skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

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

@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+---
+name: moore-positioning
+description: Geoffrey Moore positioning hypothesis — generate Moore template, map evidence per element, identify weakest link
+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 — Geoffrey Moore Hypothesis
+
+Invoke as `$moore-positioning`.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Applies Geoffrey Moore's positioning template from "Crossing the Chasm" to generate a structured positioning hypothesis, rigorously map evidence status for each element, and identify the weakest link that needs strengthening. This is a disciplined fill-in-the-blanks exercise that exposes gaps in positioning logic. Produces an intermediate artifact for the parent `$positioning` synthesis.
+
+## 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**: Read if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — context for trigger events and value delivery
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — customer language for framing
+  - `research/positioning-jtbd.md` — job framing to inform target customer
+  - `research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md` — differentiation evidence
+  - `research/positioning.md` — existing positioning to compare against
+
+## 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.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — target customers, pain points, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitive landscape, alternatives
+- Read any prior framework outputs (JTBD, strategic canvas) for evidence accumulation
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, key source files for product understanding
+
+### 2. Generate Moore Template Hypothesis
+
+Fill in the Geoffrey Moore positioning template:
+
+> **For** [target customer]
+> **who** [statement of need or opportunity]
+> **the** [product name] **is a** [product category]
+> **that** [key benefit — compelling reason to buy]
+> **Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+> **our product** [statement of primary differentiation]
+
+Generate 2-3 candidate hypotheses with different framings:
+- Vary the target customer specificity
+- Vary the product category (existing, subcategory, new)
+- Vary the competitive alternative anchor
+- Vary the differentiation angle
+
+### 3. Map Evidence Status Per Element
+
+For each element of the template, assess evidence strength:
+
+| Element | Content | Evidence Source | Confidence | Gap |
+|---------|---------|----------------|------------|-----|
+| Target customer | [from template] | [which research file] | Strong/Moderate/Weak | [what's missing] |
+| Need/opportunity | [from template] | [source] | [confidence] | [gap] |
+| Product category | [from template] | [source] | [confidence] | [gap] |
+| Key benefit | [from template] | [source] | [confidence] | [gap] |
+| Competitive alt. | [from template] | [source] | [confidence] | [gap] |
+| Differentiation | [from template] | [source] | [confidence] | [gap] |
+
+Use WebSearch (2-4 queries) to validate category framing and competitive alternative accuracy:
+- "[product category] definition", "[primary alternative] positioning"
+- "[category] market leader", "who competes with [alternative]"
+
+### 4. Identify Weakest Link
+
+Determine which template element has the weakest evidence or most problematic framing:
+
+- **Target too broad?** — Positioning that works for everyone works for no one.
+- **Need too generic?** — "Saves time" is not a positioning-grade need.
+- **Category unclear?** — If buyers don't recognize the category, they can't evaluate.
+- **Benefit not unique?** — If alternatives also claim this benefit, it's not positioning.
+- **Wrong competitive anchor?** — If buyers don't actually consider this alternative, the "unlike" fails.
+- **Differentiation unproven?** — Claims without evidence are aspirational, not positioning.
+
+Present findings. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "The weakest link in this positioning hypothesis is [element] because [reason]. Which framing resonates best, and what evidence or insight can strengthen the weak link?"
