skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/jtbd-timeline/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -57,7 +57,13 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-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-jtbd-timeline-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-jtbd-timeline-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.
+
+**JTBD timeline translation.** Research focus: Gather switching evidence for first thought, passive looking, active looking, deciding, consuming, and satisfaction, plus push, pull, anxiety, and habit forces. Separate observed switch events from inference, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a switching timeline with force overlays, stage evidence cards, trigger and decision criteria tables, anxiety/habit blockers, confidence, and source gaps. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm timeline stages, trigger events, force strengths, decision criteria, anxieties/habits, confidence ratings, and implications for the parent journey map. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
+
+**Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`jtbd-timeline`), 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/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/jtbd-timeline/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # jtbd-timeline changelog (codex)
 
+## 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 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving runner-specific in-agent pack install commands.

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/jtbd-timeline/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: jtbd-timeline
 description: Moesta/Switch JTBD timeline — map first thought→passive→active→deciding→consuming→satisfaction with push/pull/anxiety/habit forces
 type: research
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.5
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: journey-map
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # JTBD Timeline — Moesta/Switch Analysis
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ 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/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/jtbd-timeline/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+name: jtbd-timeline
+description: Moesta/Switch JTBD timeline — map first thought→passive→active→deciding→consuming→satisfaction with push/pull/anxiety/habit forces
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: journey-map
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# JTBD Timeline — Moesta/Switch Analysis
+
+## 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. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
+- For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/competitive-analysis.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, specs, and codebase context when available.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` if it exists — what alternatives customers switch from/to
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists — switching stories, frustrations, trigger language
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+
+### 2. Map the Switching Timeline
+
+Reconstruct the customer's decision timeline using Moesta's six stages:
+
+**First Thought**: The moment the customer first realizes something isn't working. What triggered awareness? What was the catalyzing event?
+
+**Passive Looking**: The customer is aware but not actively searching. They notice alternatives, read about options, but haven't committed to change. What keeps them in passive mode? What would accelerate them?
+
+**Active Looking**: The customer is now deliberately evaluating alternatives. What criteria are they using? What channels are they searching? Who are they asking?
+
+**Deciding**: The customer has narrowed options and is making a choice. What is the final trigger? What reassurance do they need? What objections remain?
+
+**Consuming**: The customer has switched and is using the new solution. What does the first experience look like? When does buyer's remorse or confirmation set in?
+
+**Satisfaction**: The customer evaluates whether the switch was worth it. Are they better off? Would they recommend? Would they switch again?
+
+### 3. Map the Four Forces
+
+For each timeline stage, identify the four forces that drive or resist change:
+
+**Push of the current situation** (drives change):
+- What frustrations, limitations, or failures push the customer away from their current solution?
+- What is getting worse over time?
+- What events amplify the push?
+
+**Pull of the new solution** (drives change):
+- What about the new solution attracts the customer?
+- What outcomes or capabilities are they drawn to?
+- What promises or proof creates pull?
+
+**Anxiety of the new solution** (resists change):
+- What worries the customer about switching?
+- What could go wrong?
+- What uncertainty exists about the new solution?
+- What learning curve or migration cost is feared?
+
+**Habit of the current situation** (resists change):
+- What keeps the customer with their current solution despite frustrations?
+- What workflows, integrations, or muscle memory create inertia?
+- What switching costs (real or perceived) exist?
+
+### 4. Identify Force Imbalances
+
+Analyze where forces are misaligned:
+- Where is push strong but pull weak? (customer wants to leave but has nowhere compelling to go)
+- Where is pull strong but anxiety blocks? (customer wants the new solution but fears the switch)
+- Where is everything aligned but habit wins? (customer should switch but inertia is too strong)
+- What is the minimum force combination needed to trigger switching?
+
+### 5. Identify the Hiring Criteria
+
+What the customer is actually "hiring" the product to do:
+- Functional job: what task or outcome they need accomplished
+- Social job: how they want to be perceived by others
+- Emotional job: how they want to feel
+
+### 6. Validate with User
+
+Present the timeline, forces analysis, and hiring criteria. Ask for corrections, missing stages, and product-specific context.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# JTBD Switching Timeline
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Moesta/Switch JTBD Timeline
+
+## Switching Timeline
+
+| Stage | Customer State | Duration | Key Evidence |
+|-------|---------------|----------|-------------|
+| First Thought | [catalyzing event] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Passive Looking | [awareness state] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Active Looking | [evaluation criteria] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Deciding | [decision trigger] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Consuming | [first experience] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Satisfaction | [outcome evaluation] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+
+## Four Forces Analysis
+
+### Push of Current Situation
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [frustration/failure] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Pull of New Solution
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [attraction/outcome] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Anxiety of New Solution
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [worry/uncertainty] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Habit of Current Situation
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [inertia/switching cost] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+## Force Imbalances
+
+| Imbalance | Stage | Implication | Intervention |
+|-----------|-------|-------------|-------------|
+| [type] | [stage] | [what this means] | [what could shift it] |
+
+## Hiring Criteria
+
+### Functional Job
+[What task or outcome they need]
+
+### Social Job
+[How they want to be perceived]
+
+### Emotional Job
+[How they want to feel]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every timeline stage and force in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the switching journey, not the solution.
+- Present findings before writing.
+- Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
+- This is a sub-skill — do not emit next-step routing.
+
+## 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/jtbd-timeline-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/jtbd-timeline/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+---
+name: jtbd-timeline
