skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/monorepo/codex/mono-plan/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Alignment Page — mono-plan
 
-When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/mono-plan-{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/mono-plan-{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-mono-plan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-mono-plan-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-mono-plan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-mono-plan-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.
 
 **Required inline questions.** In `review` pages, each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. Confirmed pages must not keep these as required input controls; render the answered decisions as read-only records.
 

package/packs/monorepo/codex/mono-plan/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/monorepo/codex/mono-plan/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: mono-plan
 description: Detect monorepo structure, identify shared chokepoints, and generate safe parallel lane specs aligned to package boundaries
 type: planning
-version: v0.1
+version: v0.2
 ---
 
 # Mono Plan
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Run after `/roadmap` sets `agent-team` or `implementation-safe` on a phase, befo
 
 ## 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/mono-plan-{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/mono-plan-{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/monorepo/codex/mono-plan/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+---
+name: mono-plan
+description: Detect monorepo structure, identify shared chokepoints, and generate safe parallel lane specs aligned to package boundaries
+type: planning
+version: v0.1
+---
+
+# Mono Plan
+
+Invoke as `$mono-plan`.
+
+Use this skill when the user needs to plan safe parallel work across a monorepo. Generates lane specs aligned to package boundaries with lockfile and root config safety built in.
+
+Run after `/roadmap` sets `agent-team` or `implementation-safe` on a phase, before `/plan-phase` decomposes it.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Detect monorepo structure (`pnpm-workspace.yaml`, `turbo.json`, `lerna.json`, `package.json` workspaces). Stop if not a monorepo.
+2. Enumerate packages, read each `package.json`, build internal dependency graph.
+3. Identify shared chokepoints: lockfiles (`pnpm-lock.yaml`, `package-lock.json`, `yarn.lock`, `bun.lockb`), root configs (`tsconfig.base.json`, `turbo.json`, etc.), high-fan-out shared packages (3+ dependents).
+4. Read the target phase from `tasks/roadmap.md`, map scope to specific packages.
+5. Classify packages: independent, dependent, or shared.
+6. Recommend strategy: `agent-team` (independent packages with branch-backed lanes), `serial` (linear chain), or mixed with dependency edges.
+7. Generate lane specs in execution profile format:
+   - **Lane 0 (deps):** serial lane owning lockfiles if any lane needs dependency installs. All write lanes depend on it.
+   - **Package lanes:** one per package, `Owns` scoped to package dir, `Must not edit` includes all lockfiles + root configs + other lanes' paths, and `Branch` uses `agent-team/phase-N-<package-or-lane>`. Scope text includes "Do NOT run pnpm install or any lockfile-modifying command."
+   - **Consolidation/PR review:** add a final review lane or implementation step that reviews every package lane branch/PR before integration.
+8. Validate: disjoint Owns, all lockfiles excluded from write lanes, valid DAG, unique non-primary branches, and a consolidation/PR review gate.
+
+## Output
+
+- **Monorepo tool and package count**
+- **Shared Chokepoints**: lockfiles, root configs, high-fan-out packages
+- **Package Dependency Graph**: in-scope packages with dependency edges
+- **Recommended Strategy**: parallel mode and rationale
+- **Lane Specifications**: in execution profile format (Agent, Role, Mode, Scope, Owns, Must not edit, Branch, Depends on, Deliverable)
+- **Consolidation/PR Review**: required final gate for `agent-team` package lanes, including branch/PR review and boundary checks before integration
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not modify task files — output is advisory only.
+- Do not run package manager install/add commands.
+- Maximum 12 parallel write lanes — group if more packages are in scope.
+- Do not recommend `agent-team` if the project cannot push lane branches to GitHub and review PRs; use `implementation-safe`, `research-only`, or `serial` instead.
+
+## 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/mono-plan-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/monorepo/codex/mono-ship/SKILL.md

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Use this skill to ship completed work in a pnpm workspace monorepo only after pa
 2. **Ship:** delegate to the standard `$ship` contract after validation passes.
 3. **Post-ship:** update `tasks/lane-specs.md` with shipping status, lifecycle notes, and the next routed command.
 
