skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/devtool/codex/devtool-workflow/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Alignment Page — devtool-workflow
 
-When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/devtool-workflow-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+Alignment pages are optional for this operational skill. By default, report the outcome inline and write only the skill's normal durable artifacts (`tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Build `alignment/devtool-workflow-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when the agent explicitly identifies a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be resolved cleanly in conversation or the normal artifacts. When an alignment page is created, use the full contract below and a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
 
 **Visual rendering tier.** Each alignment page declares a rendering tier:
 - `document` (default) — text, tables, approval gates. No charts or interactive elements.
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: artifact_only` (Artifact-driven). Work from concrete artifacts, data, logs, or existing instructions by default; ask concise clarification questions only when the available artifacts are missing, contradictory, or unsafe to interpret.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-devtool-workflow-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-devtool-workflow-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-devtool-workflow-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-devtool-workflow-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 

package/packs/devtool/codex/devtool-workflow/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Made alignment pages optional by default: report inline and write the skill's normal durable artifacts unless the user requests an alignment page or the agent identifies a concrete clarification/review need.
+
 ## v0.2 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware devtool pack install wording while preserving the source-checkout `scripts/pack.sh install devtool` route.

package/packs/devtool/codex/devtool-workflow/SKILL.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 name: devtool-workflow
 description: Use only for developer-facing tools, libraries, SDKs, CLIs, APIs, and infrastructure products
 type: planning
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.3
 invocation: orchestrator
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Recommend the next single devtool-pack skill to run and explain the missing arti
 
 ## 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/devtool-workflow-{topic}.html`.
+By default, this skill reports results inline and writes only its normal durable artifacts (for example `tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Do not build an alignment page automatically. Create `alignment/devtool-workflow-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when you explicitly identify a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be handled cleanly inline; when you create one, follow `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory.
 
 ## Default Shipping Contract
 

package/packs/devtool/codex/devtool-workflow/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+name: devtool-workflow
+description: Use only for developer-facing tools, libraries, SDKs, CLIs, APIs, and infrastructure products
+type: planning
+version: v0.2
+invocation: orchestrator
+interview_depth: none
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Devtool Workflow
+
+Invoke as `$devtool-workflow`.
+
+Use this skill when the project is primarily developer-facing.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Read `.agents/project.json` and confirm `project_type` is `devtool`.
+2. If the devtool pack is not enabled, install it with `scripts/pack.sh install devtool` from this source checkout, or `npx skillpacks install devtool` from the project shell when using the published package.
+3. Route research through developer workflow, integration, DX, adoption, positioning, monetization, and docs checks.
+
+## Output
+
+Recommend the next single devtool-pack skill to run and explain the missing artifact or decision that makes it next. In the final response, include `Recommended next skill: <command>` using the `## Next-Skill Routing` rules below.
+
+## 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/devtool-workflow-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/docs-health/claude/hygiene/SKILL.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Read `CLAUDE.md` for project conventions. Read `docs/skills-reference.md` for th
 
 ### 2. Audit Skills (`skills` scope)
 
-For each skill directory in `global/claude/*/SKILL.md`, `global/codex/*/SKILL.md`, `packs/*/claude/*/SKILL.md`, and `packs/*/codex/*/SKILL.md`:
+For each skill directory in `base/claude/*/SKILL.md`, `base/codex/*/SKILL.md`, `packs/*/claude/*/SKILL.md`, and `packs/*/codex/*/SKILL.md`:
 
 **Frontmatter check:**
 - Has `name` field — matches directory name
@@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ Check expected project files exist based on project phase:
 ### 4. Audit Docs (`docs` scope)
 
 **Skills reference sync:**
-- Every global core directory has a corresponding entry in `docs/skills-reference.md`
+- Every base core directory has a corresponding entry in `docs/skills-reference.md`
 - Every pack directory is listed under its pack in `docs/skills-reference.md`
-- The global core table and pack skill lists are complete (no missing, no extras)
+- The base core table and pack skill lists are complete (no missing, no extras)
 
 **Required docs:**
 - `CLAUDE.md` exists at project root
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ Check expected project files exist based on project phase:
 
