skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/porter-five-forces/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+name: porter-five-forces
+description: Porter's Five Forces competitive analysis - industry structure, rivalry, substitutes, entrants, buyer power, and supplier power
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Porter's Five Forces - Competitive Structure Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `$competitive-analysis/frameworks/porter-five-forces`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `$competitive-analysis`. It analyzes industry structure and competitive pressure. It produces an intermediate artifact for parent synthesis and must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md`. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or `research/{slug}/icp.md` plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing `research/competitive-analysis-*.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and codebase context.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope by reading `research/.progress.yaml`, selecting active non-archived product paths, and writing under `research/{slug}/` only when that path is active or explicitly named.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load parent context and identify the relevant category, buyer/customer frame, seeded competitors, and source gaps.
+2. Use web search to validate the market boundary and identify evidence for each force.
+3. Assess:
+   - competitive rivalry
+   - threat of new entrants
+   - threat of substitutes and DIY alternatives
+   - buyer/customer power
+   - supplier/platform/channel power
+4. Score each force as low, moderate, or high pressure with evidence and confidence.
+5. Identify the structural constraints, exploitable gaps, and risks that the parent synthesis should carry forward.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Porter's Five Forces Analysis
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Porter's Five Forces
+
+## Market Boundary
+[Category, buyer frame, and competitors included/excluded]
+
+## Force Assessment
+| Force | Pressure | Evidence | Confidence | Implication |
+|-------|----------|----------|------------|-------------|
+| Rivalry | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [what synthesis should consider] |
+| New Entrants | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Substitutes | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Buyer Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Supplier Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+
+## Structural Opportunities
+[White-space openings created by force dynamics]
+
+## Structural Risks
+[Forces that could undermine the product or category thesis]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Every competitor or market fact must be source-backed.
+- Prefer recent sources from the last 12 months and flag older evidence.
+- Do not recommend product features, positioning, architecture, or downstream skills.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/porter-five-forces-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/porter-five-forces/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+---
+name: porter-five-forces
+description: Porter's Five Forces competitive analysis - industry structure, rivalry, substitutes, entrants, buyer power, and supplier power
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# Porter's Five Forces - Competitive Structure Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `$competitive-analysis/frameworks/porter-five-forces`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `$competitive-analysis`. It analyzes industry structure and competitive pressure. It produces an intermediate artifact for parent synthesis and must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md`. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or `research/{slug}/icp.md` plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing `research/competitive-analysis-*.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and codebase context.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope by reading `research/.progress.yaml`, selecting active non-archived product paths, and writing under `research/{slug}/` only when that path is active or explicitly named.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load parent context and identify the relevant category, buyer/customer frame, seeded competitors, and source gaps.
+2. Use web search to validate the market boundary and identify evidence for each force.
+3. Assess:
+   - competitive rivalry
+   - threat of new entrants
+   - threat of substitutes and DIY alternatives
+   - buyer/customer power
+   - supplier/platform/channel power
+4. Score each force as low, moderate, or high pressure with evidence and confidence.
+5. Identify the structural constraints, exploitable gaps, and risks that the parent synthesis should carry forward.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Porter's Five Forces Analysis
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Porter's Five Forces
+
+## Market Boundary
+[Category, buyer frame, and competitors included/excluded]
+
+## Force Assessment
+| Force | Pressure | Evidence | Confidence | Implication |
+|-------|----------|----------|------------|-------------|
+| Rivalry | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [what synthesis should consider] |
+| New Entrants | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Substitutes | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Buyer Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Supplier Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+
+## Structural Opportunities
+[White-space openings created by force dynamics]
+
+## Structural Risks
+[Forces that could undermine the product or category thesis]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Every competitor or market fact must be source-backed.
+- Prefer recent sources from the last 12 months and flag older evidence.
+- Do not recommend product features, positioning, architecture, or downstream skills.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/porter-five-forces-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/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-strategic-group-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-strategic-group-map-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-strategic-group-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-strategic-group-map-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.
+
+**Strategic group map translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for competitor positioning, axis selection, strategic dimensions, and cluster membership. Separate factual competitor attributes from inferred placements, axis assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a two-axis strategic map or scatter plot with cluster labels, axis definitions, competitor placement rationale, confidence by placement, and a table of alternatives considered for axes. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm axis choices, competitor set, cluster names, placement confidence, outliers, missing competitors, and which whitespace or crowding patterns should matter to parent synthesis. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
+
+**Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`strategic-group-map`), 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/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 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.
+
+## v0.3 - 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.
+
 ## v0.2 - 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/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: strategic-group-map
 description: Strategic group map competitive analysis - cluster competitors by market axes and identify segment whitespace
 type: research
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.4
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: competitive-analysis
 ---
 
 ## 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 Codex, 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.
 
 # Strategic Group Map - Competitive Cluster Analysis
 
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ 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.

