skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/code-review/claude/expert-review/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# Alignment Page — expert-review
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/expert-review-{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-expert-review-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-expert-review-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.
+
+**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/expert-review-{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/expert-review-{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/expert-review-{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/expert-review-{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/expert-review-{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/code-review/claude/expert-review/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## 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.

package/packs/code-review/claude/expert-review/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,108 @@
+---
+name: expert-review
+description: Conduct a thorough project-wide code review as an expert panel, cross-referencing specs, changelogs, and design documents
+type: review
+version: v0.1
+argument-hint: "[optional: specific directory or file path to scope the review]"
+---
+
+# Expert Code Review
+
+Conduct a thorough code review of this project serving as a panel of expert programmers and code architects emphasizing industry best practice. Findings are cross-referenced against project documentation to avoid contradicting intentional design decisions.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Gather project context**:
+   - Read `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md`, and any project config files to understand conventions and architecture.
+   - Search for and read project documentation: specs (`specs/`, `spec.md`, `docs/`), changelogs (`CHANGELOG.md`, `CHANGES.md`, `tasks/history.md`), ADRs (`adr/`, `docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`), interview logs (`*-__interview.md__`), and design docs.
+   - Read `tasks/roadmap.md` if it exists to understand the full plan. Read `tasks/todo.md` for current phase and in-progress work. Read `tasks/manual-todo.md` (if it exists) for pending manual tasks. Read `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` (if they exist) for advisory context only.
+   - Build a mental model of **intentional decisions** — patterns, trade-offs, and constraints the team has deliberately chosen.
+
+2. **Scope**: If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided, focus the review on that path. Otherwise, review the entire project.
+
+3. **Explore the codebase**: Read the project structure, key files, configuration, and source code. Understand the architecture before critiquing it.
+
+4. **Review against these dimensions**:
+   - **Correctness**: Bugs, logic errors, race conditions, off-by-one errors, null/undefined handling
+   - **Security**: OWASP top 10, injection vulnerabilities, auth/authz issues, secrets exposure, input validation
+   - **Performance**: N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, missing indexes, memory leaks, expensive operations in hot paths
+   - **Architecture**: Separation of concerns, coupling, cohesion, dependency direction, appropriate abstractions (not over-engineered)
+   - **Error handling**: Missing error cases, swallowed errors, unclear error messages, missing fallbacks
+   - **Code quality**: Dead code, duplication, naming clarity, overly complex functions, missing types
+   - **Testing**: Missing test coverage for critical paths, brittle tests, untested edge cases
+   - **Dependencies**: Outdated packages, unused dependencies, security vulnerabilities in deps
+   - **Spec conformance**: Code that diverges from documented specs, missing features that specs require, or behaviour that contradicts documented design decisions
+
+5. **Cross-reference each finding against documentation**:
+   - Before reporting a finding, check if the pattern was an intentional decision documented in specs, ADRs, changelogs, or interview logs.
+   - If a finding contradicts a documented decision, **do not report it as an issue**. Instead, note it under "Documented decisions" in the output.
+   - If a finding reveals a gap between the spec and the implementation where the spec appears to be the intended source of truth, flag it as a spec conformance issue.
+
+6. **Verify findings (false-positive filter)**:
+   - Before finalizing, re-read the actual source code for every finding. For each one, confirm:
+     - The code actually behaves the way you claimed — re-read the lines and surrounding context, don't rely on memory.
+     - The issue isn't handled elsewhere (e.g., a guard clause upstream, a middleware, a wrapper, or a caller that validates input before passing it in).
+     - The dependency/import you flagged actually exists (or doesn't) — check `package.json`, lock files, or import maps rather than assuming.
+     - The "missing" test coverage isn't already covered by a test under a different name or in a different test file.
+   - **Drop any finding you cannot re-confirm with a second read.** If uncertain, downgrade rather than drop — move it to Low with a note that it needs manual verification.
+
+## Output
+
+Report findings as a prioritized list grouped by severity:
+
+### Critical (must fix — bugs, security issues, data loss risks)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### High (should fix — performance, architecture, error handling)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Medium (improve — code quality, testing gaps, maintainability)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Low (consider — style, minor improvements, nice-to-haves)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Spec conformance
+- **[File:line]** Where code diverges from documented specs or design docs, with reference to the relevant document
+
+### Documented decisions (no action needed)
+- Patterns that might look like issues but are intentional, with reference to the document that explains why
+
+### Positive observations
+- Note things done well — good patterns worth preserving
+
+## Follow-Through
+
+After presenting findings, write Critical and High implementation fixes to `tasks/todo.md`. If a Critical/High observation is a non-blocking future validation or condition-gated measurement rather than a fix, write it to `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule:
+
+1. Read `tasks/todo.md` if it exists — append to the end under a `## Code Review Fixes` heading (create the file if it doesn't exist).
+2. Add one checkbox item per Critical or High finding:
+   ```markdown
+   ## Code Review Fixes
+   > Generated by `/expert-review` on [date]
+   ### Critical
+   - [ ] [File:line] — Description + recommended fix
+   ### High
+   - [ ] [File:line] — Description + recommended fix
+   ```
+3. Do **not** add Medium, Low, or Positive observations — only Critical and High are actionable todos.
