skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/ord/codex/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/codex/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 Codex `$pack install` guidance.

package/packs/ord/codex/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 Codex, 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/codex/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 Codex, 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/product-design/PACK.md

@@ -20,10 +20,10 @@ scripts/pack.sh refresh
 
 - `brainstorm`: Generate and explore ideas for a product or feature direction.
 - `feature-interview`: Conduct a structured interview to define feature requirements and constraints.
-- `user-flow-map`: Map positioned product goals into screen flow, branches, decisions, states, handoffs, and low-fidelity wireframe notes before UI requirements.
-- `ui-interview`: Conduct a structured interview focused on UI layout, interaction, and visual design decisions.
+- `user-flow-map`: Map positioned product goals into the root of a wireframe tree with user-flow branches, decisions, states, handoffs, and low-fidelity wireframe notes.
+- `ui-interview`: Investigate a specific UX variation branch, propose an HTML visual mockup, interview for alignment, and approve/reject/retry the branch before routing onward.
 - `spec-interview`: Conduct a structured interview to produce a detailed product specification.
-- `ux-variations`: Generate multiple UX variation candidates for a given flow or interaction.
+- `ux-variations`: Expand a selected user flow into alternate progression branches users can compare before one branch moves into UI proposal work.
 - `consolidate-variations`: Evaluate and consolidate UX variations into a final recommended direction.
 - `prototype`: Build a working prototype from a specification or design direction.
 - `design-system`: Define or extend a design system with tokens, components, and usage guidelines.

package/packs/product-design/claude/brainstorm/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # Alignment Page — brainstorm
 
-When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at `alignment/brainstorm-{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/brainstorm-{topic}.html` only when the user explicitly requests an alignment page or when the agent explicitly identifies a concrete clarification/review need that cannot be resolved cleanly in conversation or the normal artifacts. When an alignment page is created, use the full contract below and a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.
 
 **Visual rendering tier.** Each alignment page declares a rendering tier:
 - `document` (default) — text, tables, approval gates. No charts or interactive elements.
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: 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-brainstorm-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-brainstorm-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-brainstorm-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-brainstorm-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.
 
 **Prototype tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `prototype` tier. In addition to charts and diagrams, functional interactive components (clickable flows, live CSS previews, drag interactions) are permitted. Prototypes are ephemeral previews, not production code. Each interactive component must include a reset button that restores initial state. Interactive components must be self-contained within the HTML file with no external dependencies. Include all visual tier requirements (chart snippets, table fallbacks, aria-labels, toggles) plus: state isolation (no localStorage/sessionStorage persistence), clear "this is a preview" labeling, and graceful degradation when JavaScript is disabled.
 

package/packs/product-design/claude/brainstorm/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Made alignment pages optional by default: report inline and write the skill's normal durable artifacts unless the user requests an alignment page or the agent identifies a concrete clarification/review need.
+
 ## v0.2 - 2026-05-30
 
 - Added product-path scope resolution that prefers non-archived `research/{slug}/` paths and active manifest paths before code or monorepo hints.

package/packs/product-design/claude/brainstorm/SKILL.md

@@ -2,9 +2,9 @@
 name: brainstorm
 description: Evaluate the codebase and suggest ideas to explore with /feature-interview
 type: planning
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.3
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: prototype
 ---
 
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Present suggestions grouped by effort level, with each suggestion framed as a to
 
