skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/category-design/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+---
+name: category-design
+description: Play Bigger category creation — category diagnosis, naming, POV development, ecosystem mapping
+type: research
+version: v0.6
+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.
+
+# Category Design — Play Bigger Category Creation
+
+## 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 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.
+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/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) — recommended for understanding where existing categories fail.
+
+## 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. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, how competitors position, existing category boundaries
+- Read `research/icp.md` — target customers, pain points, how they search for and describe solutions
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` if it exists — where existing category solutions fail the customer
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Category Diagnosis
+
+Determine whether the product fits an existing category, should create a subcategory, or needs an entirely new category.
+
+**Criteria for Existing Category:**
+- Clear incumbent category exists (buyers know where to look)
+- Product competes on known dimensions within that category
+- Customers would naturally place the product in this category
+- The category correctly sets buyer expectations
+
+**Criteria for Subcategory:**
+- Existing category exists but product serves a distinct segment far better
+- The broader category is correct but misleading about what makes this product valuable
+- Buyers in the subcategory have needs the main category ignores
+- Competitors in the main category are poor alternatives for this segment
+
+**Criteria for New Category:**
+- No existing category captures the value proposition
+- Existing categories actively mislead buyers about what this product does
+- Buyers who find this product through existing category labels get confused
+- The product combines capabilities from multiple categories in a novel way
+- There is a "why now" — a market shift that makes the new category inevitable
+
+Document the diagnosis with evidence for and against each option.
+
+### 3. Category Development (If Subcategory or New)
+
+If the diagnosis points to subcategory or new category:
+
+#### 3a. Category Naming
+
+Develop 3-5 candidate category names. Good category names:
+- Are descriptive (buyer understands roughly what's in the category)
+- Are memorable (2-4 words, easy to say)
+- Create a natural contrast with existing categories
+- Are searchable (people might type this into Google)
+- Do not require explanation to be directionally understood
+
+For each candidate:
+- The name itself
+- What it communicates vs. what it obscures
+- Existing Google results (is the term already taken?)
+- How competitors would react
+
+#### 3b. Category Definition
+
+Write the category definition:
+- **What's in**: Products/approaches that belong in this category
+- **What's out**: What explicitly does NOT belong (this creates contrast)
+- **Table stakes**: What every product in this category must have
+- **Winning dimensions**: What separates leaders from followers within the category
+
+#### 3c. Point of View (POV)
+
+Develop the "why now" narrative — what changed in the world that makes this category necessary:
+- What technological shift enables this?
+- What market shift creates demand?
+- What cultural shift makes the old way unacceptable?
+- Why couldn't this category have existed 5 years ago?
+- Why will it be obvious in 5 years?
+
+The POV is the evangelism narrative — it explains why the world needs this category, not why the product is good.
+
+#### 3d. Ecosystem Mapping
+
+Map who else inhabits or borders this category:
+- **Fellow travelers**: Other companies that could/should be in this category
+- **Adjacent categories**: Neighboring categories that buyers might confuse with this one
+- **Threatened incumbents**: Companies in existing categories that lose if this category wins
+- **Enablers**: Infrastructure, platforms, or tools that support this category's existence
+
+### 4. Existing Category Analysis (If Existing)
+
+If the diagnosis points to existing category:
+- Document which existing category and why
+- Identify the winning dimension within that category
+- Note what makes the product best-in-class on that dimension
+- Acknowledge what the product sacrifices by accepting this category frame
+
+### 5. Validate with User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the diagnosis and development:
+- "Does the category diagnosis feel right? Is this an existing category, subcategory, or genuinely new?"
+- If subcategory/new: "Which category name resonates? Which feels wrong?"
+- "Does the POV narrative match your understanding of why the market is ready for this?"