+4. If `tasks/todo.md` already has a `## Code Review Fixes` section, replace it with the fresh review results.
+5. Tell the user how many items were added and suggest `/exec` or `/investigate` to start fixing.
+
+## Constraints
+- Be specific — always include file paths and line numbers.
+- Every issue must have a concrete recommended fix, not just "improve this."
+- Do not flag style preferences or nitpicks unless they impact readability significantly.
+- Do not suggest adding comments, docstrings, or type annotations unless something is genuinely confusing.
+- Focus on substance over quantity — 5 critical findings are more valuable than 50 nitpicks.
+- **Never flag an intentional design decision as an issue.** If documentation explains why something is done a certain way, respect it. If you disagree with the decision, note it under "Documented decisions" with your reasoning, but do not classify it as a finding.
+- If no project documentation exists, proceed with the review but note the absence and recommend establishing specs or ADRs.
+
+
+## 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/expert-review-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/code-review/claude/expert-review/archive/v0.0/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+name: expert-review
+description: Conduct a thorough project-wide code review as an expert panel, cross-referencing specs, changelogs, and design documents
+type: review
+version: v0.0
+argument-hint: "[optional: specific directory or file path to scope the review]"
+---
+
+# Expert Code Review
+
+Conduct a thorough code review of this project serving as a panel of expert programmers and code architects emphasizing industry best practice. Findings are cross-referenced against project documentation to avoid contradicting intentional design decisions.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Gather project context**:
+   - Read `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md`, and any project config files to understand conventions and architecture.
+   - Search for and read project documentation: specs (`specs/`, `spec.md`, `docs/`), changelogs (`CHANGELOG.md`, `CHANGES.md`, `tasks/history.md`), ADRs (`adr/`, `docs/adr/`, `docs/decisions/`), interview logs (`*-__interview.md__`), and design docs.
+   - Read `tasks/roadmap.md` if it exists to understand the full plan. Read `tasks/todo.md` for current phase and in-progress work. Read `tasks/manual-todo.md` (if it exists) for pending manual tasks. Read `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` (if they exist) for advisory context only.
+   - Build a mental model of **intentional decisions** — patterns, trade-offs, and constraints the team has deliberately chosen.
+
+2. **Scope**: If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided, focus the review on that path. Otherwise, review the entire project.
+
+3. **Explore the codebase**: Read the project structure, key files, configuration, and source code. Understand the architecture before critiquing it.
+
+4. **Review against these dimensions**:
+   - **Correctness**: Bugs, logic errors, race conditions, off-by-one errors, null/undefined handling
+   - **Security**: OWASP top 10, injection vulnerabilities, auth/authz issues, secrets exposure, input validation
+   - **Performance**: N+1 queries, unnecessary re-renders, missing indexes, memory leaks, expensive operations in hot paths
+   - **Architecture**: Separation of concerns, coupling, cohesion, dependency direction, appropriate abstractions (not over-engineered)
+   - **Error handling**: Missing error cases, swallowed errors, unclear error messages, missing fallbacks
+   - **Code quality**: Dead code, duplication, naming clarity, overly complex functions, missing types
+   - **Testing**: Missing test coverage for critical paths, brittle tests, untested edge cases
+   - **Dependencies**: Outdated packages, unused dependencies, security vulnerabilities in deps
+   - **Spec conformance**: Code that diverges from documented specs, missing features that specs require, or behaviour that contradicts documented design decisions
+
+5. **Cross-reference each finding against documentation**:
+   - Before reporting a finding, check if the pattern was an intentional decision documented in specs, ADRs, changelogs, or interview logs.
+   - If a finding contradicts a documented decision, **do not report it as an issue**. Instead, note it under "Documented decisions" in the output.
+   - If a finding reveals a gap between the spec and the implementation where the spec appears to be the intended source of truth, flag it as a spec conformance issue.
+
+6. **Verify findings (false-positive filter)**:
+   - Before finalizing, re-read the actual source code for every finding. For each one, confirm:
+     - The code actually behaves the way you claimed — re-read the lines and surrounding context, don't rely on memory.
+     - The issue isn't handled elsewhere (e.g., a guard clause upstream, a middleware, a wrapper, or a caller that validates input before passing it in).
+     - The dependency/import you flagged actually exists (or doesn't) — check `package.json`, lock files, or import maps rather than assuming.
+     - The "missing" test coverage isn't already covered by a test under a different name or in a different test file.
+   - **Drop any finding you cannot re-confirm with a second read.** If uncertain, downgrade rather than drop — move it to Low with a note that it needs manual verification.
