skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/product-design/codex/consolidate-variations/archive/v0.11/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+name: consolidate-variations
+description: Compare multiple built UI variations after UAT evidence, interview the user on what works and what does not, resolve conflicts, and produce a final implementation-ready UI specification
+type: planning
+version: v0.11
+argument-hint: "[optional: topic, page, or path to variation specs]"
+visual_tier: prototype
+---
+
+# Consolidate Variations
+
+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 `$pack install product-testing` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first)). This skill compares the variations, interviews the user on what works and what does not in each one, cherry-picks the best elements, resolves conflicts where preferred choices are incompatible, and produces a single consolidated implementation-ready UI specification.
+
+Users with manually built variations can also use this skill directly, but consolidation should not happen before the user has reviewed the variants and captured evidence.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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. **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 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 `$pack install product-testing` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first).
+   - Do not infer a winner from specs alone. Built variants need hands-on review or explicit user readiness before consolidation.
+   - If some variants are unreviewed, ask whether to exclude them, evaluate them first via `$uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `$pack install product-testing` inside Codex, or `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.
+   - Note build status for each: built and reviewed, built but unreviewed, partially built, spec-only.
+   - Note evidence status for each: result log present, user notes present, no evidence.
+   - Confirm which variations the user wants to consolidate.
+
+4. **Interview per variation**
+   - For each reviewed variation, ask one primary decision question per turn by default. Use short follow-up bullets only when they clarify the same variation decision, not to batch unrelated questions:
+     - What works well in this variation? Name specific elements, regions, or interactions.
+     - What does not work? What feels wrong, cluttered, sparse, or confusing?
+     - Any specific component, region, or interaction to keep in the final design?
+     - Anything to explicitly reject and never use?
+   - Record responses as structured annotations per variation:
+     - **Keep**: elements the user wants in the final design, with source variation
+     - **Reject**: elements the user never wants, with source variation
+     - **Neutral**: elements the user has no strong opinion on
+
+5. **Cross-variation synthesis**
+   - Present a **Consolidation Matrix** showing each design dimension and which variation's approach the user preferred:
+
+   | Design Element | Variation A | Variation B | Variation C | Winner |
+   |---|---|---|---|---|
+   | Container pattern | card grid | data table | list + detail | ? |
+   | Detail view | modal | sidebar | full-page | ? |
+   | Navigation | top nav | side nav | tabs | ? |
+
+   - Fill in winners based on UAT evidence and interview responses.
+   - Mark conflicts where preferred choices from different dimensions are incompatible.
+   - For each conflict, present the tension, offer 2-3 resolution options with tradeoffs, state a recommendation, and ask the user to resolve it.
+   - Continue until every row in the matrix has a winner and all conflicts are resolved.
+
+6. **Build consolidated prototype**
+   - Merge the best elements from variation prototypes into a single runnable artifact at `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/`.
+   - The consolidated prototype must reflect:
+     - Layout skeleton: regions, proportions, scroll behavior
+     - Primary content pattern
+     - Detail view pattern
+     - Navigation pattern and placement
+     - Action placement
+     - Density and spacing approach
+     - Responsive behavior at mobile, tablet, and desktop breakpoints
+     - States rendering
+   - Ask the user 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 user action has a placement: button, menu item, keyboard shortcut, or gesture.
+   - Verify all states are accounted for: empty, loading, error, partial, full, offline, permission-denied.
+   - Flag any gaps and resolve them before writing.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- Write the consolidated prototype to `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/`.
+- Write the consolidation interview log to `consolidate-variations-[topic]-interview.md`.
+
+### 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/consolidate-variations-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- 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.
+- 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 and evaluation evidence drive the outcome.
