skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/exec-loop/codex/ship-end/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: ship-end
 description: "Wrap up the current session — update docs, commit, and push"
 type: shipping
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[--no-deploy] [--save-conversation] [--save-all-conversations]"
 ---
 
@@ -73,11 +73,11 @@ Rules:
 - Use `./scripts/agent-mode.sh` only to choose command text. If it is missing, unset, or non-zero, infer routing from the current invocation and task type instead of asking the user to select a mode by default.
 - Inference defaults:
   - Codex skill invocation (`$exec`, `$ship`, `$ship-end`) → recommend the matching `$...` command.
-  - Hybrid execution handoff → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-bridge` — if `agent-bridge` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install agent-bridge` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install agent-bridge` from the project shell first; if `agent-bridge` is enabled, recommend `$delegate $exec`.
+  - Hybrid execution handoff → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-bridge` — if `agent-bridge` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install agent-bridge` from the project shell first; if `agent-bridge` is enabled, recommend `$delegate $exec`.
   - Claude slash invocation (`/exec`, `/ship-end`, `/delegate`) or orchestration-heavy work → recommend the matching `/...` route.
-  - External human-only manual work (browser/auth/DNS/service dashboard work with no reliable authenticated CLI/API path, paid account setup, real-device checks, or production smoke-test work needing human sign-off) → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `guided-walkthrough` — if `guided-walkthrough` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install guided-walkthrough` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install guided-walkthrough` from the project shell first; if `guided-walkthrough` is enabled, recommend `$guide` — or a Claude-guided manual step rather than `$exec`.
-  - Agent-executable work misfiled in `tasks/manual-todo.md`, task-doc bookkeeping, stale `tasks/manual-todo.md` cleanup, or reconciliation against repo/history reality → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `docs-health` — if `docs-health` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install docs-health` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install docs-health` from the project shell first; if `docs-health` is enabled, recommend `$reconcile-dev-docs fix tasks` — promotion to `tasks/todo.md`, or a direct dev-doc audit, not `$guide`.
-- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, include `$pack install <pack-name>` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install <pack-name>` from the project shell as the prerequisite.
+  - External human-only manual work (browser/auth/DNS/service dashboard work with no reliable authenticated CLI/API path, paid account setup, real-device checks, or production smoke-test work needing human sign-off) → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `guided-walkthrough` — if `guided-walkthrough` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install guided-walkthrough` from the project shell first; if `guided-walkthrough` is enabled, recommend `$guide` — or a Claude-guided manual step rather than `$exec`.
+  - Agent-executable work misfiled in `tasks/manual-todo.md`, task-doc bookkeeping, stale `tasks/manual-todo.md` cleanup, or reconciliation against repo/history reality → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `docs-health` — if `docs-health` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install docs-health` from the project shell first; if `docs-health` is enabled, recommend `$reconcile-dev-docs fix tasks` — promotion to `tasks/todo.md`, or a direct dev-doc audit, not `$guide`.
+- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, include `npx skillpacks install <pack-name>` from the project shell as the prerequisite.
 - Only present multiple commands when the ambiguity materially changes execution safety or there are equally valid next work items. Otherwise choose the best route and mention degraded mode lookup inline.
 