 ## 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/brainstorm-{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/brainstorm-{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/product-design/claude/brainstorm/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: brainstorm
+description: Evaluate the codebase and suggest ideas to explore with /feature-interview
+type: planning
+version: v0.2
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area]"
+interview_depth: light
+visual_tier: prototype
+---
+
+# Brainstorm
+
+Evaluate the current codebase and generate actionable suggestions that the user can take into `/feature-interview` for human/agent alignment, planning-destination triage, and follow-up specification or roadmap work.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+1. **Understand the project**: Read CLAUDE.md, README, package config, and key source files to understand what the project does, its architecture, tech stack, and current state.
+2. **Check existing plans and research**: Read `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, `tasks/recurring-todo.md` (when they exist), and specs from `specs/` (or `spec.md`) if they exist to understand work already planned, in progress, or deferred as advisory records — avoid suggesting things already covered. Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) if it exists — competitor gaps, market white space, and positioning weaknesses are high-signal inputs for ideation. Read `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) if it exists — "Wrong" and "New" findings are highest-signal ideation input (real user feedback that contradicts assumptions or reveals unmet needs). Read `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) if it exists — instrumentation gaps can generate ideas for tooling or observability improvements.
+3. **Analyse the codebase** across these dimensions:
+
+   **Strategic / Product**
+   - **New features**: Capabilities that would make the project significantly more useful or valuable to its users — think beyond what exists today
+   - **New workflows**: End-to-end flows or automation that the project could enable but doesn't yet
+   - **Product line expansion**: If the project's core could serve adjacent use cases, new audiences, or spin off complementary products — suggest them
+   - **Integration opportunities**: External tools, services, platforms, or APIs that would multiply the project's value
+
+   **Improvement**
+   - **Missing capabilities**: Features the project's architecture is set up for but doesn't yet offer
+   - **Pain points**: Rough edges, inconsistencies, or manual steps that could be automated
+   - **Performance opportunities**: Obvious bottlenecks or low-hanging optimisations
+   - **Developer experience**: Build times, debugging ergonomics, onboarding friction
+
+   **Hygiene**
+   - **Technical debt**: Areas where the code has outgrown its original design
+   - **Testing gaps**: Untested critical paths or missing test infrastructure
+   - **Security hardening**: Areas where security posture could be improved
+
+   **Market Fit** (only when `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`), `research/mvp-gap.md` (or `research/{slug}/mvp-gap.md`), or `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) exist)
+   - **ICP alignment**: Features that directly address ICP pain points but are missing or incomplete
+   - **Journey gaps**: Steps in the user or customer journey where the product loses them
+   - **Unaddressed MVP gaps**: Gaps from `research/mvp-gap.md` (or `research/{slug}/mvp-gap.md`) not yet tracked in roadmap or todo
+   - **Competitive white space**: Features or capabilities that no competitor offers well — opportunities from `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) market gaps
+   - **Competitor leapfrog**: Specific competitor weaknesses you could exploit, or table-stakes features competitors have that you lack
+   - **Positioning plays**: Ideas that would sharpen differentiation against the competitive landscape
+4. **Scope**: If `$ARGUMENTS` is provided, focus the analysis on that area. Otherwise, cover all dimensions.
+
+## Output
+
+Append the suggestions to `tasks/ideas.md` (do not overwrite existing content). Also display them to the user. When product-path scope is active, prefix each suggestion with the app name.
+
+Present suggestions grouped by effort level, with each suggestion framed as a topic ready to hand to `/feature-interview`:
+
+### Quick wins (hours)
+- **Suggestion title** — One-line description of what and why. _Start with:_ `/feature-interview <topic>`
+
+### Medium efforts (days)
+- **Suggestion title** — One-line description of what and why. _Start with:_ `/feature-interview <topic>`
+
+### Larger initiatives (weeks)
+- **Suggestion title** — One-line description of what and why. _Start with:_ `/feature-interview <topic>`
+
+## Constraints
+- Each suggestion must be specific and actionable — not vague aspirations like "improve testing."
+- Include the concrete signal from the codebase that motivates each suggestion (file, pattern, or metric).
+- Provide the `/feature-interview <topic>` prompt the user can copy-paste to kick off planning.
+- Limit to 3–5 suggestions per effort level to avoid overwhelming the user.
+- Do not suggest changes that conflict with patterns established in CLAUDE.md.
+- Do not repeat work already tracked in `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, `tasks/recurring-todo.md`, or `specs/` (or `specs/{slug}/`).
+
+## 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/brainstorm-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-design/claude/consolidate-variations/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -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-consolidate-variations-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-consolidate-variations-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-consolidate-variations-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-consolidate-variations-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.
 
 **Consolidation-specific gates.** Render UAT evidence coverage, variation verdicts, selected concept, rejected alternatives, unresolved assumptions, output-location/change-scope decisions, and coverage checkpoint as gates. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
 

package/packs/product-design/claude/consolidate-variations/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.13 - 2026-06-13
+
+- Updated consolidation to consume `design/` variation plans, UI requirements, and flow-tree manifests instead of pre-prototype `specs/` files.
+- Clarified that consolidation outputs a consolidated prototype under `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/` and records consolidation state in the design flow-tree manifest.
+
+## v0.12 - 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.
+
 ## v0.11 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route wording for product-testing and cross-pack recommendations while preserving Claude `/pack install ...` routes.

package/packs/product-design/claude/consolidate-variations/SKILL.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
 name: consolidate-variations
-description: Compare multiple built UI variations, interview the user on what works and what doesn't, cherry-pick best elements, resolve conflicts, and produce a final consolidated implementation-ready UI specification
+description: Compare multiple built UI variations, interview the user on what works and what doesn't, cherry-pick best elements, resolve conflicts, and produce a final consolidated prototype
 type: planning
-version: v0.11
+version: v0.13
 argument-hint: "[optional: topic, page, or path to variation specs]"
 visual_tier: prototype
 ---
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ visual_tier: prototype
 
 Invoke as `/consolidate-variations`.
 
