skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

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

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+---
+name: strategic-canvas
+description: Blue Ocean strategic canvas — extract competing factors, build value curves, apply Four Actions Framework (eliminate/reduce/raise/create)
+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.
+
+# Strategic Canvas — Blue Ocean Value Curve Analysis
+
+Invoke as `$strategic-canvas`.
+
+## 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 Blue Ocean Strategy framework (Kim & Mauborgne) to identify positioning opportunities by mapping industry competing factors, plotting value curves for current competitors, and applying the Four Actions Framework to find uncontested market space. Produces an intermediate artifact for the parent `$positioning` synthesis.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where overserved/underserved moments appear
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — what customers value and what they ignore
+  - `research/positioning.md` — existing positioning context
+
+## 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/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape, features, strengths, weaknesses
+- Read `research/icp.md` — what customers actually value vs. what industry assumes they value
+- Read soft prerequisites if available
+
+### 2. Extract Competing Factors
+
+Identify 8-12 factors the industry competes on. These are the dimensions buyers evaluate:
+
+- Use WebSearch with 3-5 queries: "[category] comparison criteria", "[category] buyer evaluation", "[competitor] vs [competitor] comparison"
+- Sources: review sites, comparison pages, buyer guides, analyst reports
+- Include both explicit (features, price) and implicit (brand trust, ease of switching) factors
+
+Present factors to user. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "These are the competing factors I found for this industry. Which are missing, irrelevant, or mis-weighted?"
+
+### 3. Build Value Curves
+
+For each major competitor (3-5) plus the user's product, score each competing factor on a relative scale (Low / Medium / High):
+
+| Factor | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | This Product |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------------|
+| [factor] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] |
+
+Identify patterns:
+- **Convergence zones** — where all competitors score similarly (commoditized factors)
+- **Divergence zones** — where one player stands out
+- **Overserved factors** — high investment, low customer value
+- **Underserved factors** — low investment, high customer need
+
+### 4. Apply Four Actions Framework
+
+For each competing factor, determine the strategic action:
+
+**Eliminate** — Which factors that the industry takes for granted should be eliminated?
+- Factors that add cost but not customer value
+- Features customers never use or don't care about
+- "Me too" capabilities that don't differentiate
+
+**Reduce** — Which factors should be reduced well below the industry standard?
+- Overengineered features customers don't need at that level
+- Factors where "good enough" beats "best in class"
+
+**Raise** — Which factors should be raised well above the industry standard?
+- Factors where current solutions frustrate customers
+- Dimensions where improvement creates outsized value
+
+**Create** — Which factors should be created that the industry has never offered?
+- New value dimensions competitors haven't considered
+- Needs revealed by journey-map or customer feedback
+- Adjacent problems no one in the category addresses
+
+Validate with user. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Here are the Four Actions. Which eliminate/reduce actions feel too aggressive? Which raise/create actions lack evidence?"
+
+### 5. Define Target Value Curve
+
+Plot the desired value curve for the product — the strategic profile that creates uncontested space:
+
+- Show clear differentiation from competitor curves
+- Validate that eliminate/reduce actions genuinely reduce cost or complexity
+- Validate that raise/create actions genuinely increase customer value
+- Identify the "divergent" shape that signals a blue ocean move
+
+### 6. Write Output
+
+Only after user approval.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning-strategic-canvas.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Strategic Canvas — Blue Ocean Analysis
+
+> Based on: research/competitive-analysis.md, research/icp.md
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne)
+
+## Industry Competing Factors
+
+| # | Factor | Industry Importance | Customer Importance | Gap |
+|---|--------|-------------------|--------------------|----|
+| 1 | [factor] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [over/under/aligned] |
+
+## Value Curves
+
+| Factor | [Comp A] | [Comp B] | [Comp C] | This Product (Current) | This Product (Target) |
+|--------|----------|----------|----------|----------------------|---------------------|
+| [factor] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [1-5] |
+
+### Convergence Zones (Commoditized)
+- [factors where all competitors cluster]
+
+### Divergence Opportunities
+- [factors where the product can break away]
+
+## Four Actions Framework
+
+### Eliminate
+| Factor | Why Eliminate | Cost Saved | Risk |
+|--------|-------------|-----------|------|
+| [factor] | [rationale] | [impact] | [what could go wrong] |
+
+### Reduce
+| Factor | Current Level | Target Level | Rationale |
+|--------|--------------|-------------|-----------|
+| [factor] | [current] | [target] | [why good enough works] |
+
+### Raise
+| Factor | Current Level | Target Level | Evidence of Demand |
+|--------|--------------|-------------|-------------------|
+| [factor] | [current] | [target] | [source] |
+
+### Create
+| Factor | Description | Customer Need | Evidence |
+|--------|-------------|---------------|----------|
+| [factor] | [what it is] | [what need it serves] | [source] |
+
+## Target Strategic Profile
+
+**Blue ocean thesis**: [one sentence — what uncontested space this creates]
+**Key trade-off**: [what you give up to get there]
+**Evidence strength**: [Strong / Moderate / Weak — with justification]
+
+## Implications for Positioning Synthesis
+
+[How this canvas analysis should influence the final positioning — what it suggests for market category, differentiation strategy, and messaging emphasis]
+```
+
+## 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-strategic-canvas.md`, not the canonical `research/positioning.md`.
+- **Evidence-grounded scoring.** Value curve scores must cite competitive analysis or research — no guessing.
+- **Honest about gaps.** If the product has no clear blue ocean move, say so. Not every product needs category creation.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings are validated.
+- **Four Actions must be actionable.** Each action should connect to a concrete product or positioning decision.
+
+## 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-canvas-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/codex/value-prop-canvas/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: scoped` (Scoped intake). Ask only the focused questions needed to scope the research or analysis, then validate critical findings before building review artifacts.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ 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-value-prop-canvas-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-value-prop-canvas-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-value-prop-canvas-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-value-prop-canvas-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.
 
