skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/archive/v0.16/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,357 @@
+---
+name: positioning
+description: Orchestrator — detect market vs product mode, recommend positioning frameworks, synthesize outputs into unified positioning
+type: research
+version: v0.16
+argument-hint: "[optional: \"product\" | \"--synthesize\" | focus area]"
+context_intake: scoped
+visual_tier: visual
+invocation: orchestrator
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Positioning — Orchestrator
+
+This is an **orchestrator skill** using the parent router delegation pattern (see `docs/orchestrator-convention.md`). It detects context, recommends applicable positioning frameworks, and synthesizes their outputs. Individual frameworks live as child skills under `frameworks/`.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML 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 perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML 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-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML 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 below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Strong default**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) should exist before writing canonical positioning. If missing, recommend `/journey-map` first unless the user explicitly needs a provisional positioning analysis.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where value is delivered, the aha moment
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer language about what makes the product different
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing context for value perception
+
+## Operational Modes
+
+### Mode A: Framework Selection (default first invocation)
+
+Activated by: `/positioning` or `/positioning [focus area]` (no special flags).
+
+### Mode B: Synthesis
+
+Activated by: `/positioning --synthesize`
+
+### Mode C: Product-Positioning Shortcut
+
+Activated by: `/positioning product` or `/positioning post-launch` or `/positioning obviously-awesome`
+
+---
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Mode Detection
+
+Detect **market-positioning mode** (default) or **product-positioning mode**:
+
+**Market-positioning mode** activates when:
+- No `research/customer-feedback.md` with post-launch customer evidence, AND
+- No production codebase with live users detected, AND
+- `$ARGUMENTS` does not contain "product", "post-launch", or "obviously-awesome"
+
+Available frameworks in market mode:
+- `jtbd-positioning` — Jobs-to-be-Done positioning analysis
+- `strategic-canvas` — Blue Ocean strategic canvas (eliminate/reduce/raise/create)
+- `moore-positioning` — Geoffrey Moore positioning hypothesis
+- `category-design` — Play Bigger category creation
+
+**Product-positioning mode** activates when:
+- `research/customer-feedback.md` exists with real customer data, OR
+- `$ARGUMENTS` contains "product", "post-launch", or "obviously-awesome", OR
+- Production spec exists AND customer feedback references real users
+
+Available frameworks in product mode:
+- `obviously-awesome` — April Dunford (requires real customer evidence)
+- `strategic-canvas` — optionally, for category refresh
+
+### 2. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, gaps
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` if it exists — aha moment, value delivery
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists — real language, satisfaction drivers
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+- Read any existing `research/positioning-*.md` intermediate artifacts (from prior runs)
+
+### 3. Mode A — Framework Selection
+
+Build an alignment page with:
+
+1. **Mode explanation**: which mode was detected and why (evidence for detection)
+2. **Available evidence summary**: what research exists and what's missing
+3. **Multi-select framework section**: checkboxes for each available framework with:
+   - Framework name and one-line description
+   - Why it's recommended or optional for this context
+   - Pre-checked defaults based on available evidence:
+     - Market mode defaults: `jtbd-positioning` + `strategic-canvas` + `moore-positioning` pre-checked; `category-design` unchecked (recommended only when strategic canvas shows no existing category fits)
+     - Product mode defaults: `obviously-awesome` pre-checked; `strategic-canvas` unchecked (optional refresh)
+4. **Execution plan explanation**: selected frameworks will be written to `tasks/todo.md` for sequential `/exec` execution
+5. **Approval gate**: framework selection confirmation
+
+After user approval via compiled YAML (which includes `selected_frameworks` list):
+
+Write selected frameworks as sequential steps in `tasks/todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Positioning Framework Execution
+
+- [ ] Run `/positioning/frameworks/jtbd-positioning` — JTBD analysis
+- [ ] Run `/positioning/frameworks/strategic-canvas` — Blue Ocean gap analysis
+- [ ] Run `/positioning/frameworks/moore-positioning` — Positioning hypothesis
+- [ ] Synthesize: `/positioning --synthesize` — Combine framework outputs into research/positioning.md
+```
+
+Only include frameworks the user selected. Always append the synthesis step last.