 ## Constraints

package/packs/exec-loop/codex/ship-end/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+name: ship-end
+description: "Wrap up the current session — update docs, commit, and push"
+type: shipping
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[--no-deploy] [--save-conversation] [--save-all-conversations]"
+---
+
+# Ship End
+
+Invoke as `$ship-end`.
+
+Use this skill when the user wants the current session wrapped up cleanly. If `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--save-conversation`, save the current conversation to `conversations/`. If `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--save-all-conversations`, export all past conversations to `conversations/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Inspect `git status` and diffs.
+2. If the tree is clean and there are no unpushed commits, report that there is nothing to ship and stop.
+3. Update `tasks/todo.md` with completed items and blockers. Also update milestone progress in `tasks/roadmap.md` if criteria were met.
+3b. Check `tasks/manual-todo.md` (if it exists) — note the status of manual tasks (checked vs unchecked). Do NOT modify checked items.
+3c. Check `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` if they exist — note unchecked advisory counts only. Do NOT treat them as blockers unless an item has been promoted into `tasks/todo.md`.
+4. Update `tasks/history.md` with a brief record of the session. Create it if needed.
+5. **Pre-ship validation:**
+   - First check conversation context for lint/typecheck/test/build output already produced this session (e.g., from a TDD run step). Do NOT re-run commands whose results are already available.
+   - For any validation category not already run, find commands from: `CLAUDE.md`, `Makefile`/`Justfile` (check/lint/typecheck/test/build targets), `package.json` (lint/typecheck/check/test/build scripts), `pyproject.toml`/`setup.cfg`, `Cargo.toml`. If none found and no prior output exists, skip.
+   - Inspect validation output even when commands exit zero. If warnings are emitted, either fix them, record them as explicitly accepted with rationale, or report them clearly as unresolved.
+   - If errors are found (from prior output or fresh runs), fix them and re-run only the failing commands to confirm. Include fixes in the session-wrap-up commit, or a separate commit if unrelated.
+   - If errors can't be auto-fixed, **STOP. Do not ship.** Report the errors to the user and ask how to proceed. Never commit or push code with known build/lint/type/test failures.
+5b. **Quality gate for non-trivial mutations:**
+   - Apply `docs/quality-gate-contract.md` when the session changed source code, scripts, configuration, schemas, generated runtime assets, deploy behavior, workflow policy, validation rules, command surfaces, or multiple files.
+   - Build a ship manifest from the exact diff and unpushed commits that will be included in the session wrap-up. The manifest must include: User goal, Changed files, Per-file purpose, User-goal mapping, Tests run, Skipped tests, Adversarial review, Residual risk, Rollback note, and Next command.
+   - For non-trivial source changes, run a targeted `quality-sweep audit`, `$expert-review`, configured review lane, or explicitly justified equivalent adversarial review before commit/push. Fix findings or record accepted residual concerns in the manifest.
+   - Final output must distinguish executable verification from documentation-only or task-only checks. Documentation/task checks can support source changes, but cannot be the only proof for non-trivial source mutations.
+   - If no executable check is relevant, state why in `Skipped tests` and explain the residual risk. Do not write "not run" without a rationale.
+   - If the user corrected the agent during the session, the pre-commit ship manifest must prove the exact shipping boundary includes a `tasks/lessons.md` update for the current correction. Treat the correction as repeatable unless the manifest proves otherwise. If it exposes a workflow failure, also include the relevant skill contract, validation script, fixture, or test enforcement update in the same shipping boundary, or include `Correction enforcement:` with the blocker or not-applicable rationale and the concrete follow-up file/command when needed.
+6. Deploy (skip if `--no-deploy`):
+   After shipping, deploy only when the project has an explicit manual deploy contract.
+   - Check for deploy contract: look for `deploy.md` or `tasks/deploy.md`.
+   - If neither file exists, skip deploy and report `Deploy skipped: no explicit manual deploy contract (deploy.md or tasks/deploy.md)`.
+   - If a deploy contract exists, continue.
+   - Invoke `$deploy` targeting the default environment (staging).
+   - Pass the deploy contract context to `$deploy`.
+   - Skip ledger recording and staleness reporting — those are for standalone `$deploy` invocations only.
+   - If `$deploy` reports failure, report the error. Do not retry.
+7. **Save conversation (skip if `--save-conversation` and `--save-all-conversations` both absent):** Run `scripts/save-conversation.sh` to export the current conversation as a markdown file in `conversations/`. If the script is not found or fails (e.g., no local conversation history available), warn and continue — do not block shipping. Include the generated file in the shipping boundary.
+   - If `$ARGUMENTS` contains `--save-all-conversations`, run `scripts/save-conversation.sh --all` instead.
+8. Commit and push using the `commit-and-push-by-feature` workflow. That workflow must land the resulting commits on `main` or `master`, not on an existing feature branch.
+8b. **Pack install artifact boundary:** Treat `.agents/project.json` as the committed project designation. When pack configuration changed, include `.agents/project.json` in the shipping boundary. Treat `.claude/skills/**` and `.codex/skills/**` as generated local skill roots recreated by `/pack`, `$pack`, or `scripts/pack.sh refresh`; generated skill roots must not be staged or committed. If those roots are untracked, leave them uncommitted and report them as generated local artifacts. If any path under those roots is already tracked or modified as a tracked file, stop unless the current task explicitly includes repository hygiene to untrack or ignore generated skill roots.
+9. Report:
+   - What was accomplished
+   - Validation status — explicitly state whether any failing tests are expected (red phase: tests before implementation) or unexpected (regressions/bugs), and call out any warnings as fixed, accepted, or unresolved
+   - Manual tasks — X/Y complete (from `tasks/manual-todo.md`, if it exists)
+   - Advisory tasks — pending record/recurring counts from `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` if they exist
+   - What is still outstanding
+   - Branch name
+   - Commit list
+   - Final working-tree state
+   - **Next work:** the next concrete project task, blocker, smoke test, or follow-up
+   - **Recommended next command:** one command or route for that work
+
+## Next-Step Routing
+
+Before closing out the session, identify the next concrete work item from project state, then recommend the executor and invocation.
+
+Output exactly two lines beyond the normal report:
+
+- **Next work:** <specific task name, manual blocker, verification gap, or "none">
+- **Recommended next command:** <one command or route>
+
+Rules:
+
+- Make the next work item primary. Derive it from `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, deploy status, validation gaps, smoke-test gaps, phase-transition output, outstanding session work, or the absence of any remaining work. Do not use agent mode itself as the next work item.
+- Use `./scripts/agent-mode.sh` only to choose command text. If it is missing, unset, or non-zero, infer routing from the current invocation and task type instead of asking the user to select a mode by default.
+- Inference defaults:
+  - Codex skill invocation (`$exec`, `$ship`, `$ship-end`) → recommend the matching `$...` command.
+  - Hybrid execution handoff → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-bridge` — if `agent-bridge` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install agent-bridge` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install agent-bridge` from the project shell first; if `agent-bridge` is enabled, recommend `$delegate $exec`.
+  - Claude slash invocation (`/exec`, `/ship-end`, `/delegate`) or orchestration-heavy work → recommend the matching `/...` route.
+  - External human-only manual work (browser/auth/DNS/service dashboard work with no reliable authenticated CLI/API path, paid account setup, real-device checks, or production smoke-test work needing human sign-off) → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `guided-walkthrough` — if `guided-walkthrough` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install guided-walkthrough` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install guided-walkthrough` from the project shell first; if `guided-walkthrough` is enabled, recommend `$guide` — or a Claude-guided manual step rather than `$exec`.
+  - Agent-executable work misfiled in `tasks/manual-todo.md`, task-doc bookkeeping, stale `tasks/manual-todo.md` cleanup, or reconciliation against repo/history reality → check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `docs-health` — if `docs-health` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install docs-health` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install docs-health` from the project shell first; if `docs-health` is enabled, recommend `$reconcile-dev-docs fix tasks` — promotion to `tasks/todo.md`, or a direct dev-doc audit, not `$guide`.
+- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, include `$pack install <pack-name>` inside Codex or `npx skillpacks install <pack-name>` from the project shell as the prerequisite.
+- Only present multiple commands when the ambiguity materially changes execution safety or there are equally valid next work items. Otherwise choose the best route and mention degraded mode lookup inline.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Fix unrelated issues:** If any step surfaces errors, warnings, or lint issues — even ones unrelated to the current work — investigate and fix them before continuing. Commit these fixes separately with a descriptive message (e.g., `fix: resolve unused import warning in auth.ts`).
+- Do not modify `CLAUDE.md` as part of progress tracking.
+- Do not execute or block wrap-up on `tasks/record-todo.md` or `tasks/recurring-todo.md` items unless they were explicitly promoted into `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Do not switch or create branches unless the current state requires it.
+- Do not amend or rewrite history.
+- Stop and report if secrets are detected.
+- Do not push session-wrap-up commits to an existing feature branch. Use `commit-and-push-by-feature` to move the work onto `main` or `master` and push it there, or stop and report a blocker if that cannot be done safely.
+- `ship-end` only deploys when `deploy.md` or `tasks/deploy.md` exists. Repos without one are assumed to auto-deploy or require no manual deploy step.
+- Never use GitHub Actions for deployment. Only use manual deploy scripts, Makefiles, or CLI commands.
+- Never deploy to production without explicit user confirmation.
+
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/game/claude/game-audience/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: scoped` (Scoped intake). Ask only the focused questions needed to scope the research or analysis, then validate critical findings before building review artifacts.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ 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-game-audience-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-audience-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-game-audience-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-audience-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.
 