 **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.
 

package/packs/business-research/codex/value-prop-canvas/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # value-prop-canvas changelog (codex)
 
+## v0.11 - 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.
+
+## v0.10 - 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.
+
 ## v0.9 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance so unavailable-pack fallbacks keep `$pack install` while also offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-research/codex/value-prop-canvas/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: value-prop-canvas
 description: Strategyzer-style jobs/pains/gains to features/relievers/creators fit validation
 type: research
-version: v0.9
+version: v0.11
 argument-hint: "[optional: specific job or segment to focus on]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
 ## 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 `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. After install, tell Codex users to start a fresh Codex CLI session if the `$` skill list remains stale. 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. After install, tell Codex users to start a fresh Codex CLI session if the `$` skill list remains stale. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Value Proposition Canvas — Solution-Customer Fit Validation
 
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ 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/value-prop-canvas/archive/v0.10/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,315 @@
+---
+name: value-prop-canvas
+description: Strategyzer-style jobs/pains/gains to features/relievers/creators fit validation
+type: research
+version: v0.10
+argument-hint: "[optional: specific job or segment to focus on]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. After install, tell Codex users to start a fresh Codex CLI session if the `$` skill list remains stale. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Value Proposition Canvas — Solution-Customer Fit Validation
+
+Invoke as `$value-prop-canvas`.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor landscape and alternative solutions
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — where jobs, pains, gains, and aha moments occur in the user/customer lifecycle
+  - `research/positioning.md` — market framing to avoid contradicting accepted positioning
+  - `research/idea-brief.md` — product concept and hypothesis
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, jobs, pains, gains, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` if it exists — competitor landscape, alternative solutions
+- Read `research/idea-brief.md` if it exists — product concept and hypothesis
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Research VPC Methodology
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Domain VPC** — "value proposition canvas [domain]"
+2. **JTBD mapping** — "jobs to be done [category]"
+3. **Strategyzer methodology** — "Strategyzer value proposition design [industry]"
+4. **Customer profile patterns** — "customer jobs pains gains [category]"
+5. **Value map examples** — "value map pain relievers gain creators examples"
+
+### 3. Build Customer Profile
+
+For the primary ICP segment, construct the Customer Profile:
+
+**Jobs** (functional, social, emotional):
+- Functional jobs — tasks they're trying to complete
+- Social jobs — how they want to be perceived
+- Emotional jobs — feelings they seek or avoid
+
+Rank each job by importance (critical / important / nice-to-have).
+
+**Pains**:
+- Undesired outcomes, obstacles, risks
+- Rank by severity: extreme / high / moderate
+
+**Gains**:
+- Outcomes and benefits they want
+- Rank by relevance: required / expected / desired / unexpected
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Here's the Customer Profile I've built from ICP research. Which jobs, pains, or gains are missing, overstated, or mis-ranked?"
+
+### 4. Build Value Map
+
+Map the product's features and services to pain relievers and gain creators:
+
+**Products & Services** — what the product offers (features, capabilities, services)
+
+**Pain Relievers** — for each: which specific pain does it relieve? How completely?
+
+**Gain Creators** — for each: which specific gain does it create? How significantly?
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Does this Value Map accurately reflect what the product does? Any features missing or claims overstated?"
+
+### 5. Score Fit
+
+For each customer job, evaluate how well the Value Map addresses it:
+
+| Job | Fit Score | Evidence | Risk |
+|-----|-----------|----------|------|
+| [job] | Strong Fit / Partial Fit / No Fit / Gap | [what supports this score] | [if No Fit or Gap, what's at stake] |
+
+Flag all jobs with **No Fit** or **Gap** as risks requiring attention.
+
+If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask in plain text:
+- "Do these fit scores reflect reality? Are there fits I'm overrating or gaps I'm missing?"
+
+### 6. Identify Gaps & Risks
+
+Summarize findings across four dimensions:
+
+1. **Unaddressed jobs** — customer jobs with no corresponding product capability
+2. **Partially addressed pains** — pain relievers that don't fully resolve the pain
+3. **Missing gain creators** — desired gains with no corresponding product feature
+4. **Over-investment areas** — features that don't map to important jobs (wasted effort)
+
+Prioritize by ICP segment importance — gaps in critical jobs matter more than gaps in nice-to-have jobs.
+
