skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/service-blueprint/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+---
+name: service-blueprint
+description: Shostack service blueprint — map front-stage/backstage/support/evidence lines and identify operational gaps
+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.
+
+# Service Blueprint — Shostack 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
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists
+- Read codebase structure, API routes, database schema when a production codebase exists
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+
+### 2. Identify Service Stages
+
+For each key user journey from ICP evidence, identify the major service stages: awareness, consideration, onboarding, core usage, support, renewal/expansion, offboarding.
+
+### 3. Map Front-Stage Actions
+
+For each stage, document the customer-visible interactions:
+- Customer actions (what the user does)
+- Physical/digital evidence (what the user sees, receives, or interacts with)
+- Touchpoints (channels, interfaces, communication points)
+
+### 4. Map Backstage Actions
+
+For each front-stage action, document what happens behind the scenes:
+- Employee/system actions that directly support the front-stage experience
+- Internal processes the customer never sees but depends on
+- Data flows between systems
+
+### 5. Map Support Processes
+
+For each backstage action, identify the support infrastructure:
+- Technology systems, databases, APIs
+- Third-party services and integrations
+- Internal tools and operational processes
+- Policy and compliance requirements
+
+### 6. Draw the Lines of Interaction
+
+Identify the four key boundaries:
+- **Line of interaction**: between customer and front-stage
+- **Line of visibility**: between front-stage and backstage (what the customer can vs cannot see)
+- **Line of internal interaction**: between backstage and support processes
+- **Line of implementation**: between support processes and infrastructure
+
+### 7. Identify Operational Gaps
+
+Analyze the blueprint for:
+- **Fail points**: where the service is most likely to break down
+- **Wait points**: where the customer experiences delays
+- **Bottlenecks**: where capacity constraints create queuing
+- **Handoff gaps**: where information is lost between stages or systems
+- **Evidence gaps**: where the customer lacks visibility into service status
+- **Redundancy**: where duplicate processes exist
+
+### 8. Validate with User
+
+Present the blueprint and gap analysis. Ask for corrections, missing stages, and product-specific context.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/journey-map-service-blueprint.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map-service-blueprint.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Service Blueprint
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Shostack Service Blueprint
+
+## Service Stages
+
+| Stage | Customer Action | Evidence/Touchpoint | Backstage Action | Support Process |
+|-------|----------------|---------------------|------------------|-----------------|
+| [stage] | [action] | [evidence] | [backstage] | [support] |
+
+## Lines of Interaction
+
+### Line of Visibility
+[What the customer can vs cannot see at each stage]
+
+### Line of Internal Interaction
+[Backstage to support process boundaries]
+
+## Operational Gap Analysis
+
+| Gap Type | Stage | Description | Severity | Evidence |
+|----------|-------|-------------|----------|----------|
+| Fail point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+| Wait point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+| Bottleneck | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every blueprint element in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the service, 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/service-blueprint-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
+---
+name: service-blueprint
+description: Shostack service blueprint — map front-stage/backstage/support/evidence lines and identify operational gaps
+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.
+
+# Service Blueprint — Shostack 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
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists
+- Read codebase structure, API routes, database schema when a production codebase exists
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+
+### 2. Identify Service Stages
+
+For each key user journey from ICP evidence, identify the major service stages: awareness, consideration, onboarding, core usage, support, renewal/expansion, offboarding.
+
+### 3. Map Front-Stage Actions
+
+For each stage, document the customer-visible interactions:
+- Customer actions (what the user does)
+- Physical/digital evidence (what the user sees, receives, or interacts with)
+- Touchpoints (channels, interfaces, communication points)
+
+### 4. Map Backstage Actions
+
+For each front-stage action, document what happens behind the scenes:
+- Employee/system actions that directly support the front-stage experience
+- Internal processes the customer never sees but depends on
+- Data flows between systems
+
+### 5. Map Support Processes
+
+For each backstage action, identify the support infrastructure:
+- Technology systems, databases, APIs
+- Third-party services and integrations
+- Internal tools and operational processes
+- Policy and compliance requirements
+
+### 6. Draw the Lines of Interaction
+
+Identify the four key boundaries:
+- **Line of interaction**: between customer and front-stage
+- **Line of visibility**: between front-stage and backstage (what the customer can vs cannot see)
+- **Line of internal interaction**: between backstage and support processes
+- **Line of implementation**: between support processes and infrastructure
+
+### 7. Identify Operational Gaps
+
+Analyze the blueprint for:
+- **Fail points**: where the service is most likely to break down
+- **Wait points**: where the customer experiences delays
+- **Bottlenecks**: where capacity constraints create queuing
+- **Handoff gaps**: where information is lost between stages or systems
+- **Evidence gaps**: where the customer lacks visibility into service status
+- **Redundancy**: where duplicate processes exist
+
+### 8. Validate with User
+
+Present the blueprint and gap analysis. Ask for corrections, missing stages, and product-specific context.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/journey-map-service-blueprint.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map-service-blueprint.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Service Blueprint
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Shostack Service Blueprint
+
+## Service Stages
+
+| Stage | Customer Action | Evidence/Touchpoint | Backstage Action | Support Process |
+|-------|----------------|---------------------|------------------|-----------------|
+| [stage] | [action] | [evidence] | [backstage] | [support] |
+
+## Lines of Interaction
+
+### Line of Visibility
+[What the customer can vs cannot see at each stage]
+
+### Line of Internal Interaction
+[Backstage to support process boundaries]
+
+## Operational Gap Analysis
+
+| Gap Type | Stage | Description | Severity | Evidence |
+|----------|-------|-------------|----------|----------|
+| Fail point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+| Wait point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+| Bottleneck | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every blueprint element in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the service, 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/service-blueprint-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/user-story-map/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-user-story-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-user-story-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-user-story-map-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-user-story-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.
