skillpacks 0.1.0

package/packs/product-design/claude/ux-variations/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+# Alignment Page — ux-variations
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/ux-variations-{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-ux-variations-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ux-variations-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.
+
+**Variation-specific gates.** Render surfaced assumptions, variation manifest, concept selection, evaluation method, fixed-versus-variable scope, output-location/change-scope decisions, and coverage checkpoint as gates before writing final variation plans. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
+
+**Prototype tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `prototype` tier. In addition to charts and diagrams, functional interactive components (clickable flows, live CSS previews, drag interactions) are permitted. Prototypes are ephemeral previews, not production code. Each interactive component must include a reset button that restores initial state. Interactive components must be self-contained within the HTML file with no external dependencies. Include all visual tier requirements (chart snippets, table fallbacks, aria-labels, toggles) plus: state isolation (no localStorage/sessionStorage persistence), clear "this is a preview" labeling, and graceful degradation when JavaScript is disabled.
+
+**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/ux-variations-{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/ux-variations-{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/ux-variations-{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/ux-variations-{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/ux-variations-{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/product-design/claude/ux-variations/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## v0.14 - 2026-06-10
+
+- Converted the hand-authored alignment-page section to the generator-owned stub plus a bundled `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md`; the page contract now follows the full shared convention (lifecycle states, central alignment index, section feedback, gate/feedback YAML, TTS, browser open) with the ux-variations-specific gates from the generator gate map.
+
+## v0.13 - 2026-06-06
+
+- Clarified the normal AFPS route as `/user-flow-map` then `/ui-interview --requirements-only` before `/ux-variations --layout-mode`.
+- Prefer `specs/user-flow-*.md` plus `specs/ui-requirements-*.md` as layout-mode inputs, and route missing flow structure to `/user-flow-map`.
+
+## v0.12 - 2026-06-05
+
+- Changed alignment-page section feedback so the positive option is `emphasize` with `feedback: emphasize` and `requested_agent_action: add-weight-to-section`, making it a revision/weighting request instead of approval as-is.
+
+
+## v0.11 - 2026-06-04
+
+- Restored version parity with the Codex mirror after verifying the solo-evaluator default is present in the Claude contract.
+
+## v0.10 - 2026-05-31
+
+- Required alignment pages to use a top in-flow Table of Contents instead of sidebar navigation, and to avoid sticky/fixed bottom compile banners.
+- Restored bottom `Compile Feedback YAML` aggregation while keeping local section feedback YAML controls under selected section feedback textareas.
+
+## v0.9 - 2026-05-31
+
+- Kept final `Compile Answers` at the bottom while moving feedback-only YAML display/copy controls under each selected section feedback textarea.
+- Clarified that section thumbs up/down/clarify selections always reveal their own multiline feedback textarea even when the section also has gate-question inputs.
+
+## v0.8 - 2026-05-31
+
+- Added top-level `alignment_page` to feedback-only and final compiled YAML so agents can reopen the exact HTML review page.
+
+## v0.7 - 2026-05-30
+
+- Added feedback-only YAML alignment-page handling so section concerns and clarification requests can be sent before final gate answers.
+
+## v0.6 - 2026-05-30
+
+- Added product-path scope resolution that prefers non-archived `research/{slug}/` paths and active manifest paths before code or monorepo hints.
+- Excluded `research/_archive/`, legacy `abandoned`, `archived`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, and `promoted` paths from active target selection while preserving flat `research/*.md` compatibility.
+
+
+## v0.5 - 2026-05-27
+
+- Handle plural `active_paths` manifest field with backward compatibility for singular `active_path`
+
+## v0.4 - 2026-05-27
+
+- Added product-path manifest handling for UX route experiments that imply materially different products, apps, ICPs, or product lines while keeping ordinary variants on the active path.
+
+## v0.0
+
+- Archived previous skill contract.
+
+## v0.3 - 2026-05-27
+
+- Added an explicit local alignment preview gate before canonical variation plan writes and downstream routing.
+
+## v0.1 - 2026-05-25
+
+- Added research-quality alignment requirements covering claim/evidence/inference separation, no-context-loss HTML translation, evidence matrices, confidence/assumption registers, source coverage, and research completeness gates.
