skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/creator-positioning/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: creator-positioning
+description: Define a creator or founder-media channel's audience promise, category, differentiated wedge, proof, and anti-positioning
+type: research
+version: v0.6
+argument-hint: "[channel slug or audit path]"
+interview_depth: light
+---
+
+## 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. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Creator Positioning
+
+Invoke as `$creator-positioning`.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Prefer `research/creator-presence/<slug>.md` when present for cross-platform career, public promise, proof asset, and owned-presence context.
+- Prefer `research/youtube/channel-audit-<slug>.md`, `portfolio-<slug>.md`, and `peer-benchmark-<slug>.md`.
+- Read product/company context when present: `README.md`, `research/**`, `specs/**`, and product docs.
+- If no channel evidence or dossier exists, run `$youtube-channel-audit` for YouTube-only work or `$creator-presence-dossier` for mixed-platform, LinkedIn-first, career-signal, or owned-presence work.
+
+## Output
+
+Create the `research/youtube/` directory if it does not exist.
+
+Write `research/youtube/creator-positioning-<slug>.md` with:
+
+- Current audience promise.
+- Best-fit viewer segment and non-viewer.
+- Category or subcategory the channel should be understood within.
+- Differentiated wedge and why it is credible.
+- Proof assets: videos, founder experience, product evidence, community evidence.
+- Anti-positioning: topics, formats, and promises to avoid.
+- One-sentence positioning statement.
+- Implications for `$content-programming` and `$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/creator-positioning-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Position from evidence; do not invent credentials or audience demand.
+- Treat the dossier as an optional preferred creator context source, not a replacement for YouTube audit evidence when the work is channel-only.
+- Prefer a narrow owned wedge over a broad generic creator promise.
+- If the evidence supports multiple incompatible positions, present the trade-off and recommend one.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/creator-presence-dossier/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-presence-dossier-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-creator-presence-dossier-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-presence-dossier-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-creator-presence-dossier-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-presence-dossier`), 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-presence-dossier/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.5 - 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.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/creator-presence-dossier/SKILL.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 name: creator-presence-dossier
 description: Build a repo-backed Markdown dossier of a creator's public professional presence, career arc, proof assets, platform roles, and next strategy route
 type: research
-version: v0.4
+version: v0.5
 argument-hint: "[creator or project slug]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # Creator Presence Dossier
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ 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-presence-dossier/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+---
+name: creator-presence-dossier
+description: Build a repo-backed Markdown dossier of a creator's public professional presence, career arc, proof assets, platform roles, and next strategy route
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "[creator or project slug]"
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# Creator Presence Dossier
+
+Invoke as `$creator-presence-dossier`.
+
+## 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 slug, platforms, and existing evidence paths from the user request and repo context.
+2. Read `research/creator-platforms/capability-matrix.md` if it exists. If it is missing, recommend `$creator-platform-capability-matrix` before synthesis.
+3. Read `research/creator-platforms/evidence-schema.md` if it exists. If it is missing, recommend `$creator-evidence-schema` before synthesis.
+4. Inspect available normalized and raw creator evidence under `research/creator-platforms/data/<platform>/<slug>/` and any user-specified evidence paths.
+5. Cite the normalized evidence paths, raw evidence paths, source URLs, and capture dates used before making claims.
+6. Write or update `research/creator-presence/<slug>.md`.
+7. Separate public/professional evidence from private repo planning context. Exclude private planning context unless the user explicitly asks to preserve it as internal notes.
+8. End with a next-skill recommendation based on the dossier findings.
+
+## Evidence Boundaries
+
+The dossier is for public and professional presence: profiles, posts, articles, talks, podcasts, newsletters, repos, product docs, public company pages, and owner-provided exports the user chooses to include.
+
+Do not include private repo planning context, private messages, private contacts, unpublished strategy notes, credentials, sensitive account data, or unrelated personal information in the public dossier. If the user explicitly wants internal planning context captured, place it in a clearly labeled internal notes section and mark the source boundary.
+
+When evidence contains sensitive or mixed public/private material, ask the user to redact or exclude the private material before analysis. Do not infer private facts from public artifacts.
+
+## LinkedIn Evidence Handling
+
+LinkedIn evidence must come from user-provided or public-safe sources only:
+
+- Owner-provided LinkedIn exports.
+- Profile snapshots supplied by the user.
+- Public unauthenticated profile or company page captures.
+- User-provided post, share, article, newsletter, rich media, recommendation, skill, position, education, certification, or company page snapshots.
+- User-provided admin or analytics exports only when the user explicitly says they are authorized to share them.
+
+Do not collect LinkedIn evidence through logged-in scraping, bot-protection bypass, paywall access, access-control circumvention, paid API dependency, private-data collection, or private relationship graph extraction.