 Compare Claude and Codex directories within each root:
 
-- Every skill in `global/claude/` should have a corresponding `global/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
+- Every skill in `base/claude/` should have a corresponding `base/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
 - Every skill in `packs/<pack>/claude/` should have a corresponding `packs/<pack>/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
 - Flag skills that exist in one but not the other
 - For skills that exist in both, check that the codex version has:
@@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ Only fix mechanical, unambiguous issues:
 - Add missing `argument-hint:` field (empty) to frontmatter
 - Fix `name` field to match directory name
 - Create missing Codex mirror in the matching root from the Claude version (copy frontmatter + intro, add TODO for Codex-specific content)
-- Add missing skill entries to the appropriate global core table or pack list in `docs/skills-reference.md`
+- Add missing skill entries to the appropriate base core table or pack list in `docs/skills-reference.md`
 - Add missing empty metadata scaffold only when the target generated-doc template explicitly requires metadata and the values can be left blank
 - Normalize duplicate blank lines around headings in generated docs when it is purely mechanical
 
@@ -178,16 +178,16 @@ Display directly to the user (no files written in audit mode):
 ## Hygiene Report — [scope]
 
 ### Errors (X)
-- **global/claude/foo/SKILL.md** — missing `version` field in frontmatter
+- **base/claude/foo/SKILL.md** — missing `version` field in frontmatter
 - **packs/business-discovery/claude/bar/SKILL.md** — directory name `bar` doesn't match frontmatter name `baz`
 
 ### Warnings (X)
 - **packs/example-pack/codex/example-skill/** — missing Codex mirror (exists in Claude only)
-- **docs/skills-reference.md** — `/hygiene` not listed in the global core table
+- **docs/skills-reference.md** — `/hygiene` not listed in the base core table
 - **research/icp.md** — missing `## Next Steps` section required by the research doc template
 
 ### Info (X)
-- **global/claude/ship/SKILL.md** — no `## Constraints` section (consider adding)
+- **base/claude/ship/SKILL.md** — no `## Constraints` section (consider adding)
 - **docs/architecture.md** — unknown hand-written doc; skipped strict generated-doc template checks
 
