skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/content-programming/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+name: content-programming
+description: Design an evidence-backed channel programming plan across pillars, formats, cadence, roles, and measurement without writing scripts
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "[channel slug or positioning path]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Content Programming
+
+Invoke as `$content-programming`.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Prefer `research/creator-presence/<slug>.md` when present for cross-platform themes, signature formats, cadence constraints, and proof assets.
+- `research/youtube/creator-positioning-<slug>.md`
+- `research/youtube/portfolio-<slug>.md`
+- Optional peer benchmark and product-led media map.
+
+## Output
+
+Create the `research/youtube/` directory if it does not exist.
+
+Write `research/youtube/content-programming-<slug>.md` with:
+
+- Programming thesis: what the channel repeatedly earns attention for.
+- Pillars: 3-5 durable topic lanes with audience jobs.
+- Formats: recurring formats mapped to archetypes and roles.
+- Cadence: publishing rhythm, minimum viable cadence, and seasonal constraints.
+- Portfolio balance: acquisition vs trust vs proof vs education vs retention.
+- Measurement plan: primary metrics, secondary metrics, and warning signs.
+- Cleanup/refactor plan for existing videos.
+- Next series candidates to specify with `$series-spec`.
+
+## Approved Artifact Handoff
+
+After an approved synthesized write, explicit write/update mode, or any direct artifact mutation:
+
+- List every created or updated synthesized artifact path in the final response.
+- State the verification performed, such as readback, schema/check command, or why no executable verification applies for a Markdown-only strategy artifact.
+- Check and report the relevant git status for intended artifacts when the project is a git repository. If intended artifacts are modified or untracked, make the next action shipping, committing, or an explicit dirty-artifact handoff before recommending downstream strategy work.
+- Do not imply the research workflow is complete while approved artifacts remain untracked or uncommitted unless the user explicitly asked not to ship.
+- If stopping for approval before writing, the approval request remains the next action; do not include downstream routing.
+
+## Intent-Aware Routing
+
+Before applying the default `## Next-Skill Routing` sequence, classify the user's immediate intent and route to the missing action that best serves that intent:
+
+- Strategy refresh: recommend the missing or stale positioning, programming, portfolio, metrics, or product-media artifact.
+- Recording prep: recommend the missing series spec, script, build proof, walkthrough guide, or validation artifact needed before recording.
+- Upload prep: recommend packaging, title/thumbnail, description, chapters, or final metadata work before broader strategy work.
+- Performance review: recommend metrics, cadence, portfolio, peer benchmark, or owner-analytics export work before new content planning.
+- Owner analytics or private/manual platform evidence: route to an explicit manual/guide handoff instead of inventing unavailable metrics.
+- Dirty intended artifacts: route to shipping/commit/handoff first, not another creator strategy skill.
+
+Use the default next-skill sequence only when no stronger user intent, missing artifact, manual blocker, or dirty-artifact handoff applies.
+
+## 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/content-programming-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not generate full scripts or a calendar unless explicitly asked.
+- Every proposed pillar must connect to audit, positioning, product, or benchmark evidence.
+- Use the dossier when present as preferred creator context, while preserving channel audit and portfolio evidence for YouTube-only programming.
+- Keep programming realistic for the apparent production capacity.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/creator-evidence-schema/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: artifact_only` (Artifact-driven). Work from concrete artifacts, data, logs, or existing instructions by default; ask concise clarification questions only when the available artifacts are missing, contradictory, or unsafe to interpret.
+
 **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-creator-evidence-schema-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-creator-evidence-schema-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-creator-evidence-schema-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-creator-evidence-schema-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.
 
 **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 (`creator-evidence-schema`), 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/creator-foundation/codex/creator-evidence-schema/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.7 - 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.
+
+## v0.6 - 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.
+
 ## v0.5 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route wording to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving the Codex in-agent `$pack install <pack>` route.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/creator-evidence-schema/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: creator-evidence-schema
 description: Define normalized creator evidence records, raw evidence paths, confidence fields, privacy notes, and collection constraints for multi-platform audits
 type: research
-version: v0.5
+version: v0.7
 argument-hint: "[creator or project slug]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 ## 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. 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. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Creator Evidence Schema
 
@@ -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/creator-foundation/codex/creator-evidence-schema/archive/v0.5/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+---
+name: creator-evidence-schema
+description: Define normalized creator evidence records, raw evidence paths, confidence fields, privacy notes, and collection constraints for multi-platform audits
+type: research
+version: v0.5
+argument-hint: "[creator or project slug]"
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Creator Evidence Schema
+
+Invoke as `$creator-evidence-schema`.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Identify the creator, project, platforms, and evidence already present in repo context.
