skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

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

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+name: moore-positioning
+description: Geoffrey Moore positioning hypothesis — generate positioning statement using the Crossing the Chasm template
+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.
+
+# Moore Positioning — Crossing the Chasm Template
+
+## 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/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.
+- **Soft**: Any existing positioning framework outputs (`research/positioning-*.md`) — read these if present to build on prior analysis rather than starting from scratch.
+
+## 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/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, primary alternatives, differentiation
+- Read any existing `research/positioning-*.md` files — prior framework outputs to build upon
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Generate Positioning Hypothesis
+
+Using the Geoffrey Moore positioning template from "Crossing the Chasm":
+
+```
+For [target customers]
+who [statement of need/opportunity]
+[product name] is a [market category]
+that [key benefit]
+Unlike [primary competitive alternative]
+our product [primary differentiation]
+```
+
+Fill each element by drawing from evidence:
+- **Target customers**: From ICP — the specific segment, not "everyone"
+- **Statement of need/opportunity**: The pain point or trigger event that creates urgency
+- **Market category**: The frame of reference buyers use to find and evaluate solutions
+- **Key benefit**: The primary value — what customers get that matters most
+- **Primary competitive alternative**: The strongest alternative the buyer would otherwise use
+- **Primary differentiation**: What is genuinely different — not table stakes
+
+### 3. Map Evidence Status
+
+For each element of the positioning template, classify its evidence basis:
+
+| Element | Content | Status | Evidence Source |
+|---------|---------|--------|----------------|
+| Target customers | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Statement of need | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Market category | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Key benefit | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Competitive alternative | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Primary differentiation | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+
+Status definitions:
+- **Evidenced**: Directly supported by research artifacts (ICP interviews, competitive data, customer feedback)
+- **Hypothesized**: Reasonable inference from available evidence, but not directly confirmed
+- **Unvalidated**: Assertion without supporting evidence — needs testing
+
+### 4. Identify Weakest Link
+
+Determine which element of the positioning chain has the least evidence support:
+- Which element is most likely to be wrong?
+- What would change if this element were different?
+- What evidence would strengthen or invalidate it?
+- What is the cost of being wrong about this element?
+
+### 5. Consider Alternative Hypotheses
+
+Generate 1-2 alternative positioning hypotheses that use different elements:
+- Alternative target customer
+- Alternative market category
+- Alternative competitive frame
+- Alternative key benefit
+
+For each alternative, note why it was considered and why the primary hypothesis was preferred.
+
+### 6. Validate with User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the hypothesis and validate:
+- "Does this positioning hypothesis ring true? Which elements need correction or stronger grounding?"
+- Present the filled template, evidence map, weakest link, and alternatives
+- Ask whether the primary hypothesis or an alternative feels more accurate
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-moore.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-moore.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Moore Positioning Hypothesis
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/positioning-*.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Geoffrey Moore — Crossing the Chasm
+
+## Positioning Hypothesis
+
+For **[target customers]**
+who **[statement of need/opportunity]**
+**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
+that **[key benefit]**
+Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
+our product **[primary differentiation]**
+
+## Evidence Mapping
+
+| Element | Content | Status | Evidence Source | Confidence |
+|---------|---------|--------|----------------|------------|
+| Target customers | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Statement of need | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Market category | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Key benefit | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Competitive alternative | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Primary differentiation | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+
+## Weakest Link Analysis
+
+**Weakest element**: [element name]
+**Why it's weak**: [explanation]
+**What would change if wrong**: [impact on positioning]
+**Evidence needed**: [what would strengthen or invalidate]
+**Cost of being wrong**: [consequences]
+
+## Validation Needs
+
+| Element | Validation Method | Priority |
+|---------|-------------------|----------|
+| [element] | [how to validate — customer interviews, A/B test, market research] | High/Med/Low |
+
+## Alternative Hypotheses Considered
+
+### Alternative 1: [brief label]
+
+For **[target customers]**
+who **[statement of need]**
+**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
+that **[key benefit]**
+Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
+our product **[primary differentiation]**
+
+**Why considered**: [rationale]
+**Why not preferred**: [rationale]
+
+### Alternative 2: [brief label]
+
+[Same format]
+
+**Why considered**: [rationale]
+**Why not preferred**: [rationale]
+```
+
+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
+
+- **This is explicitly a hypothesis, not a declaration.** The output is a testable positioning hypothesis, not final positioning. Label it as such.
+- **Clearly label hypothesized vs evidenced elements.** Transparency about evidence quality is the core value of this framework.
+- **Do not conflate "key benefit" with feature list.** The key benefit is the outcome, not the mechanism.
+- **Primary competitive alternative must be what customers actually use.** Not what the company wishes they competed against.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the hypothesis has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning-moore.md`** without asking the user first.
+
+## 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/moore-positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,232 @@
+---
+name: moore-positioning
+description: Geoffrey Moore positioning hypothesis — generate positioning statement using the Crossing the Chasm template
+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.
+
+# Moore Positioning — Crossing the Chasm Template
+
+## 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/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.
+- **Soft**: Any existing positioning framework outputs (`research/positioning-*.md`) — read these if present to build on prior analysis rather than starting from scratch.
+
+## 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/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, primary alternatives, differentiation