+
+## v0.2 - 2026-05-26
+
+- Gate cross-pack routing recommendations on pack availability — recommend `/pack install <pack>` when the target pack is not enabled

package/packs/product-design/claude/ux-variations/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+name: ux-variations
+description: Interview and plan multiple UX and UI variations for a product, page, or flow, including onboarding, typical workflows, sharing, collaboration, return use, and interface alternatives users can compare before locking a direction — and concrete visual/layout UI variations (component choices, spatial arrangements, information density)
+type: planning
+version: v0.14
+argument-hint: "[optional: app, page, flow, feature, or existing UI spec]"
+visual_tier: prototype
+---
+
+# UX Variations
+
+Invoke as `/ux-variations`.
+
+Use this skill when the user wants to explore multiple UX/UI directions before committing to a final experience. This skill interrogates the full user journey: onboarding, first success, typical workflows, sharing and collaboration, return use, notifications, handoffs, failure recovery, and the interface patterns that support those moments. It then creates variation plans for flows, layouts, navigation models, interaction patterns, component choices, content density, visual tone, and behavior so the user can compare, test, and lock one direction.
+
+In the normal AFPS product route, use `/user-flow-map` first to lock screen flow, decisions, branches, states, and low-fidelity wireframe notes, then use `/ui-interview --requirements-only` to lock the per-screen content/data/action contract, then run `/ux-variations --layout-mode`.
+
+Use `/user-flow-map` first when the interface has no credible flow structure. Use `/ui-interview --requirements-only` first when the flow exists but the page content, actions, and states are not specified. Use this skill directly only when a user-flow map plus UI requirements, current implementation, screenshot, prototype, or clear feature scope already exists.
+
+When invoked with `--layout-mode` (or when the user says "layout mode", "layout variations", or "UI variations"), this skill operates at the concrete component/layout level — it varies HOW the same content is presented visually, not WHAT the user flow is. Layout-mode takes a fixed flow contract from `specs/user-flow-[topic].md` plus a fixed content contract from `specs/ui-requirements-[topic].md` or equivalent and generates 2-5 concrete visual/spatial approaches: different container patterns, detail views, navigation styles, density levels, and responsive strategies. Each variation is specified well enough to build as a lightweight implementation, then evaluated through `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` first) before `/consolidate-variations`.
+
+## 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. **Resolve context**
+   - Read `.agents/project.json` if it exists.
+   - Read `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, relevant `docs/`, `specs/`, `research/`, task files, screenshots, route files, and component implementations when present.
+   - Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize `active_path` (singular legacy) to `active_paths` (plural list) when reading; treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived` and exclude archived/deferred/revisit/promoted paths plus `research/_archive/` scopes from active target selection. Use `active_paths` as the product/app focuses and treat deferred `product_paths[]` as parked product directions, not required UX variants.
+   - Prefer existing `specs/user-flow-*.md` plus `specs/ui-requirements-*.md` as the normal AFPS layout-mode inputs.
+   - Also read `specs/ui-*.md`, product specs, journey maps, ICP research, positioning research, and user feedback as source evidence.
+   - If no credible flow structure exists, run or recommend `/user-flow-map` before developing variants.
+   - If flow exists but no credible content/data/action contract exists, run or recommend `/ui-interview --requirements-only` before developing layout-mode variants.
+
+2. **Define the decision surface**
+   - Identify what the user is deciding: whole app experience, onboarding, activation, typical workflow, sharing flow, collaboration model, purchase flow, editor, dashboard, settings, mobile experience, page layout, or another bounded surface.
+   - Identify which dimensions may vary: first-run onboarding, activation, core workflow sequencing, sharing, invitations, permissions, collaboration, return-use loops, notifications, reminders, status surfaces, user or device handoffs, failure recovery, information architecture, navigation, page layout, task flow order, component model, data density, visual hierarchy, motion, copy tone, and mobile behavior.
+   - Identify fixed constraints: brand, stack, design system, must-keep components, accessibility, launch scope, performance, and business requirements.
+   - **Layout-mode addition**: In layout-mode, read `specs/user-flow-[topic].md` as the fixed screen-flow contract and `specs/ui-requirements-[topic].md` as the fixed content contract. The WHAT and flow order are locked; only the HOW varies. Layout dimensions that can vary:
+     - Container pattern: card grid, data table, list, kanban, timeline, tree, masonry
+     - Detail pattern: sidebar panel, full-page route, modal, drawer, inline expand, popover
+     - Navigation: top-nav, side-nav, tab-based, breadcrumb-driven, command-palette, hybrid
+     - Density: compact, comfortable, spacious
+     - Hierarchy: content-first, chrome-first, action-first
+     - Responsive strategy: reflow, collapse, separate mobile layout, progressive disclosure
+
+3. **Surface assumptions before probing**
+   - Present a UX Variation Assumptions Manifest before deep questioning.