 ### Summary
@@ -201,8 +201,8 @@ In `fix` mode, prepend each fixed item with a checkmark:
 
 ```
 ### Fixed
-- [x] Added missing `argument-hint:` to global/claude/foo/SKILL.md
-- [x] Created mirror global/codex/hygiene/SKILL.md
+- [x] Added missing `argument-hint:` to base/claude/foo/SKILL.md
+- [x] Created mirror base/codex/hygiene/SKILL.md
 
 ### Remaining Errors (X)
 ...

package/packs/docs-health/claude/reconcile-dev-docs/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Alignment Page — reconcile-dev-docs
 
-When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+Alignment pages are optional for this operational skill. By default, report the outcome inline and write only the skill's normal durable artifacts (`tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Build `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when the agent explicitly identifies a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be resolved cleanly in conversation or the normal artifacts. When an alignment page is created, use the full contract below and a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
 
 **Visual rendering tier.** Each alignment page declares a rendering tier:
 - `document` (default) — text, tables, approval gates. No charts or interactive elements.
@@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-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-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`reconcile-dev-docs`), 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/docs-health/claude/reconcile-dev-docs/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Made alignment pages optional by default: report inline and write the skill's normal durable artifacts unless the user requests an alignment page or the agent identifies a concrete clarification/review need.
+
 ## v0.0
 
 - Archived previous skill contract.

package/packs/docs-health/claude/reconcile-dev-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: reconcile-dev-docs
 description: Reconcile development docs by auditing roadmap, todo, history, phase archives, specs, git history, and code reality
 type: analysis
-version: v0.1
+version: v0.2
 argument-hint: "[audit|fix] [tasks|specs|all]"
 ---
 
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ Report the same sections plus:
 
 ## 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/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html`.
+By default, this skill reports results inline and writes only its normal durable artifacts (for example `tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Do not build an alignment page automatically. Create `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when you explicitly identify a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be handled cleanly inline; when you create one, follow `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory.
 
 ## Default Shipping Contract
 

package/packs/docs-health/claude/reconcile-dev-docs/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+---
+name: reconcile-dev-docs
+description: Reconcile development docs by auditing roadmap, todo, history, phase archives, specs, git history, and code reality
+type: analysis
+version: v0.1
+argument-hint: "[audit|fix] [tasks|specs|all]"
+---
+
+# Reconcile Dev Docs
+
+Audit or repair development documentation so the roadmap, current work, history, specs, and evidence from git/code all tell the same story.
+
+## Process
+
+### 1. Determine Mode and Scope
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS`:
+
+- **Mode**: `audit` (default, read-only) or `fix` (update development docs only)
+- **Scope**: `all` (default), `tasks`, or `specs`
+
+Resolve the canonical development docs:
+
+- `tasks/roadmap.md`
+- `tasks/todo.md`
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` (if it exists)
+- `tasks/record-todo.md` (if it exists)
+- `tasks/recurring-todo.md` (if it exists)
+- `tasks/history.md`
+- `tasks/phases/*.md`
+- `tasks/ideas.md` (if it exists)
+- `specs/*.md` and `specs/*/*.md`
+- `docs/specifications/*.md` (fallback specs location)
+
+If no task docs exist, report that there is nothing to reconcile and recommend `/roadmap` or `/plan-phase` based on available specs.
+
+### 2. Gather Evidence
+
+Read the development docs and collect:
+
+- Roadmap phases, milestone checkboxes, acceptance criteria, manual tasks, record tasks, recurring tasks, and deferred items
+- Current todo phase, checked/unchecked steps, blockers, and review/results sections
+- Manual task blockers and `_(blocks: ...)_` / `_(after: ...)_` annotations
+- Record task conditions, non-blocking reasons, evidence paths, and promotion rules
+- Recurring task cadence, last run, next due, evidence paths, and escalation conditions
+- History entries with dates, completed phases/steps, commit SHAs, and claimed outcomes
+- Phase archives and their completion summaries
+- Spec titles, statuses, acceptance criteria, and major implementation claims
+
+Read git/code evidence:
+
+- `git status --short`
+- `git log --oneline -50`
+- `git log --name-only --since=<latest relevant doc date>` when timestamps suggest docs may be stale
+- Targeted file existence and `rg` checks for claims marked complete
+
+### 3. Reconcile Rules
+
+Classify findings:
+
+| Severity | Examples |
+|----------|----------|
+| **Error** | Docs contradict each other: roadmap marks a phase done while todo has unchecked required steps; history claims completion but no matching roadmap/todo/archive/git evidence exists |
+| **Warning** | Likely drift: recent commits changed areas covered by specs but history/todo were not updated; completed phase has no archive; manual blockers remain for completed steps |
+| **Info** | Cleanup opportunities: stale handoff notes, missing links between history entries and commits, specs that should be checked by `/spec-drift` |
+
+Use these specific checks:
+
+- `tasks/todo.md` checked steps should be reflected in `tasks/history.md` after shipping.
+- Completed roadmap phases should have corresponding `tasks/phases/phase-N.md` archives.
+- The active `tasks/todo.md` phase should match the first incomplete roadmap phase.
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` should not contain unchecked blockers for completed todo steps unless the user explicitly overrode them.
+- `tasks/todo.md` should not contain condition-gated baseline measurements or future records unless they are current execution work; move clear cases to `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` should not contain non-blocking records unless they require human-only external action tied to a `blocks` or `after` step; move clear cases to `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` should not contain agent-executable work such as repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, or authenticated CLI/API operations; move clear cases to `tasks/todo.md`.
+- `tasks/recurring-todo.md` due items should remain advisory unless explicitly promoted into `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Recent commits that complete user-facing work should have a matching history entry.