+
+## Archive-First Replacement Policy
+
+- Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+- Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
+- After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
+- Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
+- New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-design/codex/consolidate-variations/archive/v0.12/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+---
+name: consolidate-variations
+description: Compare multiple built UI variations after UAT evidence, interview the user on what works and what does not, resolve conflicts, and produce a final implementation-ready UI specification
+type: planning
+version: v0.12
+argument-hint: "[optional: topic, page, or path to variation specs]"
+visual_tier: prototype
+---
+
+# Consolidate Variations
+
+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 `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first)). This skill compares the variations, interviews the user on what works and what does not in each one, cherry-picks the best elements, resolves conflicts where preferred choices are incompatible, and produces a single consolidated implementation-ready UI specification.
+
+Users with manually built variations can also use this skill directly, but consolidation should not happen before the user has reviewed the variants and captured evidence.
+
+## 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. **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 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 `$uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-testing` from the project shell, first).
+   - Do not infer a winner from specs alone. Built variants need hands-on review or explicit user readiness before consolidation.
+   - If some variants are unreviewed, ask whether to exclude them, evaluate them first via `$uat --variant-evaluation` (check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-testing` — if `product-testing` is not enabled, recommend `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.
+   - Note build status for each: built and reviewed, built but unreviewed, partially built, spec-only.
+   - Note evidence status for each: result log present, user notes present, no evidence.
+   - Confirm which variations the user wants to consolidate.
+
+4. **Interview per variation**
+   - For each reviewed variation, ask one primary decision question per turn by default. Use short follow-up bullets only when they clarify the same variation decision, not to batch unrelated questions:
+     - What works well in this variation? Name specific elements, regions, or interactions.
+     - What does not work? What feels wrong, cluttered, sparse, or confusing?
+     - Any specific component, region, or interaction to keep in the final design?
+     - Anything to explicitly reject and never use?
+   - Record responses as structured annotations per variation:
+     - **Keep**: elements the user wants in the final design, with source variation
+     - **Reject**: elements the user never wants, with source variation
+     - **Neutral**: elements the user has no strong opinion on
+
+5. **Cross-variation synthesis**
+   - Present a **Consolidation Matrix** showing each design dimension and which variation's approach the user preferred:
+
+   | Design Element | Variation A | Variation B | Variation C | Winner |
+   |---|---|---|---|---|
+   | Container pattern | card grid | data table | list + detail | ? |
+   | Detail view | modal | sidebar | full-page | ? |
+   | Navigation | top nav | side nav | tabs | ? |
+
+   - Fill in winners based on UAT evidence and interview responses.
+   - Mark conflicts where preferred choices from different dimensions are incompatible.
+   - For each conflict, present the tension, offer 2-3 resolution options with tradeoffs, state a recommendation, and ask the user to resolve it.
+   - Continue until every row in the matrix has a winner and all conflicts are resolved.
+
+6. **Build consolidated prototype**
+   - Merge the best elements from variation prototypes into a single runnable artifact at `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/`.
+   - The consolidated prototype must reflect:
+     - Layout skeleton: regions, proportions, scroll behavior
+     - Primary content pattern
+     - Detail view pattern
+     - Navigation pattern and placement
+     - Action placement
+     - Density and spacing approach
+     - Responsive behavior at mobile, tablet, and desktop breakpoints
+     - States rendering
+   - Ask the user 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 user action has a placement: button, menu item, keyboard shortcut, or gesture.
+   - Verify all states are accounted for: empty, loading, error, partial, full, offline, permission-denied.
+   - Flag any gaps and resolve them before writing.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- Write the consolidated prototype to `prototypes/{topic}/consolidated/`.
+- Write the consolidation interview log to `consolidate-variations-[topic]-interview.md`.
+
+### 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/consolidate-variations-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- 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.
+- 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 and evaluation evidence drive the outcome.
+
+## Archive-First Replacement Policy
+
+- Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+- Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
+- After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
+- Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
+- New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-design/codex/design-system/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-design-system-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-design-system-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-design-system-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-design-system-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/codex/feature-interview/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: deep` (Deep interview). Gather repo/project context before asking, present an assumptions manifest when the contract requires it, ask focused questions, and confirm coverage 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-feature-interview-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-feature-interview-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-feature-interview-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-feature-interview-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.