-The global `$ship` skill remains the source of truth for final validation policy, task docs, history updates, commit/push, deploy handling, and next-step routing.
+The base `$ship` skill remains the source of truth for final validation policy, task docs, history updates, commit/push, deploy handling, and next-step routing.
 
 ## Inputs
 

package/packs/monorepo/codex/scaffold/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # scaffold changelog (codex)
 
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.2 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware pack install alternatives for new project root setup and early research shell routing.

package/packs/monorepo/codex/scaffold/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: scaffold
 description: Generate a new package or app in the monorepo following established project conventions
 type: execution
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.3
 ---
 
 # Scaffold
@@ -33,13 +33,13 @@ For product/app workflows, `$scaffold` is normally downstream of research, proto
 ## Next-Step Routing
 
 - If the scaffold was created as part of an active roadmap/phase, recommend `$exec` to continue the current implementation step.
-- If the user explicitly requested an early shell before research, keep the next route on the research-first product workflow: `$customer-discovery` when the concept is ready and business-discovery is enabled, otherwise `$pack install business-discovery` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install business-discovery` from the project shell.
+- If the user explicitly requested an early shell before research, keep the next route on the research-first product workflow: `$customer-discovery` when the concept is ready and business-discovery is enabled, otherwise `npx skillpacks install business-discovery` from the project shell.
 - If the scaffold is for a non-product package with no pending roadmap item, recommend `$roadmap` or `$plan-phase` only when implementation sequencing is missing.
 
 ## Constraints
 
 - Always use an existing package as the reference template.
-- Do not install domain packs globally; use project-local pack skill roots.
+- Do not install domain packs as base skills; use project-local pack skill roots.
 - Present the plan and get approval before creating files. Do not assume a Claude-style `EnterPlanMode` or clear-context accept flow exists.
 - Keep the scaffold minimal — no unnecessary boilerplate.
 - Do not treat scaffolding as product validation. It creates structure only; ICP, market, journey, UX, UI, and prototype decisions belong to their upstream skills.

package/packs/monorepo/codex/scaffold/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+name: scaffold
+description: Generate a new package or app in the monorepo following established project conventions
+type: execution
+version: v0.2
+---
+
+# Scaffold
+
+Invoke as `$scaffold`.
+
+Use this skill when the user wants to create a new package or app in their monorepo.
+
+For product/app workflows, `$scaffold` is normally downstream of research, prototype consolidation, production specification, roadmap, and phase planning. Use it when `$roadmap`/`$plan-phase` identifies that the next implementation step needs a new app/package root. Do not route from `$idea-scope-brief`, `$bootstrap-repo`, `$customer-discovery`, `$competitive-analysis`, `$journey-map`, `$ux-variations`, or `$ui-interview` directly to `$scaffold` unless the user explicitly asks to create a minimal shell first.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Parse the type (package/app) and name from arguments.
+2. Check `.agents/project.json`. If it is missing, run or recommend `$pack recommend` and include the likely project type in the scaffold plan.
+3. If the scaffold creates a new project root, include `.agents/project.json` and install the matching local pack with `scripts/pack.sh install <pack>` from this source checkout, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the new project shell when using the published package, after the root exists.
+4. Learn conventions from CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, `.agents/project.json`, and monorepo config.
+5. Find the most recently created package/app as a template.
+6. Present the scaffold plan and wait for approval. Use `update_plan` to track the work; use `request_user_input` only if the session is already in Plan mode and a structured choice would help.
+7. Generate files, adapting the template with the new name.
+8. Run install and type-check to verify.
+
+## Output
+
+- **Scaffolded**: type, name, location
+- **Files Created**: list of generated files
+- **Next Steps**: what to do after scaffolding
+
+## Next-Step Routing
+
+- If the scaffold was created as part of an active roadmap/phase, recommend `$exec` to continue the current implementation step.
+- If the user explicitly requested an early shell before research, keep the next route on the research-first product workflow: `$customer-discovery` when the concept is ready and business-discovery is enabled, otherwise `$pack install business-discovery` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install business-discovery` from the project shell.
+- If the scaffold is for a non-product package with no pending roadmap item, recommend `$roadmap` or `$plan-phase` only when implementation sequencing is missing.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Always use an existing package as the reference template.
+- Do not install domain packs globally; use project-local pack skill roots.
+- Present the plan and get approval before creating files. Do not assume a Claude-style `EnterPlanMode` or clear-context accept flow exists.
+- Keep the scaffold minimal — no unnecessary boilerplate.
+- Do not treat scaffolding as product validation. It creates structure only; ICP, market, journey, UX, UI, and prototype decisions belong to their upstream skills.
+
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-align/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: ord-align
 description: Validate whether an OSS tool is worth building — namespace, existing solutions, effort estimate
 type: analysis
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 # ORD Align

