` — retention, activation baselines
+
+**Optional:** `research/monetization.md`, `research/positioning.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/enterprise-icp.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md`
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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. Assess Core Product Health
+
+Read the codebase, existing research, and metrics to evaluate: PMF signals (retention, activation, satisfaction), technical extensibility (shared infra — auth, billing, data — vs. tightly coupled), team/resource signals, revenue stability.
+
+**Checkpoint 1 — Present core health assessment.** Show health summary, shareable infrastructure, red flags. Ask: "Does this match your sense of where the core product is? Resource constraints to factor in?"
+
+### 2. Map Expansion Vectors
+
+Use web search with **8-12 diverse queries**: adjacent markets, vertical depth (enterprise features, advanced use cases), horizontal breadth (related categories, tools used alongside), platform precedents, user workflow gaps, ecosystem opportunities, acquisition patterns, market trends, adjacent pain points, bundling precedents.
+
+Also analyse codebase and existing research for internal signals: adjacent feature requests from customer feedback, competitor product lines, journey map drop-offs, data/infra that could power new products.
+
+### 3. Identify Expansion Candidates — Present & Validate
+
+Cluster findings into **4-8 candidates** across two axes:
+
+**Vertical:** advanced tiers, deeper workflow coverage, industry-specific variants, data products from existing data.
+
+**Horizontal:** complementary tools, adjacent persona products, same tech applied to different problem, marketplace/platform plays.
+
+For each: problem, audience, relationship to core, market signal, vertical vs. horizontal.
+
+Record the 4-8 candidates in `research/.progress.yaml` as `product_paths[]` entries with `source_skill: platform-strategy`. The top candidate may be `status: active` or `status: revisit_candidate` depending on whether the user is ready to validate it now; non-selected candidates should default to `status: deferred` with validation triggers. Include `id`, `label`, `source_skill: platform-strategy`, `pipeline_stage: platform-strategy`, `scope_path`, `status`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, and `last_touched`.
+
+**Checkpoint 2 — Present candidates.** Group by vertical/horizontal with rationale and evidence. Ask: "Expansion directions I missed? Any clearly wrong? Internal signals pointing toward any of these?"
+
+### 4. Score Expansion Candidates
+
+Score each across five dimensions (1-5 each):
+
+- **Synergy** — shared users, data, infra, cross-sell potential
+- **Market Opportunity** — size, competitive density, willingness to pay, growth
+- **Effort & Risk** — build complexity, time to revenue, tech risk, cannibalization
+- **Strategic Value** — defensibility, brand coherence, sequencing value
+- **Validation Cost** — how cheaply can we test demand
+
+Build a scoring matrix with weighted totals.
+
+### 5. Design Validation Experiments for Top Candidates
+
+For **top 2-3 candidates**: cheapest test method (landing page, fake-door, survey, pre-sale, concierge), audience, success criteria, timeline (1-4 weeks), decision rules (proceed/pivot/kill). Reference `$experiment` for full experiment design.
+
+### 6. Sequence the Portfolio — Present & Validate
+
+Recommend a portfolio sequence: **Now** (next quarter), **Next** (quarter +1), **Later** (6-12 months), **Watch** (12+ months). For each: shared infra needed, dependencies, revenue expectation, kill criteria.
+
+**Checkpoint 3 — Present full portfolio plan.** Show scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations. Ask: "Sequencing match your priorities? Different experiments to run first? Dependencies I'm missing?"
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Only after user validates, write the output files.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) — Full platform strategy: summary, core health, expansion vector map, scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations, next steps.
+- `research/platform-strategy-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy-search-log.md`) — Raw research log: every query, findings, source attribution, scoring rationale.
+- `research/.progress.yaml` — product-path manifest updated with 4-8 expansion candidates. This does not require every candidate to become a full research track.