+
+## Output Format
+
+Report findings as a prioritized list grouped by severity:
+
+### Critical (must fix — bugs, security issues, data loss risks)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### High (should fix — performance, architecture, error handling)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Medium (improve — code quality, testing gaps, maintainability)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Low (consider — style, minor improvements, nice-to-haves)
+- **[File:line]** Description of issue and recommended fix
+
+### Spec conformance
+- **[File:line]** Where code diverges from documented specs or design docs, with reference to the relevant document
+
+### Documented decisions (no action needed)
+- Patterns that might look like issues but are intentional, with reference to the document that explains why
+
+### Positive observations
+- Note things done well — good patterns worth preserving
+
+## Follow-Through
+
+After presenting findings, write Critical and High implementation fixes to `tasks/todo.md`. If a Critical/High observation is a non-blocking future validation or condition-gated measurement rather than a fix, write it to `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule:
+
+1. Read `tasks/todo.md` if it exists — append to the end under a `## Code Review Fixes` heading (create the file if it doesn't exist).
+2. Add one checkbox item per Critical or High finding:
+   ```markdown
+   ## Code Review Fixes
+   > Generated by `/expert-review` on [date]
+   ### Critical
+   - [ ] [File:line] — Description + recommended fix
+   ### High
+   - [ ] [File:line] — Description + recommended fix
+   ```
+3. Do **not** add Medium, Low, or Positive observations — only Critical and High are actionable todos.
+4. If `tasks/todo.md` already has a `## Code Review Fixes` section, replace it with the fresh review results.
+5. Tell the user how many items were added and suggest `/run` or `/investigate` to start fixing.
+
+## Constraints
+- Be specific — always include file paths and line numbers.
+- Every issue must have a concrete recommended fix, not just "improve this."
+- Do not flag style preferences or nitpicks unless they impact readability significantly.
+- Do not suggest adding comments, docstrings, or type annotations unless something is genuinely confusing.
+- Focus on substance over quantity — 5 critical findings are more valuable than 50 nitpicks.
+- **Never flag an intentional design decision as an issue.** If documentation explains why something is done a certain way, respect it. If you disagree with the decision, note it under "Documented decisions" with your reasoning, but do not classify it as a finding.
+- If no project documentation exists, proceed with the review but note the absence and recommend establishing specs or ADRs.
+
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/expert-review-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+
+**Full content requirement.** The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item. It is a thorough interactive review document, not a summary. Render the full deliverable content in clean, readable HTML with appropriate hierarchy, styling, and navigation. If the skill writes multiple scoped deliverables in one run, build one alignment page that contains all deliverables with anchor-linked navigation. Durable tracker artifacts, such as `research/assumption-tracker.md`, remain canonical markdown outputs but must also be fully rendered into the alignment page before approval.
+
+**Dark-mode styling.** Use a dark color scheme by default. Base CSS variables: `--bg: #0d1117; --surface: #161b22; --border: #30363d; --text: #c9d1d9; --text-muted: #8b949e; --accent: #58a6ff; --green: #3fb950; --red: #f85149; --orange: #d29922; --purple: #bc8cff;`. Apply `background: var(--bg); color: var(--text);` on body. Use `--surface` for cards, nav, and table headers. Use `--border` for all borders. Use `--purple` for question blocks and gate headings. Use `--accent` for links and section headings. Keep headings `color: #fff` or `var(--accent)` for hierarchy. Question block backgrounds should use `#1c2333`.
+
+**Alignment gates.** Treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization until its required inline questions are answered and compiled into YAML. Include every gate that applies to the skill output, and include these gate types whenever relevant: evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, scope/non-goals, candidate/verdict decisions, artifact destination, proposed file changes, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route.
+
+**Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the alignment page must explicitly contain evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before any canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
+
+
+**Required inline questions.** Each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section.
+
+**Gate YAML contract.** At the bottom of the page, include a "Compile Answers" button that aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with one item per gate answer using this stable shape: `section`, `gate_type`, `status` (`answered`, `other`, or `needs-clarification`), `answer`, optional `notes`, and optional `target_artifact` or `target_path` when the gate controls file output. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked.
+
+**Pre-approval stop.** Before user approval, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide the compiled YAML answers. Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language until after compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.
+
+**Diff highlighting on updates.** When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving compiled answers, highlight what changed since the previous version. The agent chooses inline annotation or side-by-side layout per situation.
+
+**Archiving.** Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/expert-review-{topic}.html`.
+
+**Browser open.** Attempt to open the resulting HTML page in the browser and report whether the open succeeded or was blocked. A blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail when the files were written correctly.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+- **Default next-step routing:** when reporting completion, include either `Recommended next skill: <command>` or the two-line pair `**Next work:** <specific task or "none">` and `**Recommended next command:** <one command or route>` so the next operator has a concrete handoff.
+- If this skill creates or modifies tracked repository files, finish by committing and pushing all intended changes to the repository primary branch (`main` when present, otherwise `master`) before stopping, even if the user did not explicitly ask for commit/push.
+- Do not leave tracked changes or unpushed commits behind. If unrelated tracked work is already present, either include it in sensible commits too or stop and explain the blocker.
+- This contract does not override stricter safety rules about secrets, destructive history changes, release publication/tag confirmation, or production deploy confirmation.

package/packs/code-review/claude/regression-check/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# Alignment Page — regression-check
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/regression-check-{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-regression-check-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-regression-check-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.
+
+**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/regression-check-{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/regression-check-{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/regression-check-{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/regression-check-{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/regression-check-{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/code-review/claude/regression-check/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## 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.