+
+**User story map translation.** Research focus: Gather evidence for activities, tasks, stories, release slices, walking skeleton, persona/job fit, and dependency order. Separate user-behavior evidence from inferred story hierarchy, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render an activity-task-story backbone, release-slice bands, walking-skeleton marker, dependency and confidence notes, evidence links, and source gaps. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm activity backbone, task/story granularity, slice priority, walking skeleton, missing stories, 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 (`user-story-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/customer-lifecycle/codex/journey-map/frameworks/user-story-map/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # user-story-map 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/user-story-map/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: user-story-map
 description: Jeff Patton user story map — activity→task→story hierarchy with release slicing and walking skeleton identification
 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.
 
 # User Story Map — Jeff Patton 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/user-story-map/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+---
+name: user-story-map
+description: Jeff Patton user story map — activity→task→story hierarchy with release slicing and walking skeleton identification
+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.
+
+# User Story Map — Jeff Patton 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
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` if it exists — feature requests, usage patterns
+- Read specs if they exist — existing feature inventory
+- Read codebase structure when available — current implementation state
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context
+
+### 2. Identify Activities (Backbone)
+
+Map the high-level user activities — the big things users do with the product. These form the horizontal backbone of the story map.
+
+- Each activity represents a goal-level behavior (not a feature)
+- Order activities left-to-right by typical usage flow or importance
+- Ground each activity in ICP evidence (which persona, which pain point)
+
+### 3. Break Activities into Tasks
+
+For each activity, identify the user tasks — the steps users take to accomplish the activity.
+
+- Tasks sit below their parent activity
+- Order tasks left-to-right by typical sequence
+- Each task should be small enough to describe with a user story but large enough to be meaningful
+
+### 4. Identify Stories Under Tasks
+
+For each task, list the specific user stories — the detailed behaviors and variations.
+
+- Stories sit below their parent task, ordered top-to-bottom by priority
+- Use standard format: "As a [persona], I want to [action], so that [outcome]"
+- Include alternative paths, edge cases, and error handling stories
+
+### 5. Slice Releases
+
+Draw horizontal lines across the story map to define release boundaries:
+
+- **Walking skeleton** (Release 1): the minimum viable path through all activities — one thin story per activity that proves the end-to-end flow works
+- **Release 2**: stories that make the walking skeleton genuinely useful — fills in the most painful gaps
+- **Release 3+**: stories that deepen, optimize, or expand
+
+For each release slice:
+- What user outcome does this release enable?
+- What is the minimum set of stories needed?
+- What is explicitly deferred and why?
+
+### 6. Identify the Walking Skeleton
+
+The walking skeleton is the thinnest possible end-to-end implementation:
+- One path through every activity
+- Proves the architecture works
+- Is deployable and testable (even if not shippable)
+- May use stubs, manual steps, or reduced scope
+
+### 7. Validate with User
+
+Present the story map hierarchy and release slicing. Ask for corrections, missing activities, and prioritization adjustments.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/journey-map-user-story-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map-user-story-map.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# User Story Map
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Jeff Patton User Story Mapping
+
+## Activity Backbone
+
+| Activity | Persona | Goal | Evidence |
+|----------|---------|------|----------|
+| [activity] | [persona] | [goal-level behavior] | [source] |
+
+## Story Map
+
+### Activity: [activity name]
+
+#### Task: [task name]
+| Priority | Story | Persona | Release |
+|----------|-------|---------|---------|
+| P1 | As a [persona], I want to [action], so that [outcome] | [persona] | R1 |
+| P2 | As a [persona], I want to [action], so that [outcome] | [persona] | R2 |
+
+## Release Slicing
+
+### Release 1 — Walking Skeleton
+**Outcome**: [what this enables]
+**Stories**: [count]
+
+| Activity | Task | Story | Rationale |
+|----------|------|-------|-----------|
+| [activity] | [task] | [story summary] | [why this is in R1] |
+
+### Release 2 — [theme]
+**Outcome**: [what this enables]
+
+### Release 3+ — [theme]
+**Outcome**: [what this enables]
+
+## Walking Skeleton
+
+[Description of the thinnest end-to-end path]
+
+| Activity | Skeleton Story | Implementation Notes |
+|----------|---------------|---------------------|
+| [activity] | [minimal story] | [stubs, manual steps, reduced scope] |
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Ground every activity and story in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
+- Do not prescribe implementation architecture — describe user behavior, not system design.
+- 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/user-story-map-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.