+- Specs whose described areas changed after their last modification date should be flagged for `/spec-drift`.
+- Claimed completed work should have either git evidence, file evidence, test evidence, or an explicit note explaining why evidence is unavailable.
+
+### 4. Fix Mode
+
+In `fix` mode, apply only unambiguous development-doc changes:
+
+- Append missing factual entries to `tasks/history.md`.
+- Check roadmap milestones only when todo/archive/git evidence all support completion.
+- Create missing `tasks/phases/phase-N.md` archives from completed `tasks/todo.md` content.
+- Move the next roadmap phase into `tasks/todo.md` only when the current phase is clearly complete.
+- Move clearly misclassified non-blocking condition-gated records from `tasks/todo.md` or `tasks/manual-todo.md` into `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Move clearly misclassified cadence-based obligations from `tasks/todo.md` or `tasks/manual-todo.md` into `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+- Move clearly misclassified agent-executable work from `tasks/manual-todo.md` into `tasks/todo.md` with enough file/command detail for `/exec`.
+- Add unresolved contradictions to `tasks/todo.md` under `## Development Docs Reconciliation`.
+- Archive existing `specs/` or `docs/specifications/` files before replacing or substantively rewriting them.
+- Write `tasks/reconciliation-report.md` with resolved, deferred, and remaining findings.
+
+Ask before applying any ambiguous change. If already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask plainly in chat.
+
+## Output
+
+### Audit Mode
+
+```
+## Dev Docs Reconciliation
+
+### Errors (N)
+- **tasks/todo.md** - [problem]. Evidence: [roadmap/history/git reference].
+
+### Warnings (N)
+- **specs/foo.md** - [problem]. Recommended action: /spec-drift.
+
+### Info (N)
+- **tasks/history.md** - [cleanup opportunity].
+
+### Summary
+- Roadmap/todo alignment: [ok|issues]
+- History coverage: [ok|issues]
+- Phase archives: [ok|issues]
+- Spec freshness: [ok|issues]
+- Recommended next action: [specific skill or fix plan]
+```
+
+### Fix Mode
+
+Report the same sections plus:
+
+```
+### Fixed
+- [x] [file] - [change made]
+
+### Deferred
+- [ ] [finding requiring user judgment]
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Read-only by default.
+- In `fix` mode, modify only development docs under `tasks/`, `specs/`, or `docs/specifications/`; archive existing spec documents before replacement per the Archive-First Replacement Policy.
+- Do not modify code, research docs, kanban cards, git history, or deployment state.
+- Do not rewrite or delete old `tasks/history.md` entries; append corrections or superseding notes.
+- Do not uncheck completed work automatically. Report unsupported completion claims unless the user approves the correction.
+- Treat `tasks/roadmap.md` as the strategic source of truth, `tasks/todo.md` as the active execution contract, `tasks/manual-todo.md` as human-only external step-linked work, `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` as advisory surfaces, and `tasks/history.md` as append-only evidence.
+
+## 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/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/docs-health/codex/hygiene/SKILL.md

@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ Read `CLAUDE.md` for project conventions. Read `docs/skills-reference.md` for th
 
 ### 2. Audit Skills (`skills` scope)
 
-For each skill directory in `global/claude/*/SKILL.md`, `global/codex/*/SKILL.md`, `packs/*/claude/*/SKILL.md`, and `packs/*/codex/*/SKILL.md`:
+For each skill directory in `base/claude/*/SKILL.md`, `base/codex/*/SKILL.md`, `packs/*/claude/*/SKILL.md`, and `packs/*/codex/*/SKILL.md`:
 
 **Frontmatter check:**
 - Has `name` field — matches directory name
@@ -72,9 +72,9 @@ Check expected project files exist based on project phase:
 ### 4. Audit Docs (`docs` scope)
 
 **Skills reference sync:**
-- Every global core directory has a corresponding entry in `docs/skills-reference.md`
+- Every base core directory has a corresponding entry in `docs/skills-reference.md`
 - Every pack directory is listed under its pack in `docs/skills-reference.md`
-- The global core table and pack skill lists are complete (no missing, no extras)
+- The base core table and pack skill lists are complete (no missing, no extras)
 
 **Required docs:**
 - `CLAUDE.md` exists at project root
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ Check expected project files exist based on project phase:
 
 Compare Claude and Codex directories within each root:
 
-- Every skill in `global/claude/` should have a corresponding `global/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
+- Every skill in `base/claude/` should have a corresponding `base/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
 - Every skill in `packs/<pack>/claude/` should have a corresponding `packs/<pack>/codex/<name>/SKILL.md`
 - Flag skills that exist in one but not the other
 - For skills that exist in both, check that the codex version has:
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Only fix mechanical, unambiguous issues:
 - Add missing `argument-hint:` field (empty) to frontmatter
 - Fix `name` field to match directory name
 - Create missing Codex mirror in the matching root from the Claude version (copy frontmatter + intro, add TODO for Codex-specific content)
-- Add missing skill entries to the appropriate global core table or pack list in `docs/skills-reference.md`
+- Add missing skill entries to the appropriate base core table or pack list in `docs/skills-reference.md`
 - Add missing empty metadata scaffold only when the target generated-doc template explicitly requires metadata and the values can be left blank
 - Normalize duplicate blank lines around headings in generated docs when it is purely mechanical
 
@@ -179,16 +179,16 @@ Display directly to the user (no files written in audit mode):
 ## Hygiene Report — [scope]
 
 ### Errors (X)
-- **global/claude/foo/SKILL.md** — missing `version` field in frontmatter
+- **base/claude/foo/SKILL.md** — missing `version` field in frontmatter
 - **packs/business-discovery/claude/bar/SKILL.md** — directory name `bar` doesn't match frontmatter name `baz`
 
 ### Warnings (X)
 - **packs/example-pack/codex/example-skill/** — missing Codex mirror (exists in Claude only)
-- **docs/skills-reference.md** — `$hygiene` not listed in the global core table
+- **docs/skills-reference.md** — `$hygiene` not listed in the base core table
 - **research/icp.md** — missing `## Next Steps` section required by the research doc template
 
 ### Info (X)
-- **global/claude/ship/SKILL.md** — no `## Constraints` section (consider adding)
+- **base/claude/ship/SKILL.md** — no `## Constraints` section (consider adding)
 - **docs/architecture.md** — unknown hand-written doc; skipped strict generated-doc template checks
 
 ### Summary
@@ -202,8 +202,8 @@ In `fix` mode, prepend each fixed item with a checkmark:
 