 **Research-pack translation.** For business, devtool, game, creator, and media research packs, render the claim/evidence/inference/assumption/decision-impact structure, source coverage categories appropriate to the domain, lower-confidence findings, and downstream implications before asking for approval or routing to the next skill.
 

package/packs/game/claude/game-audience/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.5 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/game/claude/game-audience/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: game-audience
 description: Use only for video game projects; identify player segments by taste, behavior, platform, genre affinity, and motivation
 type: research
-version: v0.4
-interview_depth: light
+version: v0.5
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ 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/game/claude/game-audience/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: game-audience
+description: Use only for video game projects; identify player segments by taste, behavior, platform, genre affinity, and motivation
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Game Audience
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Output
+
+Write or update `research/game-audience.md` with target segments, platform fit, genre familiarity, motivations, adjacent audiences, and risky assumptions to validate.
+
+## Next-Step Routing
+
+After writing the artifact, recommend the next contextual game-pack skill in the final response as `Recommended next skill: <command>`.
+
+Default recommendation: `/game-fantasy`.
+
+If prototype, playtest, or market evidence invalidates an upstream assumption, route back to the earliest affected artifact (`/game-audience`, `/game-fantasy`, `/game-genre-map`, or `/game-comparables`) and explain the evidence. Otherwise, follow the default game sequence:
+
+`/game-audience` -> `/game-fantasy` -> `/game-genre-map` -> `/game-comparables` -> `/game-core-loop` -> `/game-prototype-test` -> `/game-playtest-metrics` -> `/game-store-page-test` -> `/game-launch` -> `/game-roadmap`
+
+If the next artifact already exists and is current, recommend `/game-workflow` to identify the first missing or stale game-pack artifact.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## 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/game-audience-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/game/claude/game-comparables/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: scoped` (Scoped intake). Ask only the focused questions needed to scope the research or analysis, then validate critical findings before building review artifacts.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ 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-game-comparables-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-comparables-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-game-comparables-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-comparables-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.
 