+
+Stop after writing `tasks/todo.md`. The user runs `/exec` to execute each framework sequentially.
+
+### 4. Mode B — Synthesis (`/positioning --synthesize`)
+
+Read all intermediate framework outputs:
+- `research/positioning-jtbd.md`
+- `research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md`
+- `research/positioning-moore.md`
+- `research/positioning-category-design.md`
+- `research/positioning-obviously-awesome.md`
+
+At least one must exist. If none exist, tell user to run framework selection first.
+
+Synthesize into unified `research/positioning.md`:
+
+**Market-positioning synthesis includes:**
+- Combined positioning hypothesis drawing from all framework outputs
+- Moore template filled with evidence from JTBD + Canvas + Category analysis
+- Evidence matrix: each claim mapped to which framework(s) support it
+- Confidence levels per claim (strong/moderate/hypothesized)
+- Validation plan: what needs testing before the position is canonical
+- Mode header: `> Mode: Market Positioning (hypothesized, pre-product)`
+
+**Product-positioning synthesis includes:**
+- Positioning statement (Obviously Awesome output)
+- Evidence matrix grounded in customer feedback
+- Confidence levels (most should be "strong" — backed by customer data)
+- Mode header: `> Mode: Product Positioning (customer-grounded)`
+
+Build alignment page for synthesis approval with:
+- Full proposed `research/positioning.md` content
+- Evidence matrix combining all framework sources
+- Confidence/assumption register
+- Proposed file changes gate
+- Approval gate
+
+After approval: write `research/positioning.md`, then emit next-step routing.
+
+### 5. Mode C — Product-Positioning Shortcut
+
+Skip multi-select. Build an alignment page for the shortcut execution plan with:
+
+1. **Shortcut explanation**: product-positioning shortcut selected and why `obviously-awesome` is the only queued framework
+2. **Evidence readiness**: customer-feedback requirement and any missing evidence caveats
+3. **Proposed execution plan**: the exact `tasks/todo.md` framework queue shown below
+4. **Approval gate**: require final compiled YAML approval before writing `tasks/todo.md`
+
+Do not write `tasks/todo.md` before alignment approval. The next action is review of the HTML alignment page.
+
+After user approval via final compiled YAML, write this execution plan to `tasks/todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Positioning Framework Execution
+
+- [ ] Run `/positioning/frameworks/obviously-awesome` — April Dunford positioning
+- [ ] Synthesize: `/positioning --synthesize` — Write research/positioning.md
+```
+
+Stop — user runs `/exec`.
+
+### 6. Next Steps (after synthesis only)
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Recommended + Other options" framing:
+
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check for `customer-lifecycle` pack → recommend `/journey-map`
+- DEFAULT: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-design` — if not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-design` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/user-flow-map [positioning-backed product direction]`
+- IF solution-customer fit is weak/disputed: `/value-prop-canvas`
+- IF revenue/channels/cost/defensibility risks exposed: `/lean-canvas`
+- IF no `research/gtm.md`: check for `business-growth` pack → recommend `/gtm`
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists: recommend `/gtm` refresh
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: check for `business-growth` pack → recommend `/monetization`
+- IF codebase exists: check for `business-ops` pack → recommend `/mvp-gap`
+
+### 7. Downstream Impact Check (after synthesis write)
+
+Check for downstream research documents that may be affected:
+- `research/gtm.md`
+
+Classify impact as None/Minor/Major per standard pattern.
+
+## Optional Research Trigger Map
+
+These detours are conditional framework owners, not required AFPS chain links. Apply after synthesis.
+
+| Positioning signal | Owner | Trigger threshold |
+|---|---|---|
+| Solution-customer fit weak/disputed, value mapping low confidence | `/value-prop-canvas` | Trigger: unique attributes can't be confidently mapped to value. Skip: value mapping clear even if hypothesized. |
+| Business-model risk (revenue/channels/cost/defensibility) exposed by category strategy | `/lean-canvas` | Trigger: risk would change UX or prototype choices. Skip: normal competitive findings. |
+| Pricing architecture central to positioning (premium vs value changes direction) | `/monetization` | Trigger: category/value mapping requires grounded pricing. Skip: pricing not a differentiator. |
+
+## Output
+
+### Mode A output: `tasks/todo.md` update
+
+Framework execution steps (see section 3 above).