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: strategic-group-map
+description: Strategic group map competitive analysis - cluster competitors by market axes and identify segment whitespace
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Strategic Group Map - Competitive Cluster Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `$competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `$competitive-analysis`. It maps competitors into strategic groups using evidence-backed axes so the parent synthesis can reason about clusters, crowded zones, and whitespace. It must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, positioning research, journey research, customer feedback, and specs.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load seeded competitors and use web search to broaden the competitor list enough for meaningful clustering.
+2. Select 2-3 evidence-backed axes, such as:
+   - enterprise vs SMB
+   - high-service vs self-serve
+   - broad platform vs focused workflow
+   - premium vs low-cost
+   - incumbent suite vs specialist tool
+3. Place competitors on the map only when evidence supports their position.
+4. Identify clusters, crowded zones, underserved segments, and competitors that blur categories.
+5. Record axis uncertainty and alternative maps when the market does not fit one clean 2x2.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Strategic Group Map
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Strategic Group Mapping
+
+## Axis Selection
+| Axis | Why It Matters | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------|----------------|----------|------------|
+
+## Competitor Placement
+| Competitor | Axis 1 Position | Axis 2 Position | Group | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------|----------|------------|
+
+## Strategic Groups
+[Named clusters, shared traits, and how they compete]
+
+## Whitespace And Crowded Zones
+[Underserved spaces and over-served clusters]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not force a 2x2 when the market needs a table or multiple maps; explain the limitation.
+- Competitor placement must cite evidence.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/strategic-group-map-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: strategic-group-map
+description: Strategic group map competitive analysis - cluster competitors by market axes and identify segment whitespace
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# Strategic Group Map - Competitive Cluster Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `$competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `$competitive-analysis`. It maps competitors into strategic groups using evidence-backed axes so the parent synthesis can reason about clusters, crowded zones, and whitespace. It must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, positioning research, journey research, customer feedback, and specs.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load seeded competitors and use web search to broaden the competitor list enough for meaningful clustering.
+2. Select 2-3 evidence-backed axes, such as:
+   - enterprise vs SMB
+   - high-service vs self-serve
+   - broad platform vs focused workflow
+   - premium vs low-cost
+   - incumbent suite vs specialist tool
+3. Place competitors on the map only when evidence supports their position.
+4. Identify clusters, crowded zones, underserved segments, and competitors that blur categories.
+5. Record axis uncertainty and alternative maps when the market does not fit one clean 2x2.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Strategic Group Map
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Strategic Group Mapping
+
+## Axis Selection
+| Axis | Why It Matters | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------|----------------|----------|------------|
+
+## Competitor Placement
+| Competitor | Axis 1 Position | Axis 2 Position | Group | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------|----------|------------|
+
+## Strategic Groups
+[Named clusters, shared traits, and how they compete]
+
+## Whitespace And Crowded Zones
+[Underserved spaces and over-served clusters]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not force a 2x2 when the market needs a table or multiple maps; explain the limitation.
+- Competitor placement must cite evidence.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/strategic-group-map-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/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-swot-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-swot-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-swot-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-swot-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.
+
+**SWOT translation.** Research focus: Classify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats with evidence for each item. Separate internal facts from external market signals, inference from assumption, confidence level, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render four SWOT quadrants plus a prioritized evidence table that maps each item to source, confidence, owner scope, time horizon, and recommended action or watch item. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm quadrant placement, priority, evidence sufficiency, stale or missing sources, overclaimed strengths, understated threats, and implications for the parent competitive recommendation. 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 (`swot`), 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/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 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.
+
+## v0.3 - 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.
+
 ## v0.2 - 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/codex/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: swot
 description: SWOT competitive analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in market evidence
 type: research
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.4
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: competitive-analysis
 ---
 
 ## 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 Codex, 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.
 
 # SWOT - Competitive Evidence Analysis
 
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ 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.