 
 **Feature-specific gates.** Render the evidence brief, claim verdicts, assumptions, planning destination, prototype-first decision, priority hypothesis, and output-location/change-scope decisions as gates before writing or updating durable planning artifacts. 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/codex/feature-interview/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.7 - 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.
+
 ## v0.6 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route wording for pack availability recommendations while preserving Codex `$pack install ...` routes.

package/packs/product-design/codex/feature-interview/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: feature-interview
 description: Interview a feature idea with evidence-backed alignment, then decide whether to create/update docs, specs, roadmap, or tasks
 type: planning
-version: v0.6
+version: v0.7
 argument-hint: "[feature idea or tasks/ideas.md entry]"
-interview_depth: full
+context_intake: deep
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Feature Interview
 
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Invoke as `$feature-interview`.
 
 Use this skill when the user has a feature idea, brainstorm suggestion, research gap, bug-shaped improvement, or implementation direction that needs evidence-backed alignment before deciding whether to write or update research docs, journey docs, specs, roadmap entries, task queues, or route directly to another planning skill. This skill is also the primary entry point for post-ship feature work, where scope determines the re-entry depth into the pipeline.
 
-This is narrower than `$spec-interview`: it performs the same assumption surfacing and user interrogation needed for human/agent alignment, but it does not assume the output must be a full new implementation spec. It borrows `$investigate`'s evidence discipline for claims, codebase fit, and technical gotchas, but it does not fix bugs or implement the feature.
+This is narrower than `$spec-interview`: it performs the same assumption surfacing and deep interview needed for human/agent alignment, but it does not assume the output must be a full new implementation spec. It borrows `$investigate`'s evidence discipline for claims, codebase fit, and technical gotchas, but it does not fix bugs or implement the feature.
 
 Use `$feature-interview` especially after a production spec already exists and the user wants to add, adjust, or triage a smaller feature. In post-spec use, treat existing specs as the baseline contract: prefer a scoped add-on spec or a tightly bounded update to an existing spec over re-running `$spec-interview` for the whole product. Only route to `$spec-interview` when the existing spec is absent, obsolete, or too incomplete to support the new feature decision.
 

package/packs/product-design/codex/feature-interview/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: feature-interview
+description: Interview a feature idea with evidence-backed alignment, then decide whether to create/update docs, specs, roadmap, or tasks
+type: planning
+version: v0.6
+argument-hint: "[feature idea or tasks/ideas.md entry]"
+interview_depth: full
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `$pack install <pack>` inside Codex, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Feature Interview
+
+Invoke as `$feature-interview`.
+
+Use this skill when the user has a feature idea, brainstorm suggestion, research gap, bug-shaped improvement, or implementation direction that needs evidence-backed alignment before deciding whether to write or update research docs, journey docs, specs, roadmap entries, task queues, or route directly to another planning skill. This skill is also the primary entry point for post-ship feature work, where scope determines the re-entry depth into the pipeline.
+
+This is narrower than `$spec-interview`: it performs the same assumption surfacing and user interrogation needed for human/agent alignment, but it does not assume the output must be a full new implementation spec. It borrows `$investigate`'s evidence discipline for claims, codebase fit, and technical gotchas, but it does not fix bugs or implement the feature.
+
+Use `$feature-interview` especially after a production spec already exists and the user wants to add, adjust, or triage a smaller feature. In post-spec use, treat existing specs as the baseline contract: prefer a scoped add-on spec or a tightly bounded update to an existing spec over re-running `$spec-interview` for the whole product. Only route to `$spec-interview` when the existing spec is absent, obsolete, or too incomplete to support the new feature decision.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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 `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+1. Resolve the feature input:
+   - If `$ARGUMENTS` names or quotes an idea, use it as the seed.