+description: Moesta/Switch JTBD timeline — map first thought→passive→active→deciding→consuming→satisfaction with push/pull/anxiety/habit forces
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: journey-map
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# JTBD Timeline — Moesta/Switch Analysis
+
+## 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. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
+- For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `$customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/competitive-analysis.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, specs, and codebase context when available.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, trigger events
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` if it exists — what alternatives customers switch from/to
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists — switching stories, frustrations, trigger language
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+
+### 2. Map the Switching Timeline
+
+Reconstruct the customer's decision timeline using Moesta's six stages:
+
+**First Thought**: The moment the customer first realizes something isn't working. What triggered awareness? What was the catalyzing event?
+
+**Passive Looking**: The customer is aware but not actively searching. They notice alternatives, read about options, but haven't committed to change. What keeps them in passive mode? What would accelerate them?
+
+**Active Looking**: The customer is now deliberately evaluating alternatives. What criteria are they using? What channels are they searching? Who are they asking?
+
+**Deciding**: The customer has narrowed options and is making a choice. What is the final trigger? What reassurance do they need? What objections remain?
+
+**Consuming**: The customer has switched and is using the new solution. What does the first experience look like? When does buyer's remorse or confirmation set in?
+
+**Satisfaction**: The customer evaluates whether the switch was worth it. Are they better off? Would they recommend? Would they switch again?
+
+### 3. Map the Four Forces
+
+For each timeline stage, identify the four forces that drive or resist change:
+
+**Push of the current situation** (drives change):
+- What frustrations, limitations, or failures push the customer away from their current solution?
+- What is getting worse over time?
+- What events amplify the push?
+
+**Pull of the new solution** (drives change):
+- What about the new solution attracts the customer?
+- What outcomes or capabilities are they drawn to?
+- What promises or proof creates pull?
+
+**Anxiety of the new solution** (resists change):
+- What worries the customer about switching?
+- What could go wrong?
+- What uncertainty exists about the new solution?
+- What learning curve or migration cost is feared?
+
+**Habit of the current situation** (resists change):
+- What keeps the customer with their current solution despite frustrations?
+- What workflows, integrations, or muscle memory create inertia?
+- What switching costs (real or perceived) exist?
+
+### 4. Identify Force Imbalances
+
+Analyze where forces are misaligned:
+- Where is push strong but pull weak? (customer wants to leave but has nowhere compelling to go)
+- Where is pull strong but anxiety blocks? (customer wants the new solution but fears the switch)
+- Where is everything aligned but habit wins? (customer should switch but inertia is too strong)
+- What is the minimum force combination needed to trigger switching?
+
+### 5. Identify the Hiring Criteria
+
+What the customer is actually "hiring" the product to do:
+- Functional job: what task or outcome they need accomplished
+- Social job: how they want to be perceived by others
+- Emotional job: how they want to feel
+
+### 6. Validate with User
+
+Present the timeline, forces analysis, and hiring criteria. Ask for corrections, missing stages, and product-specific context.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map-jtbd-timeline.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# JTBD Switching Timeline
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Moesta/Switch JTBD Timeline
+
+## Switching Timeline
+
+| Stage | Customer State | Duration | Key Evidence |
+|-------|---------------|----------|-------------|
+| First Thought | [catalyzing event] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Passive Looking | [awareness state] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Active Looking | [evaluation criteria] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Deciding | [decision trigger] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Consuming | [first experience] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+| Satisfaction | [outcome evaluation] | [timeframe] | [source] |
+
+## Four Forces Analysis
+
+### Push of Current Situation
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [frustration/failure] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Pull of New Solution
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [attraction/outcome] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Anxiety of New Solution
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [worry/uncertainty] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+### Habit of Current Situation
+| Force | Intensity | Stage Most Active | Evidence |
+|-------|-----------|-------------------|----------|
+| [inertia/switching cost] | High/Medium/Low | [stage] | [source] |
+
+## Force Imbalances
+
+| Imbalance | Stage | Implication | Intervention |
+|-----------|-------|-------------|-------------|
+| [type] | [stage] | [what this means] | [what could shift it] |
+
+## Hiring Criteria
+
+### Functional Job
+[What task or outcome they need]
+
+### Social Job
+[How they want to be perceived]
+
+### Emotional Job
+[How they want to feel]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every timeline stage and force in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the switching journey, not the solution.
+- Present findings before writing.
+- Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
+- This is a sub-skill — do not emit next-step routing.
+
+## 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/jtbd-timeline-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/service-blueprint/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -57,7 +57,13 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-service-blueprint-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-service-blueprint-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-service-blueprint-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-service-blueprint-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.
+
+**Service blueprint translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for customer actions, front-stage interactions, backstage work, support processes, physical/digital evidence, failure points, and operational dependencies. Separate observed service facts from inferred dependencies, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a service blueprint with front-stage/backstage/support/evidence swimlanes, line-of-interaction markers, failure/opportunity callouts, confidence, and source gaps. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm swimlane assignments, backstage dependencies, support-process gaps, evidence artifacts, operational risks, confidence ratings, and journey synthesis implications. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
+
+**Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`service-blueprint`), 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/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/service-blueprint/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # service-blueprint changelog (codex)
 
+## 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 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving runner-specific in-agent pack install commands.

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/service-blueprint/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: service-blueprint
 description: Shostack service blueprint — map front-stage/backstage/support/evidence lines and identify operational gaps
 type: research
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.5
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: journey-map
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Service Blueprint — Shostack Analysis
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ 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.