+   - Tag assumptions with `[from spec]`, `[from codebase]`, `[from research]`, `[from artifact]`, or `[inferred]`.
+   - Cover target users, usage context, first-run moment, activation event, "aha" threshold, typical repeat-use workflow, sharing and collaboration assumptions, permissions, return triggers, notifications, re-engagement assumptions, handoffs, pain points, locked versus open decisions, evaluation criteria, required variant breadth, prototype fidelity, implementation budget, success metrics, and selection method.
+   - Use AskUserQuestion to ask the user to confirm, correct, or flag assumptions before proceeding.
+
+4. **Interview for variation goals**
+   - Ask 1 to 3 focused questions per turn using AskUserQuestion.
+   - Default to maximally contrasting archetypes. Do not ask how different variants should be — assume dramatic contrast unless the user explicitly requests graduated steps.
+   - Default evaluation method is: build each variation, then run `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` first) so the user has task-based evidence before consolidation. Do not ask who will judge — assume solo evaluator building and gut-checking unless the user states otherwise.
+   - When presenting a design decision with 3+ plausible answers during the interview, always include "Make this a variant axis (test all approaches)" as an option. When the user has already chosen "test all" for a prior question in the same session, default subsequent ambiguous decisions to variant axes without asking.
+   - Establish what the variants must accomplish, how a new user arrives and reaches first value, what the normal repeat workflow looks like, what users create/save/share/export/invite others into, what roles or permission levels exist, what notifications or status updates users expect, how users resume work after time away, what happens when a workflow is abandoned or blocked, which current interface parts work, which parts feel wrong or uncertain, what would make a variant unacceptable, and what evidence will decide the winner.
+   - When the user is unsure, recommend a practical default and explain why.
+   - **Layout-mode interview additions**: When in layout-mode, also ask:
+     - What is the primary user task on this page? (scan, search, create, compare, monitor, triage)
+     - How much data will typically be visible? (5 items, 50 items, 500 items)
+     - Are there reference apps or pages the user admires for this type of content?
+     - Are any layout patterns explicitly off the table?
+     - What is the build budget per variation? (quick prototype, medium fidelity, production-ready)
+     - What must the user do in each built variant before they are ready to consolidate?
+
+5. **Create distinct variation concepts**
+   - Produce 5 variations by default. Present the concepts for adjustment — do not ask the user to choose a count first.
+   - Each variation must be meaningfully different, not just a color or spacing change.
+   - At this stage, keep each concept lightweight: name, thesis, archetype, best-fit user/context, core workflow difference, major tradeoff, and rough complexity. Do not fully specify screens, controls, or implementation details yet.
+   - Useful archetypes include task-first workflow, data-dense operator console, guided step-by-step flow, onboarding-first activation path, collaboration-first workspace, sharing-first artifact flow, notification/status-driven workflow, role-based handoff workflow, visual canvas or board, command/search-first interface, mobile-first progressive disclosure, familiar SaaS dashboard, and editorial or showcase layout.
+   - Only choose archetypes that fit the product and user context.
+   - **Layout-mode archetypes** (use these instead of the UX-flow archetypes above when in layout-mode):
+     - Card grid: visual items in a responsive grid, good for browsing and scanning
+     - Data table: dense rows with sortable/filterable columns, good for operators and power users
+     - List + detail panel: master list on left, detail sidebar on right, good for email/messaging patterns
+     - Full-page detail: list view navigates to full-page item view, good for content-heavy items
+     - Kanban / board: columns representing states or categories, good for workflow and status tracking
+     - Timeline / feed: chronological stream, good for activity, logs, and social patterns
+     - Dashboard mosaic: mixed widget grid with charts, lists, and stats, good for monitoring and overview
+     - Split-pane workspace: resizable panels for parallel content, good for editors and comparison
+     - Command-first minimal: search/command bar with minimal chrome, good for keyboard-heavy power users
+     - Sidebar-driven: persistent sidebar navigation with content area, good for settings and multi-section apps
+
+6. **Concept selection checkpoint**
+   - Before fully specifying any variant, ask the user to adjust the concept set.
+   - Use bounded wording such as: "How should I adjust these UX variants before writing the final spec?"
+   - Present clear options:
+     - Keep all concepts
+     - Make one concept bolder or more extreme
+     - Add another concept
+   - Do not ask the user to remove or merge concepts before they have been built. Pre-build narrowing is consistently rejected.