-Use this skill after the user has built and evaluated multiple UI layout variations (typically generated via `/ux-variations --layout-mode`, built via `/exec`, and evaluated via `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first)). This skill compares the variations, interviews the user on what works and what doesn't in each one, cherry-picks the best elements, resolves conflicts where preferred choices are incompatible, and produces a single consolidated implementation-ready UI specification.
+Use this skill after the user has built and evaluated multiple UI layout variations (typically generated via `/ux-variations --layout-mode`, built via `/prototype`, and evaluated via `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first)). This skill compares the variations, interviews the user on what works and what doesn't in each one, cherry-picks the best elements, resolves conflicts where preferred choices are incompatible, and produces a single consolidated prototype for post-prototype production specification.
 
 Users with manually built variations (not from the `/ux-variations` pipeline) can also use this skill directly, but consolidation should not happen before the user has reviewed the variants and captured evidence.
 
@@ -29,21 +29,22 @@ Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a h
 6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
 7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
 
-When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read research under `research/{slug}/`, read pre-prototype design artifacts under `design/{slug}/`, write prototype output under `prototypes/{topic}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` and `design/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
 
 1. **Resolve context**
    - Read `.agents/project.json` if it exists.
    - Read `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, relevant `docs/`, `specs/`, `research/`, route files, component directories, and design artifacts when present.
-   - Locate the variation spec: `specs/ui-layout-variations-[topic].md` or `specs/ux-variations-[topic].md`.
-   - Locate the content requirements: `specs/ui-requirements-[topic].md` or equivalent content contract.
+   - Locate the variation plan: `design/ui-layout-variations-[topic].md` or `design/ux-variations-[topic].md`.
+   - Locate the content requirements: `design/ui-requirements-[topic].md` or equivalent content contract.
+   - Locate the flow-tree manifest: `design/flow-tree-[topic].yaml` or `design/{slug}/flow-tree-{topic}.yaml` when present.
    - Locate variant evaluation evidence: `research/uat-variant-evaluation-[topic].md`, `research/uat-plan.md` result logs, screenshots, notes, recordings, or explicit user-provided review notes.
    - Locate built implementations: scan route files, component directories, and any variation-specific directories or branches.
    - If the variation spec or implementations cannot be found, ask the user to point to them.
 
 2. **Evidence gate**
-   - If no evaluation evidence exists and the user has not explicitly said they already reviewed the variants and is ready to converge, stop and recommend `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first).
+   - If no evaluation evidence exists and the user has not explicitly said they already reviewed the variants and is ready to converge, stop and recommend `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first).
    - Do not infer a winner from specs alone. Built variants need hands-on review or explicit user readiness before consolidation.
-   - If some variants are unreviewed, ask whether to exclude them, evaluate them first via `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-testing` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first), or include them as spec-only references.
+   - If some variants are unreviewed, ask whether to exclude them, evaluate them first via `/uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first), or include them as spec-only references.
 
 3. **Present variation inventory**
    - List each variation with a one-line summary of its approach.
@@ -94,7 +95,7 @@ When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{s
    - Use AskUserQuestion to confirm the consolidated design before building the prototype.
 
 7. **Coverage checkpoint**
-   - Verify every content requirement from `specs/ui-requirements-[topic].md` has a UI home in the consolidated spec.
+   - Verify every content requirement from `design/ui-requirements-[topic].md` has a UI home in the consolidated prototype.
    - Verify every user action has a placement (button, menu item, keyboard shortcut, or gesture).
    - Verify all states (empty, loading, error, partial, full, offline, permission-denied) are accounted for.
    - Flag any gaps and resolve via AskUserQuestion before writing.
@@ -102,7 +103,8 @@ When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{s
 ## Deliverables
 
 - Write the consolidated prototype to `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/`.
-- Write the consolidation interview log to `consolidate-variations-[topic]-interview.md`.
+- Write the consolidation interview log to `design/consolidate-variations-[topic]-interview.md` in flat mode or `design/{slug}/consolidate-variations-[topic]-interview.md` in product-path mode.
+- Update the scoped flow-tree manifest to mark consolidated branches as `consolidated` or `promoted-to-prototype` when applicable.
 
 ### Alignment Page
 
@@ -113,10 +115,10 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 - Do not proceed without evaluation evidence unless the user explicitly says they have reviewed the variants and is ready to converge.
 - Do not pick winners without user input. Present the matrix and let the user decide.
 - Do not ignore conflicts. If two preferred choices are spatially or functionally incompatible, surface the tension and resolve it explicitly.
-- The consolidated spec must be at least as detailed as a `/ui-interview` output — implementation-ready, not a summary.
+- The consolidated prototype must preserve the approved UI branch detail from `/ui-interview` and be concrete enough for `/spec-interview` to extract production implementation requirements.
 - Do not lose content requirements. Every data field, action, and state from the requirements spec must appear in the final design.
 - Do not bias toward the first or last variation reviewed. Present them neutrally and let the user's feedback drive the outcome.
-- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, recommend `/pack install <pack-name>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack-name>` from the project shell, before the target skill.
+- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack-name>` from the project shell, before the target skill.
 
 ## Archive-First Replacement Policy