+
+Before synthesis, classify every LinkedIn source in the evidence register as one of:
+
+- `public`: public profile, public company page, public post/share/article, public recommendation, public rich media, or public career milestone.
+- `owner-provided`: owner export, profile snapshot, post/article snapshot, recommendation snapshot, skills export, positions export, education export, or authorized analytics/admin export.
+- `admin-provided`: company/page analytics or admin material supplied by an authorized owner/admin.
+- `internal notes`: private repo notes the user explicitly asks to preserve outside the public dossier.
+- `mixed/redaction needed`: any source containing private contacts, private messages, relationship data, sensitive account data, unrelated personal information, confidential employer/customer material, or a mix of public and private fields.
+
+For `mixed/redaction needed` LinkedIn evidence, stop before synthesis and ask the user for a redacted version or permission to exclude the private fields. If the user has already provided a redacted extract, cite only the redacted path and record the excluded fields as evidence gaps. Never summarize private contacts, private messages, relationship data, or unrelated personal information into the public dossier.
+
+## Source Types
+
+Support these source families when evidence is present:
+
+- LinkedIn personal profiles, company pages, exports, posts, articles, recommendations, and manual/public snapshots.
+- Personal websites, blogs, portfolios, public bios, RSS feeds, and sitemaps.
+- GitHub profiles, public repos, contribution evidence, READMEs, releases, and product proof.
+- Podcasts, interviews, guest appearances, show pages, feeds, and transcripts when available.
+- Talks, slide decks, event pages, conference bios, and video descriptions.
+- Newsletters, public archives, owner exports, and subscriber or performance notes when owner-provided.
+- Product docs, launch notes, case studies, changelogs, public company pages, and customer-facing proof assets.
+
+## Output Requirements
+
+Create the `research/creator-presence/` directory if it does not exist.
+
+`research/creator-presence/<slug>.md` must contain:
+
+- Scope, capture date, and source assumptions.
+- Identity.
+- Current public promise.
+- Career timeline.
+- Platform map.
+- Core themes.
+- Expertise claims.
+- Proof assets.
+- Signature formats.
+- Audience/community signals.
+- Product/company connections.
+- Gaps, contradictions, and stale positioning.
+- Evidence register.
+- Next collection tasks.
+- Recommended next skills.
+
+Do not invent missing metrics, private context, career milestones, content bodies, transcripts, or audience signals. Record missing fields as evidence gaps.
+
+## Markdown Contract
+
+Use these sections in the dossier, keeping unsupported sections brief with explicit evidence gaps rather than omitting them:
+
+1. `# <Creator or Project Name> Presence Dossier`
+2. `## Scope and Capture`
+   - Creator or project slug.
+   - Capture date.
+   - Source assumptions.
+   - Included platforms and excluded platforms.
+   - Public/professional boundary summary.
+3. `## Identity`
+   - Public names, roles, affiliations, locations only when publicly stated, and canonical profile links.
+   - Distinguish confirmed identity facts from inferred identity signals.
+4. `## Current Public Promise`
+   - The creator's current public positioning, promise, audience, and category.
+   - Confidence and evidence gaps for each claim.
+5. `## Career Timeline`
+   - Chronological public milestones, roles, launches, talks, publications, repos, and product/company events.
+   - Include dates or date ranges when available; mark undated items as gaps.
+6. `## Platform Map`
+   - Platform, handle or URL, role of the platform, activity state, evidence coverage, and collection gaps.
+   - Support LinkedIn, personal websites/blogs, GitHub, podcasts, talks, newsletters, and product docs when evidence is present.
+   - For LinkedIn, distinguish personal profile, company page, posts/shares, articles/newsletters, recommendations, skills, positions, education, rich media, and owner/admin-provided analytics when present.
+7. `## Core Themes`
+   - Recurring subjects, categories, language patterns, and audience problems.
+8. `## Expertise Claims`
+   - Claimed expertise, evidence supporting each claim, confidence, and missing proof.
+9. `## Proof Assets`
+   - Public artifacts that substantiate credibility: posts, articles, repos, talks, case studies, product docs, launches, testimonials, podcasts, newsletters, and public metrics.
+10. `## Signature Formats`
+    - Repeated formats, hooks, series, talk structures, newsletter styles, repo/doc formats, and content patterns.
+11. `## Audience and Community Signals`
+    - Public engagement signals, community roles, collaborator signals, comments, testimonials, recommendations, event participation, and owner-provided metrics.
+    - LinkedIn recommendations, reactions, comments, follower counts, impressions, or company/page analytics may appear only when they are public, owner-provided, admin-provided, or already redacted.
+12. `## Product and Company Connections`
+    - Companies, products, docs, launches, customer proof, open-source projects, and founder/operator narratives tied to the creator.