+   - If `$ARGUMENTS` references `tasks/ideas.md`, read matching entries and ask the user to choose one when multiple entries match.
+   - If no feature is provided, read `tasks/ideas.md` and present the top unspecced candidates; ask the user which one to interview.
+2. Gather context before asking deep questions:
+   - Read `.agents/project.json`, CLAUDE.md or AGENTS.md, README, package config, and key source files relevant to the idea.
+   - Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Treat product-path entries as product/app/ICP divergence state, not git branches.
+   - Read `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, `tasks/recurring-todo.md`, `tasks/history.md`, and `tasks/ideas.md` when they exist.
+   - Read existing specs from `specs/`, `spec.md`, or `docs/specifications/`, plus relevant research docs such as ICP, journey map, competitive analysis, customer feedback, metrics, and MVP gap artifacts.
+   - Read git evidence (`git log`, `git diff`, `git blame`) only where it can confirm related prior decisions, recent regressions, ownership, or why the current system shape exists.
+   - Avoid re-interviewing on facts already covered by current concept, research, journey, UX, UI, or spec docs.
+3. Run an evidence-backed intake pass before deciding what to ask:
+   - Extract the user's explicit claims, hypotheses, constraints, and desired outcomes. Do not treat a desired outcome as a factual claim.
+   - Validate factual claims against code, docs, research, task state, and git history. Classify each as `confirmed`, `partially supported`, `not supported`, or `unknown / needs user context`.
+   - Identify likely technical gotchas: architecture fit, shared modules, data model, API/contracts, migrations, security/privacy, permissions, performance, observability, tests, rollout, external dependencies, and backwards compatibility.
+   - Identify how the feature fits into the user story, customer journey, developer workflow, game loop, or other project-specific journey artifact. If no credible journey exists for user-facing work, flag that as a planning gap.
+   - For new user-facing product, SaaS, marketplace, dashboard, internal tool, product-experience work, or substantial new feature work, add a prototype-first gate to the intake: default the first build artifact to a clickable local/static prototype with fake, fixture, or in-memory data unless the user explicitly opts into production infrastructure or the core interaction cannot be tested without it. Treat durable storage, auth, payments, analytics, deployment, admin tooling, multi-tenancy, and production observability as deferred infrastructure decisions until the prototype calibrates taste, feel, workflow density, and one accepted journey.
+   - When the feature direction is uncertain, recommend multiple route-based experiments instead of one over-specified implementation. Name the routes or route pattern, such as `/experiments/table-first`, `/experiments/board-first`, or the project's equivalent, and identify the hypothesis each route tests.
+   - If those route experiments imply materially different products, apps, ICPs, or product lines rather than alternative UX for the same product path, record them in `research/.progress.yaml` as `product_paths[]` with `id`, `label`, `source_skill: feature-interview`, `scope_path`, `status: deferred` or `status: revisit_candidate`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, `pipeline_stage: feature-interview`, and `last_touched`.
+   - Identify whether research docs, journey docs, specs, roadmap, or task queues need a durable update if the feature proceeds.
+4. Match the feature against existing planning artifacts:
+   - Identify whether the repo is in a post-spec state: one or more credible `specs/*.md`, `spec.md`, or `docs/specifications/*.md` files already define the product or area this feature extends.
+   - Identify whether the feature is already fully represented in an existing spec, partially represented in a spec, should become a scoped add-on spec, is only present as an idea/research gap, or is already sequenced in the roadmap.
+   - In post-spec state, default to `update existing spec` or `new smaller-scope add-on spec` as the planning destination. Do not discard the existing spec baseline or route back to full `$spec-interview` unless the existing spec is stale, contradicted, or missing the product area needed to make the decision.
+   - If it duplicates planned work, stop and recommend the existing route (`$roadmap`, `$plan-phase N`, `$exec`, or `$ship`) with evidence.