+
+`## Next Steps` section with a **Recommended** item and **Other options** (2–4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$experiment [top candidate]` — validate demand for the highest-scored expansion candidate before committing resources
+
+Other options:
+- `$assumption-tracker` — track which platform assumptions need validation (if no `research/assumption-tracker.md`)
+- `$competitive-analysis [adjacent category]` — research the competitive landscape for the top expansion candidate
+- `$icp [new audience]` — define the ICP for the new audience the top candidate targets
+- `$enterprise-icp` — map enterprise requirements if the expansion targets enterprise (if no `research/enterprise-icp.md`)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist for the candidate)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist)
+
+The recommendation (`$experiment [top candidate]`) is always applicable — platform expansion should be validated before built.
+
+## 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
+
+- Use web search extensively — every market signal must trace to research evidence.
+- Cite sources for market signals, competitor product lines, trend data.
+- Be honest about uncertainty.
+- Stay in strategy mode — no architecture, features, or technical solutions.
+- Core health is gating — flag PMF problems directly.
+- Score honestly — low-synergy, high-effort candidates should score low.
+- Present before writing — never write until findings are validated.
+- Do not overwrite existing `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) without asking.
+- Keep validation experiments lightweight — full design belongs in `$experiment`.
+- `## Next Steps` must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other options.
+
+## 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/platform-strategy-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/codex/platform-strategy/archive/v0.7/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: platform-strategy
+description: Expand from a single product into a multi-product platform — map vertical and horizontal growth vectors, score candidates, design validation experiments, and sequence the portfolio
+type: research
+version: v0.7
+argument-hint: "[optional: expansion direction e.g. \"vertical\", \"horizontal\", or specific adjacent market]"
+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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Platform Strategy — Multi-Product Expansion Planning
+
+Invoke as `$platform-strategy`.
+
+## 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.
+
+Takes a single-product company and maps the path to a multi-product platform. Identifies vertical (deeper into same customer base) and horizontal (new related product for new customer base) expansion vectors, scores them, designs cheap validation experiments, and produces a sequenced portfolio plan.
+
+## 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
+
+**Required (at least one):**
+- `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — who you serve today
+- A working product/codebase to analyse for extensibility
+
+If neither exists, tell the user: "Platform expansion requires a foundation. Run `$customer-discovery` first to define who you serve today, then come back."
+
+**Strongly recommended** (read if they exist):
+- `research/competitive-analysis.md` — market gaps
+- `research/journey-map.md` — user flows, drop-off points
+- `research/metrics.md` — retention, activation baselines
+
+**Optional:** `research/monetization.md`, `research/positioning.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/enterprise-icp.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md`
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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. Assess Core Product Health
+
+Read the codebase, existing research, and metrics to evaluate: PMF signals (retention, activation, satisfaction), technical extensibility (shared infra — auth, billing, data — vs. tightly coupled), team/resource signals, revenue stability.
+
+**Checkpoint 1 — Present core health assessment.** Show health summary, shareable infrastructure, red flags. Ask: "Does this match your sense of where the core product is? Resource constraints to factor in?"
+
+### 2. Map Expansion Vectors
+
+Use web search with **8-12 diverse queries**: adjacent markets, vertical depth (enterprise features, advanced use cases), horizontal breadth (related categories, tools used alongside), platform precedents, user workflow gaps, ecosystem opportunities, acquisition patterns, market trends, adjacent pain points, bundling precedents.
+
+Also analyse codebase and existing research for internal signals: adjacent feature requests from customer feedback, competitor product lines, journey map drop-offs, data/infra that could power new products.
+
+### 3. Identify Expansion Candidates — Present & Validate
+
+Cluster findings into **4-8 candidates** across two axes:
+
+**Vertical:** advanced tiers, deeper workflow coverage, industry-specific variants, data products from existing data.
+
+**Horizontal:** complementary tools, adjacent persona products, same tech applied to different problem, marketplace/platform plays.
+
+For each: problem, audience, relationship to core, market signal, vertical vs. horizontal.