+
+### 5. Recommend Strongest Hypothesis
+
+Select the strongest candidate and explain:
+- Why it outperforms alternatives
+- What evidence supports each element
+- What remains unproven and how to resolve it
+- How it compares to existing positioning (if any)
+
+### 6. Write Output
+
+Only after user approval.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-moore.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-moore.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Moore Positioning Hypothesis
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md[, prior framework outputs]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Geoffrey Moore "Crossing the Chasm" positioning template
+
+## Recommended Hypothesis
+
+> **For** [target customer]
+> **who** [statement of need or opportunity]
+> **the** [product name] **is a** [product category]
+> **that** [key benefit — compelling reason to buy]
+> **Unlike** [primary competitive alternative]
+> **our product** [statement of primary differentiation]
+
+## Evidence Map
+
+| Element | Content | Source | Confidence | Gap |
+|---------|---------|--------|------------|-----|
+| Target customer | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap or "none"] |
+| Need/opportunity | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap] |
+| Product category | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap] |
+| Key benefit | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap] |
+| Competitive alt. | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap] |
+| Differentiation | [content] | [source] | [S/M/W] | [gap] |
+
+## Weakest Link Analysis
+
+**Weakest element**: [element name]
+**Why it's weak**: [explanation]
+**How to strengthen**: [specific action — more research, customer interviews, product changes]
+**Risk if unresolved**: [what happens if this stays weak]
+
+## Alternative Hypotheses Considered
+
+### Hypothesis B
+> [full Moore template]
+
+**Why not recommended**: [reason]
+
+### Hypothesis C
+> [full Moore template]
+
+**Why not recommended**: [reason]
+
+## Implications for Positioning Synthesis
+
+[How this Moore analysis should influence the final positioning — which elements are strongest, where the template reveals gaps, and what it suggests for the canonical positioning statement]
+```
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with blocking/dependency annotations.
+- Condition-gated records go in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Cadence-based reviews go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Intermediate artifact only.** This produces `research/positioning-moore.md`, not the canonical `research/positioning.md`.
+- **Evidence mapping is non-negotiable.** Every template element must have a cited source and confidence level.
+- **Multiple hypotheses required.** Never present a single option — the comparison reveals trade-offs.
+- **Weakest link must be actionable.** Don't just identify the weakness — recommend how to fix it.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings are validated.
+- **Accumulate prior framework evidence.** If JTBD or strategic canvas outputs exist, use them as evidence sources.
+
+## 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/codex/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/codex/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/codex/positioning/frameworks/obviously-awesome/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: obviously-awesome
 description: April Dunford Obviously Awesome methodology — 5-step positioning from real customer evidence
 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 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.
 
 # Obviously Awesome — April Dunford Positioning Methodology
 
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ 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/positioning/frameworks/obviously-awesome/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+---
+name: obviously-awesome
+description: April Dunford Obviously Awesome methodology — 5-step positioning from real customer evidence
+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 `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Obviously Awesome — April Dunford Positioning Methodology
+
+Invoke as `$obviously-awesome`.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Purpose
+
+Applies the full 5-step Obviously Awesome methodology (April Dunford) as a standalone deep-dive framework. While the parent `$positioning` skill uses Obviously Awesome as its primary methodology, this child skill goes deeper with rigorous customer-evidence grounding, multiple candidate evaluations per step, and explicit evidence quality assessment. Requires real customer evidence. Produces an intermediate artifact for the parent `$positioning` synthesis.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **HARD**: `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) must exist with real customer evidence (interviews, survey data, support tickets, reviews, or usage data). If not, stop and tell the user: "Obviously Awesome requires real customer evidence. Run `$customer-feedback` first to gather and synthesize customer data, then re-run `$obviously-awesome`."
+- **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**: Read if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — value delivery moments
+  - `research/positioning-jtbd.md` — job framing for context
+  - `research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md` — differentiation evidence
+  - `research/positioning-moore.md` — hypothesis to validate against
+  - `research/positioning.md` — existing positioning to improve upon
+
+## 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.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` — this is the PRIMARY input. Extract:
+  - What customers say they switched from (competitive alternatives)
+  - What customers say is different about this product (unique attributes)
+  - What value customers report getting (in their own words)
+  - Who the happiest/most engaged customers are (target segment signals)
+  - How customers describe the product to others (market category clues)
+- Read `research/icp.md` — segments, pain points
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` — landscape context
+- Read prior framework outputs if available
+
+### 2. Step 1 — Competitive Alternatives (Customer-Evidenced)
+
+Unlike the parent skill's broad approach, ground competitive alternatives exclusively in customer evidence:
+
+- What did current customers use BEFORE this product?