+   - Ask the user to name the affected concept and briefly describe the change when they choose anything other than keeping all concepts.
+   - Recommend a practical default when evidence supports it; do not imply that variants have already been built or committed.
+   - Revise the concept set based on the answer before moving on.
+
+7. **Specify each approved variation enough to build**
+   - For each variation, define name and thesis, target user fit, onboarding and activation model, typical workflow sequence, sharing and collaboration model, permissions model, return-use and notification model, failure recovery behavior, page and flow changes, navigation model, screen-by-screen layout, key components and controls, button and link behavior, spatial density, sizing, hierarchy, responsive behavior, visual tone, strengths, risks, failure modes, implementation complexity, prototype scope, and winning signal.
+   - **Layout-mode variation spec additions**: In layout-mode, each variation spec must also include:
+     - Content-to-component mapping: which content requirement maps to which UI component
+     - Page regions with approximate proportions (e.g., sidebar 280px, content fluid, detail panel 400px)
+     - Primary content component (the main way items are displayed)
+     - Detail view pattern (how a single item's full details are accessed)
+     - Action placement (where create, edit, delete, and bulk actions live)
+     - Navigation pattern and placement
+     - Responsive behavior at 3 breakpoints (mobile ≤640px, tablet ≤1024px, desktop >1024px)
+     - Density approach (line-height, padding, font sizes, information per viewport)
+     - States rendering (how empty, loading, error, and partial states appear in this layout)
+     - Implementation file list (components, routes, layouts to create or modify)
+     - Estimated build time (hours)
+     - Variant evaluation task: the user task to perform in this variation before consolidation
+     - Evidence to capture: screenshots, notes, time-to-complete, friction points, and acceptance/rejection signals
+
+8. **Plan experimentation**
+   - Recommend serial full buildout of all approved variants. Do not recommend building a subset first — the user's consistent preference is to build all variants before evaluating.
+   - For prototype-stage product or feature work, prefer numerous small route-based experiments over one merged prototype when multiple workflows, layouts, densities, copy approaches, navigation models, or interaction patterns remain plausible. Name the route for each experiment, such as `/experiments/table-first`, `/experiments/command-first`, or the project's equivalent, and keep shared production infrastructure out of those routes unless explicitly approved.
+   - If route experiments imply materially different products, apps, ICPs, or product lines, update `research/.progress.yaml` with experiment product-path entries instead of making every divergent path a required UX variation. Include `id`, `label`, `source_skill: ux-variations`, `scope_path`, `status`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, `pipeline_stage: ux-variations`, and `last_touched`.
+   - After variants are built, recommend `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` first) before `/consolidate-variations`. Consolidation is premature until evaluation evidence exists or the user explicitly says they reviewed the variants and is ready to converge.
+   - Define comparison criteria before selecting a winner.
+   - Include a lock-in checklist so the chosen direction becomes a decision record, not a vague preference.
+   - Include a UAT handoff checklist: target task for each variant, success criteria, side-by-side comparison questions, evidence to capture, tradeoffs to notice, and readiness criteria for `/consolidate-variations`.
+
+9. **Coverage checkpoint**
+   - Before concluding, use AskUserQuestion to summarize the variants, decision criteria, and experiment plan.
+   - Ask whether any decision criteria, risks, validation steps, or implementation constraints are missing before writing deliverables.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- Write the variation plan to `specs/ux-variations-[topic].md`.
+- Write the interview log to `ux-variations-[topic]-interview.md`.
+- Update `research/.progress.yaml` only when variant or route experiments create materially different product paths; downstream research remains active-path-only until a path is activated.
+
+### 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/ux-variations-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not present superficial variants that differ only by color palette, typography, or decorative treatment.
+- Do not choose a winner for the user unless the evidence clearly supports it and the user asked for a recommendation.
+- Do not defer all decisions to testing. State a recommended variant or experiment when evidence is sufficient.
+- Do not ignore implementation cost. A compelling variation still needs a prototype path and selection criteria.
+- Do not route directly from built UI variants to `/consolidate-variations`; insert `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` first) unless the user explicitly confirms they have already evaluated the variants.
+- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, prepend `/pack install <pack-name>` to the recommendation.
+- Do not enforce shared design constraints across variations. Each variation independently decides layout, density, color, navigation, and component choices. Only technical stack (framework, renderer, design system tokens) is shared unless the user explicitly locks a shared constraint.
+
+## Archive-First Replacement Policy
+
+- Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+- Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
+- After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
+- Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
+- New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.