+13. `## Gaps, Contradictions, and Stale Positioning`
+    - Missing evidence, outdated profiles, contradictory claims, unsupported metrics, stale bios, unclear role changes, and collection risks.
+14. `## Evidence Register`
+    - A table with one row per material source.
+15. `## Next Collection Tasks`
+    - Prioritized tasks to close evidence gaps, with target platform, collection method, owner, and reason.
+16. `## Recommended Next Skills`
+    - The next creator-media skills to run and why, using the routing rules below.
+
+## Evidence Register
+
+Every material source must appear in the evidence register. Each row must include:
+
+- `Source path or URL`: repo path, raw evidence path, normalized evidence path, or public URL.
+- `Capture date`: the date the source was collected or last verified; use `unknown` only when the date is unavailable and record that as a gap.
+- `Source family`: LinkedIn, personal website/blog, GitHub, podcast, talk, newsletter, product docs, YouTube, owner export, or other.
+- `Public/private boundary`: `public`, `owner-provided`, `internal notes`, or `mixed/redaction needed`.
+- `Confidence level`: `high`, `medium`, or `low`.
+- `Claims supported`: the dossier claims this source supports.
+- `Evidence gaps`: missing dates, missing body text, unavailable metrics, stale captures, missing transcripts, unclear attribution, or private material that must be excluded.
+
+For LinkedIn rows, `Claims supported` should identify the specific evidence kind when relevant: profile export, profile snapshot, post/share, article/newsletter, rich media, recommendation, skill, position, education, certification, company page, public snapshot, owner-provided analytics, or admin-provided analytics.
+
+Use confidence levels consistently:
+
+- `high`: primary public source, owner-provided export, or directly captured artifact with a capture date.
+- `medium`: secondary public source, partial capture, or credible source with incomplete metadata.
+- `low`: inferred signal, stale capture, ambiguous attribution, or source with unresolved gaps.
+
+## 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-presence-dossier-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not mutate external accounts or publish content.
+- 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 treat missing metrics, missing bodies, or unavailable transcripts as failures; record them as evidence gaps.
+- Cite source paths, source URLs, capture dates, and confidence levels for substantive claims.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/product-led-media-map/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 +59,11 @@ 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-product-led-media-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-product-led-media-map-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, research-scope approval gates, and a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that shows the future Stage 2 review shape before research starts. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-product-led-media-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-product-led-media-map-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
+
+**Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`product-led-media-map`), Category (business/tooling/workflow/technical/domain), and per-term Approve/Edit/Reject/Flag radio controls. Only user-approved terms are appended to the target glossary (`research/glossary.md` or `research/{slug}/glossary.md` for scoped paths) during the confirmed-page write step. When the skill operates in a product-path scope, ask whether each term belongs in the parent or scoped glossary; default to the scoped glossary.
 

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/product-led-media-map/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.5 - 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.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/creator-foundation/codex/product-led-media-map/SKILL.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 name: product-led-media-map
 description: Map a product or company into founder-led YouTube media themes, proof assets, demos, trust moments, and content roles
 type: research
-version: v0.4
+version: v0.5
 argument-hint: "[product or channel slug]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ 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/product-led-media-map/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+---
+name: product-led-media-map
+description: Map a product or company into founder-led YouTube media themes, proof assets, demos, trust moments, and content roles
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "[product or channel slug]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Product-Led Media Map
+
+Invoke as `$product-led-media-map`.
+
+## 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
+
+- Product context: `README.md`, `specs/**`, `research/**`, docs, changelogs, demos, launch notes.
+- Preferred creator context when present: `research/creator-presence/<slug>.md`.
+- Creator context: `research/youtube/creator-positioning-<slug>.md`, channel audit, portfolio, and programming docs when present.
+
+## Output
+
+Create the `research/youtube/` directory if it does not exist.
+
+Write `research/youtube/product-led-media-map-<slug>.md` with:
+
+- Product truth: what can be shown, proven, or taught.
+- Audience overlap: product users, buyers, community, and broader media audience.
+- Proof assets: demos, workflows, customer language, benchmarks, build logs, failures, behind-the-scenes evidence.
+- Media themes: education, build-in-public, market analysis, case studies, product demos, founder judgment.
+- Trust risks: overpromising, thin proof, sensitive customer data, sponsor conflicts, product-market mismatch.
+- Content-role mapping: acquisition, trust-building, proof, education, launch support, retention.
+- Recommended links to `$content-programming` and `$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/product-led-media-map-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not create product claims the repo cannot support.
+- Do not expose secrets, private customer data, or unreleased commitments.
+- Use the dossier when present to connect product proof to the creator's public roles and proof assets; do not require it for YouTube-only product-led channel work.
+- Keep product-led media distinct from ad copy; show evidence and judgment.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.