+- What would they switch to if this product disappeared?
+- What do prospects compare this product to during evaluation?
+
+Sources (from customer-feedback.md):
+- Switch stories: "I used to use [X] but..."
+- Comparison mentions: "Compared to [X], this..."
+- Evaluation context: "I was looking at [X] and [Y] when..."
+
+Present findings. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "These are the competitive alternatives customers actually mention. Any that are missing from our customer data that you know prospects consider?"
+
+### 3. Step 2 — Unique Attributes (Customer-Validated)
+
+For each competitive alternative, identify attributes customers explicitly value that alternatives lack:
+
+- Only include attributes customers have MENTIONED or demonstrated through behavior
+- Exclude attributes the team believes are unique but customers haven't validated
+- Distinguish between "mentioned unprompted" (strong) and "agreed when asked" (moderate)
+
+| Attribute | Customer Evidence | Strength | Alternative Lacking |
+|-----------|------------------|----------|-------------------|
+| [attribute] | [exact quote or behavior] | Unprompted/Prompted | [which alternatives] |
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "These are attributes customers validate as unique. Any proprietary capabilities that customers haven't articulated but demonstrably use?"
+
+### 4. Step 3 — Value Mapping (Customer Words)
+
+Map each unique attribute to the value customers report, using their language:
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer-Stated Value | Customer Quote | Value Type |
+|-----------------|----------------------|----------------|------------|
+| [attribute] | [value in their words] | "[exact quote]" | Time/Money/Risk/Capability/Quality |
+
+Identify the **primary value cluster** — the value theme that appears most frequently across customer segments.
+
+### 5. Step 4 — Target Segment (Best-Fit Customers)
+
+From customer evidence, identify who gets the most value:
+
+- Which customers are most engaged/retained?
+- Which customers would be most disappointed without the product?
+- Which customers refer others most frequently?
+- What do these best-fit customers have in common?
+
+Define the segment with observable, actionable characteristics (not demographics alone):
+- Company stage, size, or type
+- Specific pain or trigger event
+- Technology stack or workflow context
+- Buying behavior or evaluation pattern
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "This is the segment the customer data supports as best-fit. Does it match your retention and expansion data?"
+
+### 6. Step 5 — Market Category (Customer Framing)
+
+How do customers describe what this product IS?
+
+- How do they explain it to colleagues?
+- What category do they put it in mentally?
+- What search terms did they use to find it?
+- What budget does it come from?
+
+Evaluate market category options:
+| Category Option | Customer Evidence | Competitive Context | Trade-off |
+|----------------|------------------|--------------------|-----------|
+| [option] | [how customers frame it] | [who you'd compete against] | [what you gain/lose] |
+
+Use WebSearch (2-3 queries) to validate category framing externally.
+
+### 7. Synthesize and Assess Evidence Quality
+
+Combine all five steps and explicitly rate evidence quality:
+
+| Step | Conclusion | Evidence Quality | Confidence | Gap |
+|------|-----------|-----------------|------------|-----|
+| Competitive alternatives | [summary] | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [H/M/L] | [what's missing] |
+| Unique attributes | [summary] | [S/M/W] | [H/M/L] | [gap] |
+| Value | [summary] | [S/M/W] | [H/M/L] | [gap] |
+| Target segment | [summary] | [S/M/W] | [H/M/L] | [gap] |
+| Market category | [summary] | [S/M/W] | [H/M/L] | [gap] |
+
+Present full synthesis. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Here is the complete Obviously Awesome analysis grounded in customer evidence. Which steps have weak evidence that needs strengthening before this feeds into final positioning?"