+
+Record the 4-8 candidates in `research/.progress.yaml` as `product_paths[]` entries with `source_skill: platform-strategy`. The top candidate may be `status: active` or `status: revisit_candidate` depending on whether the user is ready to validate it now; non-selected candidates should default to `status: deferred` with validation triggers. Include `id`, `label`, `source_skill: platform-strategy`, `pipeline_stage: platform-strategy`, `scope_path`, `status`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, and `last_touched`.
+
+**Checkpoint 2 — Present candidates.** Group by vertical/horizontal with rationale and evidence. Ask: "Expansion directions I missed? Any clearly wrong? Internal signals pointing toward any of these?"
+
+### 4. Score Expansion Candidates
+
+Score each across five dimensions (1-5 each):
+
+- **Synergy** — shared users, data, infra, cross-sell potential
+- **Market Opportunity** — size, competitive density, willingness to pay, growth
+- **Effort & Risk** — build complexity, time to revenue, tech risk, cannibalization
+- **Strategic Value** — defensibility, brand coherence, sequencing value
+- **Validation Cost** — how cheaply can we test demand
+
+Build a scoring matrix with weighted totals.
+
+### 5. Design Validation Experiments for Top Candidates
+
+For **top 2-3 candidates**: cheapest test method (landing page, fake-door, survey, pre-sale, concierge), audience, success criteria, timeline (1-4 weeks), decision rules (proceed/pivot/kill). Reference `$experiment` for full experiment design.
+
+### 6. Sequence the Portfolio — Present & Validate
+
+Recommend a portfolio sequence: **Now** (next quarter), **Next** (quarter +1), **Later** (6-12 months), **Watch** (12+ months). For each: shared infra needed, dependencies, revenue expectation, kill criteria.
+
+**Checkpoint 3 — Present full portfolio plan.** Show scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations. Ask: "Sequencing match your priorities? Different experiments to run first? Dependencies I'm missing?"
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Only after user validates, write the output files.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) — Full platform strategy: summary, core health, expansion vector map, scoring matrix, validation experiments, portfolio sequence, shared platform considerations, next steps.
+- `research/platform-strategy-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy-search-log.md`) — Raw research log: every query, findings, source attribution, scoring rationale.
+- `research/.progress.yaml` — product-path manifest updated with 4-8 expansion candidates. This does not require every candidate to become a full research track.
+
+`## Next Steps` section with a **Recommended** item and **Other options** (2–4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$experiment [top candidate]` — validate demand for the highest-scored expansion candidate before committing resources
+
+Other options:
+- `$assumption-tracker` — track which platform assumptions need validation (if no `research/assumption-tracker.md`)
+- `$competitive-analysis [adjacent category]` — research the competitive landscape for the top expansion candidate
+- `$customer-discovery [new audience]` — run customer discovery for the new audience the top candidate targets
+- `$enterprise-icp` — map enterprise requirements if the expansion targets enterprise (if no `research/enterprise-icp.md`)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist for the candidate)
+- `$roadmap` — sequence the expansion into the build plan (if `specs/` exist)
+
+The recommendation (`$experiment [top candidate]`) is always applicable — platform expansion should be validated before built.
+
+## 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
+
+- Use web search extensively — every market signal must trace to research evidence.
+- Cite sources for market signals, competitor product lines, trend data.
+- Be honest about uncertainty.
+- Stay in strategy mode — no architecture, features, or technical solutions.
+- Core health is gating — flag PMF problems directly.
+- Score honestly — low-synergy, high-effort candidates should score low.
+- Present before writing — never write until findings are validated.
+- Do not overwrite existing `research/platform-strategy.md` (or `research/{slug}/platform-strategy.md`) without asking.
+- Keep validation experiments lightweight — full design belongs in `$experiment`.
+- `## Next Steps` must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other options.
+
+## 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/platform-strategy-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.