+5. Present a **Feature Evidence Brief + Assumptions Manifest** before probing:
+   - Evidence sources: files, docs, research artifacts, task docs, and git history consulted.
+   - Claim validation: verdict for each factual claim or hypothesis, with concise evidence.
+   - Technical gotchas: likely integration risks, operational risks, unknowns, and what would break if each assumption is wrong.
+   - Journey placement: where this feature belongs in the user story, journey map, workflow, or loop; note missing or conflicting journey evidence.
+   - Documentation destination: likely `new spec`, `update existing spec`, `update research/journey docs`, `roadmap/task update`, `interview log only`, `run another planning/research skill first`, or `no action`.
+   - Source context: idea/research/spec/roadmap inputs used.
+   - Human intent: what outcome the user appears to want and who benefits.
+   - Agent interpretation: the concrete capability or change the agent would plan from the input.
+   - Existing-system fit: code paths, specs, tasks, and research artifacts likely affected.
+   - Post-spec fit: whether the feature extends an existing spec, needs a smaller-scope add-on spec, updates research/journey docs first, or is already covered.
+   - Planning destination: likely `update existing spec`, `new smaller-scope add-on spec`, `new full spec`, `roadmap/task update`, `research/design skill first`, or `no new planning needed`.
+   - Priority hypothesis: recommended priority relative to current roadmap/todo, with dependency and risk rationale.
+   - Implementation shape: product behavior, design/UX needs, data model, APIs/contracts, migrations, tests, operations, and rollout surface as far as they can be inferred.
+   - Prototype-first gate for product and feature work: state whether the next artifact should be `multiple route experiments`, `single clickable prototype`, `production implementation`, or `research/spec only`. If there is no accepted prototype or user-approved infrastructure opt-in, recommend route experiments or a clickable prototype and explicitly defer database/storage, auth, payments, analytics, deployment, admin tooling, multi-tenancy, and production observability.
+   - Risks and unknowns: ambiguity, integration risk, user-facing risk, external dependencies, and what breaks if the assumption is wrong.
+   Tag each assumption with `[from idea]`, `[from spec]`, `[from codebase]`, `[from research]`, `[from roadmap]`, `[from git]`, or `[inferred]`.
+   Deliver the brief and manifest inline as the final message text of their own turn; ask the step 6 confirmation in the next turn. Never emit the brief only as mid-turn text in a turn that ends with a tool or command call — harness rendering does not guarantee mid-turn text is shown.
+6. In the turn after the brief is shown, ask the user to confirm, correct, or flag the evidence brief, claim verdicts, assumptions, journey placement, documentation destination, and priority hypothesis before continuing. Do not proceed past this checkpoint until the user has reviewed it. A confirmation question must never reference content the user has not been shown.
+7. Interview in focused passes. Codex interview cadence is one primary decision question per turn by default. Use short follow-up bullets only when they clarify the same decision, not to batch unrelated questions. If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete options for the current decision, prefer `request_user_input`; otherwise ask one concise direct question.
+8. Cover only the areas needed to choose and prepare the planning destination:
+   - Intent and success criteria.
+   - Target users, jobs, and journey/design implications.
+   - Feature behavior and scope boundaries.
+   - Existing spec fit: whether to create a new spec, update an existing spec, or split the work.
+   - Implementation constraints: architecture, data model, API/contract surface, migrations, security, privacy, performance, observability, test strategy, and rollout.
+   - Research and journey implications: whether canonical research, journey, UX, UI, or customer/developer docs need updates.
+   - Roadmap coupling: dependencies, phase fit, priority, ordering, parallelization, manual blockers, and the smallest useful implementation slice.
+9. Research and recommend by default. Use codebase evidence, existing docs, and web search when the decision depends on current external facts. Present options with pros/cons, state a recommendation, and ask the user to approve, adjust, or override.