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-scan/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-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-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-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-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 (`ord-scan`), 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/ord/claude/ord-scan/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 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.
+
 ## v0.1
 
 - Added strict scope-first staged research: scope-review alignment page, preliminary working packet, artifact approval page, and approved canonical scan artifact.

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-scan/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: ord-scan
 description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
 type: research
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # ORD Scan
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`.
-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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/ord-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-scan/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: ord-scan
+description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
+type: research
+version: v0.1
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Scan
+
+Invoke as `/ord-scan`.
+
+Rapid opportunity scanner for open-source developer tools. Identifies gaps in the npm ecosystem, trending developer pain points, and CLI/library opportunities after scope and artifact approval.
+
+## 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, developer ecosystem areas, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the rapid ORD scan and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with the candidate briefs and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, task, or alignment files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language before final artifact approval. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit `/ord-align` routing after the approved canonical scan 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. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`.
+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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/ord-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Resolve scope:** Use `$ARGUMENTS` to narrow developer domain, package ecosystem, tool category, target developer persona, timing window, or product path. If a non-archived `research/{slug}/` product path is in scope, use product-path output locations; otherwise use flat `research/` output locations.
+2. **Gather signals:** After Stage 1 approval, scan for opportunities across:
+   - npm packages with high download counts but poor DX, stale maintenance, or missing features
+   - GitHub trending repos and discussions revealing unmet developer needs
+   - Stack Overflow / Reddit / HN threads where developers complain about tooling gaps
+   - Build tool, testing, CLI, and workflow automation gaps
+   - Wrapper/adapter opportunities (bridging two popular tools that don't talk to each other)
+3. **Filter for ORD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+   - Buildable and publishable in 1-3 days
+   - Clear value proposition explainable in one sentence
+   - npm namespace likely available (or scoped package viable)
+   - No heavy runtime dependencies or complex native bindings
+   - Solves a real, recurring developer pain point (not a toy)
+4. **Produce preliminary brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), write the Stage 2 working packet with:
+   - One-line concept
+   - Problem it solves (the pain point)
+   - Why it doesn't exist yet (or why existing solutions fall short)
+   - Build estimate (hours)
+   - Distribution: npm, GitHub, dev community channels
+   - Monetization potential (none / sponsorware / freemium CLI / premium features)
+   - Evidence notes and confidence level
+5. **Rank for artifact review:** Order candidates by developer pain, feasibility, and ecosystem gap size. Highlight the proposed top pick only in the Stage 2 working packet and artifact-review alignment page.
+6. **Finalize after approval:** After final artifact approval, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical scan artifact, confirm the alignment page, and then recommend `/ord-align`.
+
+## Output
+
+Stage 1 output is only the scope-review alignment page and a concise request for final compiled YAML approving scope.
+
+Stage 2 output is the working packet at `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`, plus the updated artifact-review alignment page.
+
+Stage 3 output is the approved canonical scan artifact at `research/ord-scan.md` or `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. End the final approved artifact with:
+
+```md
+**Top pick:** <concept name>
+**Next work:** validate top pick feasibility and namespace
+**Recommended next command:** /ord-align
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth - keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
+- Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint (e.g., "CLI tools" or "testing"), narrow the scan.
+- Do not write canonical scan artifacts, specs, tasks, or next-command routing before final artifact approval.
+
+## 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/ord-scan-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-ship/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.2 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added an `npx skillpacks install devtool` alternative to the graduation route while preserving Claude `/pack install` guidance.