+
+### Mode B output: `research/positioning.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Positioning
+
+> Based on: [list of framework outputs used]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Mode: Market Positioning (hypothesized, pre-product) | Product Positioning (customer-grounded)
+> Frameworks applied: [list]
+
+## Positioning Statement
+
+**For** [target segment]
+**who** [key pain / trigger event]
+**[product name] is a** [market category]
+**that** [key value / unique benefit]
+**Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+**[product name]** [key differentiator]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the positioning thesis]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Supporting Framework(s) | Evidence | Confidence | Assumption Status |
+|-------|------------------------|----------|------------|-------------------|
+| [claim] | JTBD / Canvas / Moore / Category / OA | [source] | Strong / Moderate / Hypothesized | Validated / Needs testing |
+
+## Framework Synthesis
+
+### From JTBD Analysis
+[Key findings — primary job, outcome positioning]
+
+### From Strategic Canvas
+[Key findings — eliminate/reduce/raise/create moves, competitive gaps]
+
+### From Moore Hypothesis
+[Key findings — positioning template, evidence gaps]
+
+### From Category Design
+[Key findings — category diagnosis, POV if new category]
+
+### From Obviously Awesome
+[Key findings — if product mode]
+
+## Target Segment
+[Best-fit segment with evidence from multiple frameworks]
+
+## Market Category
+[Chosen category with evidence from multiple frameworks]
+
+## Confidence Register
+
+| Element | Confidence | Evidence Source | What Would Change It |
+|---------|-----------|----------------|---------------------|
+| [element] | [level] | [source] | [condition] |
+
+## Validation Plan (market mode only)
+[What needs testing before this position is canonical]
+
+## Positioning Implications
+
+### For Messaging
+### For Product
+### For Sales
+### For Pricing
+
+## Downstream Impact
+[Standard pattern]
+
+## Next Steps
+[Standard routing]
+```
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`.
+- One-time condition-gated records go in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Cadence-based reviews go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless promoted.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP + competitive analysis.** Positioning without knowing the customer and the competition is guesswork.
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every positioning decision must connect to real customer behavior or research evidence.
+- **Mode detection is evidence-based.** Do not override mode detection without user confirmation.
+- **Parent does not execute frameworks.** It selects and queues them. `/exec` handles execution.
+- **Synthesis requires at least one framework output.** Do not synthesize from zero evidence.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning.md`** without asking the user first.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/category-design/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -57,7 +57,13 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **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 response 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 response 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-category-design-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-category-design-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. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and 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.
+**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, research-scope approval gates, and a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that shows the future Stage 2 review shape before research starts. Stop for final compiled response 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 response 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-category-design-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-category-design-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 complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and 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.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
+
+**Category design translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for category problem, old-game alternatives, new-category POV, ecosystem actors, language patterns, and category-name viability. Separate category claims from evidence, inference, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a category POV canvas, old-game/new-game comparison, ecosystem map, naming scorecard, evidence matrix, and confidence/source-gap register. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm the category boundary, enemy/problem framing, name candidates, ecosystem assumptions, confidence ratings, missing sources, and implications for positioning synthesis. 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.
+
+**Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`category-design`), Category (business/tooling/workflow/technical/domain), and per-term Approve/Edit/Reject/Flag radio controls. Only user-approved terms are appended to the target glossary (`research/glossary.md` or `research/{slug}/glossary.md` for scoped paths) during the confirmed-page write step. When the skill operates in a product-path scope, ask whether each term belongs in the parent or scoped glossary; default to the scoped glossary.
 

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/category-design/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.8 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
+## v0.7 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.6 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware `npx skillpacks install <pack>` wording to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving runner-specific in-agent pack install routes.

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/category-design/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: category-design
 description: Play Bigger category creation — category diagnosis, naming, POV development, ecosystem mapping
 type: research
-version: v0.6
+version: v0.8
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: positioning
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Category Design — Play Bigger Category Creation
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML 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 perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
-2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML 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-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML 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-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
 3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML 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 below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
 
 Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.