 ```
 ### Fixed
-- [x] Added missing `argument-hint:` to global/claude/foo/SKILL.md
-- [x] Created mirror global/codex/hygiene/SKILL.md
+- [x] Added missing `argument-hint:` to base/claude/foo/SKILL.md
+- [x] Created mirror base/codex/hygiene/SKILL.md
 
 ### Remaining Errors (X)
 ...

package/packs/docs-health/codex/reconcile-dev-docs/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Alignment Page — reconcile-dev-docs
 
-When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html`. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
+Alignment pages are optional for this operational skill. By default, report the outcome inline and write only the skill's normal durable artifacts (`tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Build `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when the agent explicitly identifies a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be resolved cleanly in conversation or the normal artifacts. When an alignment page is created, use the full contract below and a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
 
 **Visual rendering tier.** Each alignment page declares a rendering tier:
 - `document` (default) — text, tables, approval gates. No charts or interactive elements.
@@ -57,7 +57,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-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-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-reconcile-dev-docs-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`reconcile-dev-docs`), 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/docs-health/codex/reconcile-dev-docs/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Made alignment pages optional by default: report inline and write the skill's normal durable artifacts unless the user requests an alignment page or the agent identifies a concrete clarification/review need.
+
 ## v0.0
 
 - Archived previous skill contract.

package/packs/docs-health/codex/reconcile-dev-docs/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: reconcile-dev-docs
 description: Reconcile development docs by auditing roadmap, todo, history, phase archives, specs, git history, and code reality
 type: analysis
-version: v0.1
+version: v0.2
 argument-hint: "[audit|fix] [tasks|specs|all]"
 ---
 
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ Report the same sections plus:
 
 ## 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/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html`.
+By default, this skill reports results inline and writes only its normal durable artifacts (for example `tasks/*.md`, reports, queues, benchmark notes, status docs, or other skill-specific files). Do not build an alignment page automatically. Create `alignment/reconcile-dev-docs-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when you explicitly identify a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be handled cleanly inline; when you create one, follow `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory.
 
 ## Default Shipping Contract