+- Read any existing `research/positioning-*.md` files — prior framework outputs to build upon
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Generate Positioning Hypothesis
+
+Using the Geoffrey Moore positioning template from "Crossing the Chasm":
+
+```
+For [target customers]
+who [statement of need/opportunity]
+[product name] is a [market category]
+that [key benefit]
+Unlike [primary competitive alternative]
+our product [primary differentiation]
+```
+
+Fill each element by drawing from evidence:
+- **Target customers**: From ICP — the specific segment, not "everyone"
+- **Statement of need/opportunity**: The pain point or trigger event that creates urgency
+- **Market category**: The frame of reference buyers use to find and evaluate solutions
+- **Key benefit**: The primary value — what customers get that matters most
+- **Primary competitive alternative**: The strongest alternative the buyer would otherwise use
+- **Primary differentiation**: What is genuinely different — not table stakes
+
+### 3. Map Evidence Status
+
+For each element of the positioning template, classify its evidence basis:
+
+| Element | Content | Status | Evidence Source |
+|---------|---------|--------|----------------|
+| Target customers | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Statement of need | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Market category | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Key benefit | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Competitive alternative | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+| Primary differentiation | [filled in] | Evidenced / Hypothesized / Unvalidated | [source] |
+
+Status definitions:
+- **Evidenced**: Directly supported by research artifacts (ICP interviews, competitive data, customer feedback)
+- **Hypothesized**: Reasonable inference from available evidence, but not directly confirmed
+- **Unvalidated**: Assertion without supporting evidence — needs testing
+
+### 4. Identify Weakest Link
+
+Determine which element of the positioning chain has the least evidence support:
+- Which element is most likely to be wrong?
+- What would change if this element were different?
+- What evidence would strengthen or invalidate it?
+- What is the cost of being wrong about this element?
+
+### 5. Consider Alternative Hypotheses
+
+Generate 1-2 alternative positioning hypotheses that use different elements:
+- Alternative target customer
+- Alternative market category
+- Alternative competitive frame
+- Alternative key benefit
+
+For each alternative, note why it was considered and why the primary hypothesis was preferred.
+
+### 6. Validate with User
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the hypothesis and validate:
+- "Does this positioning hypothesis ring true? Which elements need correction or stronger grounding?"
+- Present the filled template, evidence map, weakest link, and alternatives
+- Ask whether the primary hypothesis or an alternative feels more accurate
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-moore.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-moore.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Moore Positioning Hypothesis
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/positioning-*.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Geoffrey Moore — Crossing the Chasm
+
+## Positioning Hypothesis
+
+For **[target customers]**
+who **[statement of need/opportunity]**
+**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
+that **[key benefit]**
+Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
+our product **[primary differentiation]**
+
+## Evidence Mapping
+
+| Element | Content | Status | Evidence Source | Confidence |
+|---------|---------|--------|----------------|------------|
+| Target customers | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Statement of need | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Market category | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Key benefit | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Competitive alternative | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+| Primary differentiation | [content] | Evidenced/Hypothesized/Unvalidated | [source] | High/Med/Low |
+
+## Weakest Link Analysis
+
+**Weakest element**: [element name]
+**Why it's weak**: [explanation]
+**What would change if wrong**: [impact on positioning]
+**Evidence needed**: [what would strengthen or invalidate]
+**Cost of being wrong**: [consequences]
+
+## Validation Needs
+
+| Element | Validation Method | Priority |
+|---------|-------------------|----------|
+| [element] | [how to validate — customer interviews, A/B test, market research] | High/Med/Low |
+
+## Alternative Hypotheses Considered
+
+### Alternative 1: [brief label]
+
+For **[target customers]**
+who **[statement of need]**
+**[product name]** is a **[market category]**
+that **[key benefit]**
+Unlike **[primary competitive alternative]**
+our product **[primary differentiation]**
+
+**Why considered**: [rationale]
+**Why not preferred**: [rationale]
+
+### Alternative 2: [brief label]
+
+[Same format]
+
+**Why considered**: [rationale]
+**Why not preferred**: [rationale]
+```
+
+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
+
+- **This is explicitly a hypothesis, not a declaration.** The output is a testable positioning hypothesis, not final positioning. Label it as such.
+- **Clearly label hypothesized vs evidenced elements.** Transparency about evidence quality is the core value of this framework.
+- **Do not conflate "key benefit" with feature list.** The key benefit is the outcome, not the mechanism.
+- **Primary competitive alternative must be what customers actually use.** Not what the company wishes they competed against.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the hypothesis has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/positioning-moore.md`** without asking the user first.
+
+## 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/moore-positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/positioning/frameworks/obviously-awesome/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-obviously-awesome-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-obviously-awesome-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-obviously-awesome-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-obviously-awesome-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.
+
+**Obviously Awesome translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value themes, best-fit customers, and market category. Separate positioning claims from evidence, inference, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render an Obviously Awesome component matrix, alternatives-to-attributes-to-value chain, best-fit customer scorecard, market-category options, and confidence/source gaps. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value themes, best-fit customer definition, category choice, confidence ratings, and synthesis implications. 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 (`obviously-awesome`), 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/obviously-awesome/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/obviously-awesome/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: obviously-awesome
 description: April Dunford Obviously Awesome methodology — competitive alternatives, unique attributes, value mapping, target segment, market category
 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.
 
 # Obviously Awesome — Customer-Grounded Positioning
 
@@ -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.