+2. Read `research/creator-platforms/capability-matrix.md` if it exists. If it is missing, recommend `$creator-platform-capability-matrix` before collection.
+3. Write `research/creator-platforms/evidence-schema.md`.
+4. Define raw evidence folders under `research/creator-platforms/data/<platform>/<slug>/`.
+5. Define normalized records that future audits can store as JSONL when machine-generated or Markdown tables when manually curated.
+6. Record missing metrics, missing bodies, private fields, stale captures, and unavailable transcripts as explicit evidence gaps.
+
+## Collection Methods
+
+Every normalized record must declare exactly one `capture_method` from this vocabulary:
+
+- `export`: owner-provided platform export, CSV, ZIP, or analytics download.
+- `manual_snapshot`: user-saved page, screenshot, CSV, Markdown note, copied post text, or manually captured URL list.
+- `rss_feed`: RSS, Atom, JSON feed, podcast feed, sitemap, or newsletter feed.
+- `public_page_capture`: public unauthenticated page capture with polite retrieval.
+- `open_source_tool`: OSS tooling such as feed parsers, Playwright screenshots, `trafilatura`, `yt-dlp`, or allowed public-media tools.
+- `free_api`: official free API or public protocol with no paid dependency.
+
+## Raw Evidence Layout
+
+Use this root for source artifacts:
+
+```text
+research/creator-platforms/data/<platform>/<slug>/
+```
+
+Recommended subpaths:
+
+- `raw/` for original exports, saved HTML, screenshots, copied text, feed payloads, and media metadata.
+- `text/` for extracted body text, transcripts, descriptions, and manually cleaned readable content.
+- `normalized/` for JSONL or Markdown evidence registers.
+- `notes/` for collection notes, privacy redactions, and reviewer observations.
+
+Raw files must be cited by local repo path. Do not summarize private or sensitive raw material into public-facing artifacts unless the user explicitly authorizes it.
+
+## LinkedIn Evidence Baseline
+
+For LinkedIn evidence, allow only these baseline capture paths unless the user has already provided explicit authorization and credentials for a later API lane:
+
+- owner exports or admin exports supplied by the user;
+- manual snapshots, screenshots, copied post/article text, or manually captured URL lists;
+- public unauthenticated page captures with polite retrieval;
+- redacted user-provided files.
+
+LinkedIn personal analytics, company/page analytics, private contacts, private messages, relationship data, sensitive account data, and API-only fields are unavailable unless owner-provided, admin-provided, already authorized, and redacted where needed. Do not use logged-in scraping, bot-protection bypass, paywall access, access-control circumvention, paid API dependency, or private-data collection as a baseline collection path.
+
+Before normalizing LinkedIn records, require `privacy_notes` to state whether private contacts, messages, relationship data, sensitive account data, unrelated personal information, and confidential employer/customer material were redacted, excluded, or absent.
+
+## Normalized Record Fields
+
+Each evidence record must define these fields or record why the field is unavailable:
+
+- `evidence_id`: stable local ID.
+- `platform`: source platform.
+- `source_type`: post, article, video, podcast, talk, repo, profile, comment, newsletter, press, milestone, or other documented source type.
+- `source_url`: canonical URL when available.
+- `raw_path`: local raw evidence path.
+- `captured_at`: capture date/time.
+- `capture_method`: one collection method from this skill.
+- `auth_context`: public, owner_export, admin_export, manual, or unknown.
+- `terms_risk`: low, medium, or high.
+- `title`: title or short label.
+- `body_text_path`: path to extracted text if present.
+- `published_at`: publication date when available.
+- `creator_role`: author, speaker, host, guest, founder, maintainer, commenter, curator, or other documented role.
+- `media_type`: text, image, video, audio, code, slide, mixed, or other documented media type.
+- `topic_tags`: curated topic tags.
+- `content_role`: acquisition, trust-building, proof, education, launch support, community, career signal, or other documented role.
+- `metrics`: platform-specific metrics object.
+- `metric_confidence`: observed, owner-provided, estimated, or unavailable.
+- `evidence_confidence`: high, medium, or low.
+- `privacy_notes`: redactions, sensitive fields excluded, private context boundaries, or sharing restrictions.
+- `review_notes`: human review notes, conflicts, stale evidence, and quality caveats.
+
+LinkedIn records must use `auth_context` values conservatively: `public` for public unauthenticated captures, `owner_export` for personal exports, `admin_export` for company/page exports or analytics supplied by an authorized admin, and `manual` for user-saved snapshots or notes. Do not normalize private LinkedIn contacts, messages, relationship data, or sensitive account fields unless the user explicitly supplies redacted evidence for that purpose.