+### 7. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include a **Recommended** item (the single highest-impact next step given current project state) with a one-line reason, followed by **Other options** (2-4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$positioning` — return to the default AFPS route by framing validated fit in the market
+
+Other options:
+- IF gaps identified: `$positioning` — Define product positioning from gap evidence (if `research/positioning.md` missing), or `$user-flow-map [top gap]` — Map flow structure for the highest-priority gap before UI requirements and layout variants
+- IF no `research/competitive-analysis.md`: `$competitive-analysis` — Understand how alternatives address the same jobs
+- IF `research/positioning.md` exists: `$user-flow-map [validated fit direction]` — return to the prototype path by mapping flow structure before UI requirements and layout variants
+- IF business model, revenue, channel, cost, or defensibility risk remains material: `$lean-canvas` — optional synthesis now that fit is validated
+
+### 8. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 9. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/positioning.md`
+- `research/lean-canvas.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on sections referencing customer jobs, pains, gains, or solution fit
+2. Identify conflicts where claims don't align with the new VPC findings
+3. Note each conflict: file, section, stale claim, what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream docs exist, or no conflicts. Skip display.
+- **Minor** (1-2 small conflicts): Display inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR fit scores changed significantly, new gaps identified, customer profile substantially revised): Display and recommend `$reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/value-prop.md` (or `research/{slug}/value-prop.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Value Proposition Canvas
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, research/competitive-analysis.md, research/idea-brief.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Strategyzer Value Proposition Canvas
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the fit thesis — how well the product addresses the customer's most important jobs, where fit is strongest, and where the critical gaps are]
+
+## Customer Profile
+
+### Jobs
+
+| # | Job | Type | Importance | Description |
+|---|-----|------|------------|-------------|
+| J1 | [job name] | Functional / Social / Emotional | Critical / Important / Nice-to-have | [what they're trying to accomplish] |
+
+### Pains
+
+| # | Pain | Severity | Related Jobs | Description |
+|---|------|----------|--------------|-------------|
+| P1 | [pain name] | Extreme / High / Moderate | J1, J2 | [undesired outcome, obstacle, or risk] |
+
+### Gains
+
+| # | Gain | Relevance | Related Jobs | Description |
+|---|------|-----------|--------------|-------------|
+| G1 | [gain name] | Required / Expected / Desired / Unexpected | J1, J3 | [outcome or benefit they want] |
+
+## Value Map
+
+### Products & Services
+- [Feature/capability 1] — [what it does]
+- [Feature/capability 2] — [what it does]
+
+### Pain Relievers
+
+| Pain Reliever | Addresses Pain | Completeness | How It Relieves |
+|---------------|---------------|--------------|-----------------|
+| [feature/capability] | P1 | Full / Partial / Minimal | [mechanism of relief] |
+
+### Gain Creators
+
+| Gain Creator | Addresses Gain | Significance | How It Creates |
+|--------------|---------------|--------------|----------------|
+| [feature/capability] | G1 | High / Medium / Low | [mechanism of creation] |
+
+## Fit Scorecard
+
+| Job | Fit Score | Evidence | Risk |
+|-----|-----------|----------|------|
+| J1: [job name] | Strong Fit / Partial Fit / No Fit / Gap | [what supports this assessment] | [risk if unaddressed] |
+
+**Overall Fit**: [Strong / Moderate / Weak] — [one-sentence justification]
+
+## Gap Analysis
+
+### Unaddressed Jobs
+- [Job] — [why it's unaddressed, impact on customer segment]
+
+### Partially Addressed Pains
+- [Pain] — [what's addressed, what's missing]
+
+### Missing Gain Creators
+- [Gain] — [no product capability maps to this gain]
+
+### Over-Investment Areas
+- [Feature] — [maps to no important job; potential wasted effort]
+
+## Strategic Implications
+[What this fit analysis means for product strategy — what to double down on, what to build, what to deprioritize]
+
+<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
+## Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote]"
+   - **Now**: [what VPC findings say instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `$reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** `$positioning` — solution-customer fit validated; positioning determines how to frame this value in the market
+
+Other options:
+- [conditional items from step 7]
+```
+
+### `research/value-prop-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/value-prop-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each VPC decision.
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP.** VPC without knowing the customer is guesswork.
+- **Customer-grounded.** Every job, pain, and gain must trace to ICP research or customer evidence, not assumptions.
+- **Be honest about fit.** If fit is weak, say so — that's a critical finding, not a failure.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the canvas has been presented and validated.
+- **VPC ≠ positioning.** Validate solution-customer fit; positioning determines market framing. They are distinct steps.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/value-prop.md`** without asking the user first.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/value-prop-canvas-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.