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-category-design.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-category-design.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Category Design Analysis
+
+> Based on: research/competitive-analysis.md, research/icp.md[, research/journey-map.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Play Bigger — Category Design
+
+## Category Diagnosis
+
+**Verdict**: Existing Category / Subcategory / New Category
+
+### Evidence For Each Option
+
+| Option | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Confidence |
+|--------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| Existing: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+| Subcategory: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+| New: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+
+### Rationale
+[Why the chosen diagnosis is correct — what evidence tips the balance]
+
+## Category Name Candidates
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+| # | Name | Communicates | Obscures | Search Viability | Competitor Reaction |
+|---|------|-------------|----------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| 1 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+| 2 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+| 3 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+
+**Recommended name**: [name] — [why]
+
+## Category Definition
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### What's In
+- [criterion for belonging]
+
+### What's Out
+- [what explicitly does not belong]
+
+### Table Stakes
+- [minimum requirements for category membership]
+
+### Winning Dimensions
+- [what separates leaders from followers]
+
+## Point of View
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### The "Why Now" Narrative
+
+[The evangelism narrative — 3-5 paragraphs explaining why the world needs this category now]
+
+### Shifts That Enable This Category
+| Shift Type | What Changed | Impact |
+|-----------|--------------|--------|
+| Technology | [shift] | [how it enables the category] |
+| Market | [shift] | [how it creates demand] |
+| Cultural | [shift] | [how it makes the old way unacceptable] |
+
+## Ecosystem Map
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### Fellow Travelers
+| Company/Product | Why They Belong | Current Category |
+|----------------|-----------------|------------------|
+| [company] | [rationale] | [where they sit today] |
+
+### Adjacent Categories
+| Category | Relationship | Confusion Risk |
+|----------|-------------|---------------|
+| [category] | [how it borders this one] | High/Med/Low |
+
+### Threatened Incumbents
+| Company/Category | What They Lose | Likely Response |
+|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|
+| [company] | [market share/narrative] | [how they'll react] |
+
+### Enablers
+| Enabler | Role | Dependency Level |
+|---------|------|-----------------|
+| [platform/tool] | [how it supports] | Critical/Important/Nice-to-have |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim about category] | [source file/section] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Category creation is expensive and slow.** Be honest about whether it's warranted. Default to existing/subcategory unless evidence strongly supports new category.
+- **New categories require evangelism budget.** If the company cannot invest in educating the market, a new category is risky regardless of how well it fits.
+- **The POV must be about the world, not the product.** The "why now" narrative explains market shifts, not product features.
+- **Category names must work without explanation.** If the name requires a paragraph to understand, it's not a good category name.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the diagnosis has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning-category-design.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **Recommended when strategic canvas shows no existing category captures the value.** Most useful as a follow-on to `/strategic-canvas` when the four actions reveal a fundamentally different value curve.
+
+## 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/category-design-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/category-design/archive/v0.7/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,288 @@
+---
+name: category-design
+description: Play Bigger category creation — category diagnosis, naming, POV development, ecosystem mapping
+type: research
+version: v0.7
+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 `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
+
+## 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 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.
+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/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) — recommended for understanding where existing categories fail.
+
+## 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. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, how competitors position, existing category boundaries
+- Read `research/icp.md` — target customers, pain points, how they search for and describe solutions
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` if it exists — where existing category solutions fail the customer
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Category Diagnosis
+
+Determine whether the product fits an existing category, should create a subcategory, or needs an entirely new category.
+
+**Criteria for Existing Category:**
+- Clear incumbent category exists (buyers know where to look)
+- Product competes on known dimensions within that category
+- Customers would naturally place the product in this category
+- The category correctly sets buyer expectations
+
+**Criteria for Subcategory:**
+- Existing category exists but product serves a distinct segment far better
+- The broader category is correct but misleading about what makes this product valuable
+- Buyers in the subcategory have needs the main category ignores
+- Competitors in the main category are poor alternatives for this segment
+
+**Criteria for New Category:**
+- No existing category captures the value proposition
+- Existing categories actively mislead buyers about what this product does
+- Buyers who find this product through existing category labels get confused
+- The product combines capabilities from multiple categories in a novel way
+- There is a "why now" — a market shift that makes the new category inevitable
+
+Document the diagnosis with evidence for and against each option.
+
+### 3. Category Development (If Subcategory or New)
+
+If the diagnosis points to subcategory or new category:
+
+#### 3a. Category Naming
+
+Develop 3-5 candidate category names. Good category names:
+- Are descriptive (buyer understands roughly what's in the category)
+- Are memorable (2-4 words, easy to say)
+- Create a natural contrast with existing categories
+- Are searchable (people might type this into Google)
+- Do not require explanation to be directionally understood
+
+For each candidate:
+- The name itself
+- What it communicates vs. what it obscures
+- Existing Google results (is the term already taken?)
+- How competitors would react
+
+#### 3b. Category Definition
+
+Write the category definition:
+- **What's in**: Products/approaches that belong in this category
+- **What's out**: What explicitly does NOT belong (this creates contrast)
+- **Table stakes**: What every product in this category must have
+- **Winning dimensions**: What separates leaders from followers within the category
+
+#### 3c. Point of View (POV)
+
+Develop the "why now" narrative — what changed in the world that makes this category necessary:
+- What technological shift enables this?
+- What market shift creates demand?
+- What cultural shift makes the old way unacceptable?
+- Why couldn't this category have existed 5 years ago?
+- Why will it be obvious in 5 years?
+
+The POV is the evangelism narrative — it explains why the world needs this category, not why the product is good.