+
+## Metrics Object
+
+Metrics are optional and must not be invented. Include only metrics that are directly observed, owner-provided, or clearly marked as estimated.
+
+Allowed metric keys include:
+
+- views
+- impressions
+- reads
+- listens
+- likes
+- reactions
+- comments
+- replies
+- reposts
+- shares
+- saves
+- clicks
+- subscribers
+- followers
+- engagement_rate
+
+If metrics are unavailable, set `metric_confidence` to `unavailable` and record the gap. If metrics exist but body text is missing, do not infer content-quality causes from performance alone.
+
+## Confidence Guidance
+
+Use `evidence_confidence` consistently:
+
+- `high`: owner export, public repo/API/protocol record, preserved raw artifact, or source URL plus captured raw copy.
+- `medium`: manual snapshot, copied text, public page capture, feed item, or evidence with partial raw support.
+- `low`: stale snapshot, missing source URL, incomplete raw evidence, conflicting platform fields, or unverifiable manual note.
+
+Use `terms_risk` consistently:
+
+- `low`: export, user-supplied file, RSS/feed, public protocol/API, or public repo evidence.
+- `medium`: public page capture or OSS tooling where platform limits, robots rules, or stale snapshots need care.
+- `high`: access-controlled, bot-protected, logged-in, paywalled, private, or ToS-sensitive surfaces.
+
+High-risk evidence must recommend manual snapshots, owner exports, or stopping for user-provided files instead of automated capture.
+
+## Output Requirements
+
+Create the `research/creator-platforms/` directory if it does not exist.
+
+`research/creator-platforms/evidence-schema.md` must contain:
+
+- Scope and capture date.
+- Source assumptions and exclusions.
+- Raw evidence root and recommended subpaths.
+- Collection method vocabulary.
+- Normalized record schema.
+- Metrics object schema.
+- Metric confidence and evidence confidence rules.
+- Privacy and redaction notes.
+- Evidence gap rules for missing metrics, bodies, media, and transcripts.
+- Recommended next skill.
+
+## Approved Artifact Handoff
+
+After an approved synthesized write, explicit write/update mode, or any direct artifact mutation:
+
+- List every created or updated synthesized artifact path in the final response.
+- State the verification performed, such as readback, schema/check command, or why no executable verification applies for a Markdown-only strategy artifact.
+- Check and report the relevant git status for intended artifacts when the project is a git repository. If intended artifacts are modified or untracked, make the next action shipping, committing, or an explicit dirty-artifact handoff before recommending downstream strategy work.
+- Do not imply the research workflow is complete while approved artifacts remain untracked or uncommitted unless the user explicitly asked not to ship.
+- If stopping for approval before writing, the approval request remains the next action; do not include downstream routing.
+
+## Intent-Aware Routing
+
+Before applying the default `## Next-Skill Routing` sequence, classify the user's immediate intent and route to the missing action that best serves that intent:
+
+- Strategy refresh: recommend the missing or stale positioning, programming, portfolio, metrics, or product-media artifact.
+- Recording prep: recommend the missing series spec, script, build proof, walkthrough guide, or validation artifact needed before recording.
+- Upload prep: recommend packaging, title/thumbnail, description, chapters, or final metadata work before broader strategy work.
+- Performance review: recommend metrics, cadence, portfolio, peer benchmark, or owner-analytics export work before new content planning.
+- Owner analytics or private/manual platform evidence: route to an explicit manual/guide handoff instead of inventing unavailable metrics.
+- Dirty intended artifacts: route to shipping/commit/handoff first, not another creator strategy skill.
+
+Use the default next-skill sequence only when no stronger user intent, missing artifact, manual blocker, or dirty-artifact handoff applies.
+
+## 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/creator-evidence-schema-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not mutate external accounts or collect private data.
+- Do not bypass bot protections, rate limits, paywalls, login walls, or access controls.
+- Do not require paid APIs, privileged platform programs, or logged-in scraping.
+- Do not use logged-in LinkedIn scraping, bot-protection bypass, paid API dependency, access-control circumvention, or private-data collection as a baseline path.
+- Do not invent optional metrics, bodies, media assets, or transcripts.
+- Do not treat missing metrics or missing bodies as failures; record them as evidence gaps.
+- Ask the user to redact or exclude private contacts, private messages, sensitive account data, and unrelated personal data before analysis.
+- For LinkedIn, also ask the user to redact or exclude relationship data and confidential employer/customer material before analysis.
+- Cite raw repo paths and source URLs when available.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.