 **Research-pack translation.** For business, devtool, game, creator, and media research packs, render the claim/evidence/inference/assumption/decision-impact structure, source coverage categories appropriate to the domain, lower-confidence findings, and downstream implications before asking for approval or routing to the next skill.
 

package/packs/game/claude/game-comparables/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.5 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/game/claude/game-comparables/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: game-comparables
 description: Use only for video game projects; research comparable titles, tags, prices, player signals, and positioning patterns
 type: research
-version: v0.4
-interview_depth: light
+version: v0.5
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ 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/game/claude/game-comparables/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: game-comparables
+description: Use only for video game projects; research comparable titles, tags, prices, player signals, and positioning patterns
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Game Comparables
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Output
+
+Write or update `research/game-comparables.md` with comparable titles, tags, price points, review signals, update cadence, creator traction, and the positioning frame `X meets Y, but Z`.
+
+## Next-Step Routing
+
+After writing the artifact, recommend the next contextual game-pack skill in the final response as `Recommended next skill: <command>`.
+
+Default recommendation: `/game-core-loop`.
+
+If prototype, playtest, or market evidence invalidates an upstream assumption, route back to the earliest affected artifact (`/game-audience`, `/game-fantasy`, `/game-genre-map`, or `/game-comparables`) and explain the evidence. Otherwise, follow the default game sequence:
+
+`/game-audience` -> `/game-fantasy` -> `/game-genre-map` -> `/game-comparables` -> `/game-core-loop` -> `/game-prototype-test` -> `/game-playtest-metrics` -> `/game-store-page-test` -> `/game-launch` -> `/game-roadmap`
+
+If the next artifact already exists and is current, recommend `/game-workflow` to identify the first missing or stale game-pack artifact.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## 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/game-comparables-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/game/claude/game-core-loop/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: artifact_only` (Artifact-driven). Work from concrete artifacts, data, logs, or existing instructions by default; ask concise clarification questions only when the available artifacts are missing, contradictory, or unsafe to interpret.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-game-core-loop-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-core-loop-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-game-core-loop-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-game-core-loop-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/game/claude/game-core-loop/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-13
+
+- Removed direct execution-loop command handoffs from non-exec routing; route through approved YAML, task, or roadmap artifacts instead.
+- Added the alignment-page review-state rule: section-feedback YAML or final compiled YAML is the only pre-approval next action.
+
+
 ## v0.0
 
 - Archived previous skill contract.

package/packs/game/claude/game-core-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -2,13 +2,17 @@
 name: game-core-loop
 description: Use only for video game projects; analyze moment-to-moment, session, progression, and retention loops
 type: analysis
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
 # Game Core Loop
 
+## Alignment-YAML Routing
+
+While an alignment page is in `review`, the only next action is section-feedback YAML or final compiled YAML from the bottom compile controls. 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.
+
 Break the game into repeatable loops.
 
 ## Output

package/packs/game/claude/game-core-loop/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+name: game-core-loop
+description: Use only for video game projects; analyze moment-to-moment, session, progression, and retention loops
+type: analysis
+version: v0.1
+context_intake: artifact_only
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+# Game Core Loop
+
+Break the game into repeatable loops.
+
+## Output
+
+Write or update `research/game-core-loop.md` with the 10-second interaction loop, 1-minute action loop, 5-minute session loop, 30-minute progression loop, multi-day retention loop, reward cadence, and novelty sources.
+
+## Next-Step Routing
+
+After writing the artifact, recommend the next contextual game-pack skill in the final response as `Recommended next skill: <command>`.
+
+Default recommendation: `/game-prototype-test`.
+
+If prototype, playtest, or market evidence invalidates an upstream assumption, route back to the earliest affected artifact (`/game-audience`, `/game-fantasy`, `/game-genre-map`, or `/game-comparables`) and explain the evidence. Otherwise, follow the default game sequence:
+
+`/game-audience` -> `/game-fantasy` -> `/game-genre-map` -> `/game-comparables` -> `/game-core-loop` -> `/game-prototype-test` -> `/game-playtest-metrics` -> `/game-store-page-test` -> `/game-launch` -> `/game-roadmap`
+
+If the next artifact already exists and is current, recommend `/game-workflow` to identify the first missing or stale game-pack artifact.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## 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/game-core-loop-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.
+