+
+#### 3d. Ecosystem Mapping
+
+Map who else inhabits or borders this category:
+- **Fellow travelers**: Other companies that could/should be in this category
+- **Adjacent categories**: Neighboring categories that buyers might confuse with this one
+- **Threatened incumbents**: Companies in existing categories that lose if this category wins
+- **Enablers**: Infrastructure, platforms, or tools that support this category's existence
+
+### 4. Existing Category Analysis (If Existing)
+
+If the diagnosis points to existing category:
+- Document which existing category and why
+- Identify the winning dimension within that category
+- Note what makes the product best-in-class on that dimension
+- Acknowledge what the product sacrifices by accepting this category frame
+
+### 5. Validate with User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the diagnosis and development:
+- "Does the category diagnosis feel right? Is this an existing category, subcategory, or genuinely new?"
+- If subcategory/new: "Which category name resonates? Which feels wrong?"
+- "Does the POV narrative match your understanding of why the market is ready for this?"
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-category-design.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-category-design.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Category Design Analysis
+
+> Based on: research/competitive-analysis.md, research/icp.md[, research/journey-map.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Play Bigger — Category Design
+
+## Category Diagnosis
+
+**Verdict**: Existing Category / Subcategory / New Category
+
+### Evidence For Each Option
+
+| Option | Evidence For | Evidence Against | Confidence |
+|--------|-------------|-----------------|------------|
+| Existing: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+| Subcategory: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+| New: [name] | [evidence] | [evidence] | High/Med/Low |
+
+### Rationale
+[Why the chosen diagnosis is correct — what evidence tips the balance]
+
+## Category Name Candidates
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+| # | Name | Communicates | Obscures | Search Viability | Competitor Reaction |
+|---|------|-------------|----------|-----------------|-------------------|
+| 1 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+| 2 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+| 3 | [name] | [what it says] | [what it hides] | [google results] | [reaction] |
+
+**Recommended name**: [name] — [why]
+
+## Category Definition
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### What's In
+- [criterion for belonging]
+
+### What's Out
+- [what explicitly does not belong]
+
+### Table Stakes
+- [minimum requirements for category membership]
+
+### Winning Dimensions
+- [what separates leaders from followers]
+
+## Point of View
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### The "Why Now" Narrative
+
+[The evangelism narrative — 3-5 paragraphs explaining why the world needs this category now]
+
+### Shifts That Enable This Category
+| Shift Type | What Changed | Impact |
+|-----------|--------------|--------|
+| Technology | [shift] | [how it enables the category] |
+| Market | [shift] | [how it creates demand] |
+| Cultural | [shift] | [how it makes the old way unacceptable] |
+
+## Ecosystem Map
+
+(If subcategory or new category)
+
+### Fellow Travelers
+| Company/Product | Why They Belong | Current Category |
+|----------------|-----------------|------------------|
+| [company] | [rationale] | [where they sit today] |
+
+### Adjacent Categories
+| Category | Relationship | Confusion Risk |
+|----------|-------------|---------------|
+| [category] | [how it borders this one] | High/Med/Low |
+
+### Threatened Incumbents
+| Company/Category | What They Lose | Likely Response |
+|-----------------|----------------|-----------------|
+| [company] | [market share/narrative] | [how they'll react] |
+
+### Enablers
+| Enabler | Role | Dependency Level |
+|---------|------|-----------------|
+| [platform/tool] | [how it supports] | Critical/Important/Nice-to-have |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim about category] | [source file/section] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Category creation is expensive and slow.** Be honest about whether it's warranted. Default to existing/subcategory unless evidence strongly supports new category.
+- **New categories require evangelism budget.** If the company cannot invest in educating the market, a new category is risky regardless of how well it fits.
+- **The POV must be about the world, not the product.** The "why now" narrative explains market shifts, not product features.
+- **Category names must work without explanation.** If the name requires a paragraph to understand, it's not a good category name.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the diagnosis has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning-category-design.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **Recommended when strategic canvas shows no existing category captures the value.** Most useful as a follow-on to `/strategic-canvas` when the four actions reveal a fundamentally different value curve.
+
+## 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/category-design-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

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

@@ -57,9 +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-jtbd-positioning-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-jtbd-positioning-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-jtbd-positioning-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-jtbd-positioning-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.
 
-**Research-pack translation.** For business, devtool, game, creator, and media research packs, render the claim/evidence/inference/assumption/decision-impact structure, source coverage categories appropriate to the domain, lower-confidence findings, and downstream implications before asking for approval or routing to the next skill.
+**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.
+
+**JTBD positioning translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for target job, hiring circumstance, desired progress, current alternatives, anxieties, and value criteria. Separate job claims from evidence, inference, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a job story map, progress forces summary, alternatives table, outcome/value-criteria matrix, confidence register, and positioning implications. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm job wording, circumstance boundaries, alternatives, value criteria, confidence ratings, missing customer language, and which job should anchor positioning. 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 (`jtbd-positioning`), 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/jtbd-positioning/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.