+
+### 8. Write Output
+
+Only after user approval.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-obviously-awesome.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-obviously-awesome.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Obviously Awesome Positioning Analysis
+
+> Based on: research/customer-feedback.md, research/icp.md, research/competitive-analysis.md
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Obviously Awesome (April Dunford) — customer-evidence-grounded
+> HARD PREREQ: real customer evidence in customer-feedback.md
+
+## Evidence Quality Summary
+
+| Step | Evidence Quality | Sample Size | Confidence |
+|------|-----------------|-------------|------------|
+| Competitive alternatives | [S/M/W] | [n customers] | [H/M/L] |
+| Unique attributes | [S/M/W] | [n mentions] | [H/M/L] |
+| Value | [S/M/W] | [n data points] | [H/M/L] |
+| Target segment | [S/M/W] | [n customers in segment] | [H/M/L] |
+| Market category | [S/M/W] | [n category signals] | [H/M/L] |
+
+## Step 1: Competitive Alternatives (Customer-Evidenced)
+
+| Alternative | How Customers Mention It | Frequency | Context |
+|-------------|-------------------------|-----------|---------|
+| [alt] | "[customer quote]" | [n mentions] | [switch/compare/evaluate] |
+
+**Primary alternative**: [most frequently mentioned]
+
+## Step 2: Unique Attributes (Customer-Validated)
+
+| Attribute | Customer Evidence | Signal Strength | Alternatives Lacking |
+|-----------|------------------|-----------------|---------------------|
+| [attribute] | "[quote]" | Unprompted/Prompted | [which] |
+
+**Excluded (unvalidated by customers)**:
+- [attribute team believes is unique but customers haven't confirmed]
+
+## Step 3: Value Mapping (Customer Words)
+
+| Unique Attribute | Customer-Stated Value | Quote | Value Type |
+|-----------------|----------------------|-------|------------|
+| [attr] | [value] | "[exact words]" | [type] |
+
+**Primary value cluster**: [theme]
+
+## Step 4: Best-Fit Target Segment
+
+**Segment definition**: [observable characteristics]
+**Evidence**: [engagement, retention, referral data]
+**Common traits**:
+- [trait 1]
+- [trait 2]
+- [trait 3]
+
+**Alignment with ICP**: [how this narrows or confirms the ICP]
+
+## Step 5: Market Category
+
+**Recommended category**: [name]
+**Customer framing evidence**: [how they describe it]
+**Strategy**: [existing/subcategory/new]
+
+### Categories Considered
+
+| Category | Customer Evidence | Competitive Implication | Verdict |
+|----------|------------------|------------------------|---------|
+| [category] | [evidence] | [who you'd face] | [chosen/rejected + why] |
+
+## Positioning Hypothesis (Obviously Awesome Format)
+
+**For** [target segment from step 4]
+**who** [primary need evidenced in customer feedback]
+**[product] is a** [market category from step 5]
+**that** [primary value cluster from step 3]
+**Unlike** [primary alternative from step 1]
+**[product]** [key differentiation from step 2]
+
+## Evidence Gaps and Recommendations
+
+| Gap | Impact | How to Fill |
+|-----|--------|-------------|
+| [what's missing] | [how it weakens positioning] | [specific action] |
+
+## Implications for Positioning Synthesis
+
+[How this customer-grounded analysis should influence the final positioning — where it confirms or challenges other framework outputs, and what it means for the canonical positioning statement]
+```
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with blocking/dependency annotations.
+- Condition-gated records go in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Cadence-based reviews go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **HARD PREREQUISITE: real customer evidence.** CANNOT run without `research/customer-feedback.md` containing actual customer data. Do not proceed with hypothetical or team-assumed customer perspectives.
+- **Intermediate artifact only.** This produces `research/positioning-obviously-awesome.md`, not the canonical `research/positioning.md`.
+- **Customer words over team assumptions.** Every finding must trace to customer evidence. Flag anything that relies on team belief alone.
+- **Evidence quality is explicit.** Rate and display confidence for every step. Weak evidence is a finding, not a failure.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings are validated.
+- **Distinguish signal strength.** Unprompted customer mentions are stronger than prompted agreement.
+- **Do not conflate with parent skill.** The parent `$positioning` uses Obviously Awesome lightly; this child skill does it rigorously with full customer grounding.
+
+## 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/obviously-awesome-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.