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-ship/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: ord-ship
 description: Publish to npm, create README, set up repo, and log the shipment
 type: ops
-version: v0.2
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.3
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # ORD Ship
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ End with:
 ```md
 **Shipped:** <package name> — <npm URL>
 **Next work:** monitor adoption for 1-2 weeks, then decide: iterate, graduate to Devtool AFPS, or move on
-**Recommended next command:** /ord-scan (next experiment) or /pack install devtool inside Claude Code, or npx skillpacks install devtool from the project shell, then /devtool-adoption (graduate)
+**Recommended next command:** /ord-scan (next experiment) or npx skillpacks install devtool from the project shell, then /devtool-adoption (graduate)
 ```
 
 ## Constraints

package/packs/ord/claude/ord-ship/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: ord-ship
+description: Publish to npm, create README, set up repo, and log the shipment
+type: ops
+version: v0.2
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# ORD Ship
+
+Invoke as `/ord-ship`.
+
+Rapid shipping for ORD packages. Publishes to npm, creates a developer-friendly README, sets up the GitHub repo, and appends to the running ship log.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Pre-flight:** Confirm the package is ready to publish.
+   - Read the ord-align doc for scope, package name, and API surface.
+   - Run the build and tests. Fix blockers.
+   - Verify the core API works as documented.
+   - Check `package.json` has correct name, version, description, keywords, license, and repository fields.
+   - Ensure `files` or `.npmignore` is configured to publish only intended files.
+2. **README:** Create or verify `README.md` with:
+   - Package name and one-line description
+   - Install command (`npm install <name>`)
+   - Quick start (3-10 lines showing the primary use case)
+   - API reference (brief — each exported function/command with signature and one-line description)
+   - License
+3. **Publish to npm:**
+   - Run `npm publish` (or `npm publish --access public` for scoped packages).
+   - Verify the package appears on npmjs.com.
+   - If publish fails due to auth, report the blocker and provide the manual command.
+4. **GitHub repo setup:**
+   - Ensure the repo has a description, topics/tags, and the homepage URL set.
+   - Add a `.github/FUNDING.yml` if the user has sponsorship configured.
+5. **Ship log:** Append entry to `research/ord-ship-log.md`:
+   - Date, package name, npm URL, GitHub URL
+   - Tech stack used
+   - Build time (estimated hours)
+   - v1 API surface summary
+   - Success metric from alignment doc
+   - Status: `published`
+6. **Distribution:** Execute launch-day distribution:
+   - Identify relevant channels: dev Twitter, Reddit r/node or r/javascript, HN Show, relevant Discord servers
+   - Draft a launch post (the user posts it manually)
+
+## Output
+
+End with:
+
+```md
+**Shipped:** <package name> — <npm URL>
+**Next work:** monitor adoption for 1-2 weeks, then decide: iterate, graduate to Devtool AFPS, or move on
+**Recommended next command:** /ord-scan (next experiment) or /pack install devtool inside Claude Code, or npx skillpacks install devtool from the project shell, then /devtool-adoption (graduate)
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not gold-plate. Ship the minimum useful version.
+- Do not run `npm publish` without user confirmation if this is the first publish for this package.
+- Do not modify unrelated packages or repositories.
+- If npm auth is not configured, provide the manual publish command and stop.
+- Create `research/ord-ship-log.md` with a header if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-align/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: ord-align
 description: Validate whether an OSS tool is worth building — namespace, existing solutions, effort estimate
 type: analysis
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 # ORD Align

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/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-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-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-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-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 (`ord-scan`), 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/ord/codex/ord-scan/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 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.
+
 ## v0.1
 
 - Added strict scope-first staged research: scope-review alignment page, preliminary working packet, artifact approval page, and approved canonical scan artifact.

package/packs/ord/codex/ord-scan/SKILL.md

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: ord-scan
 description: Scan for OSS tool opportunities from npm gaps, GitHub trends, and developer pain points
 type: research
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # ORD Scan
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`.
-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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For ORD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-ord-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. 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. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/ord-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/ord-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.