+10. Before concluding, present a **Planning Destination + Priority Checkpoint**:
+   - Decision: update existing spec, create a new smaller-scope add-on spec, create a new full spec, update research/journey docs, update roadmap/tasks only, run another named planning/research skill first, interview log only, or no action.
+   - Target artifact path(s).
+   - Existing spec relationship: the parent spec or product-area spec this feature extends, supersedes, or leaves unchanged.
+   - Journey/workflow placement to record.
+   - Scope to include now and explicitly defer.
+   - For user-facing product or feature work, confirm the prototype-first decision: what users can click through first, whether multiple experiments should live on separate routes, what data can be fake or fixture-backed, which infrastructure is intentionally deferred, and what evidence would justify promoting one deferred infrastructure item into a later production phase.
+   - Scope triage for post-ship features:
+     - Small (config, copy, toggle) → `$spec-interview` + `$exec` directly
+     - Medium (new component, screen, workflow) → single-variation mini-prototype (`$prototype --variant 1`)
+     - Large (new product area, major redesign) → full pipeline starting at `$ux-variations`
+   - Priority decision: user-confirmed priority, dependencies, and whether the feature should interrupt, follow, or remain parked relative to current roadmap/todo work.
+   - Roadmap/task impact and recommended next command.
+   Deliver the checkpoint inline as the final message text of its own turn; in the next turn, ask: "Does this destination, priority, and scope match what you want?"
+
+## Deliverables
+
+After confirmation, write the minimum durable artifact needed:
+
+- New spec: write `specs/[topic].md` using the `$spec-interview` canonical section headings.
+- Add-on spec: write `specs/[parent-topic]-[feature-topic].md` or the repo's equivalent scoped path. State the parent spec it extends, the inherited assumptions, what is intentionally out of scope because the parent spec already owns it, and the exact integration points back to the parent.
+- Existing spec update: archive the existing canonical spec first, then update only the relevant sections.
+- Research or journey update: archive the existing canonical research/journey document first when replacing or substantively rewriting sections, then make the smallest scoped update. If the missing research requires a named skill, write the interview log and recommend that skill instead of inventing unsupported research.
+- Roadmap/task-only change: update `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, or `tasks/manual-todo.md` only when no spec/research change is needed and the user has confirmed priority.
+- Upstream planning/research needed: write an interview log and recommend the named skill instead of inventing a placeholder spec.
+- No action: write an interview log explaining why the idea is already covered, duplicate, deferred, or intentionally parked.
+- Product path divergence: update `research/.progress.yaml` with `id`, `label`, `source_skill`, `scope_path`, `status`, `reason`, `archive_reason`, `archived_at`, `promoted_at`, `evidence_refs`, `revisit_trigger`, `next_skill`, `pipeline_stage`, and `last_touched`; do not force all divergent paths through downstream research.
+
+Always write an interview log to `specs/[topic]-feature-interview.md` (or `docs/specifications/[topic]-feature-interview.md` if that is the repo's canonical spec location). Include:
+
+- Artifact path: the exact path of this interview log.
+- The Feature Evidence Brief and Assumptions Manifest with user corrections.
+- Claim validation verdicts and evidence.
+- Technical gotchas, mitigations, and unresolved unknowns.
+- Journey/user-story/workflow placement and any research or journey doc changes needed.
+- Questions asked and answers received.
+- Options and recommendations presented.
+- Planning Destination + Priority Checkpoint and confirmed decision.
+- Post-spec relationship: parent spec, add-on spec path, or updated spec section, including why this path is smaller and safer than re-running full `$spec-interview`.
+- The exact next command for sequencing.
+
+When replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (`research/**/*.md`, `specs/**/*.md`, or `docs/specifications/**/*.md`), copy the current file to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>` before editing it.
+
+### 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/feature-interview-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not default to a new spec when an existing spec should be updated.
+- Do not route post-spec feature additions back to full `$spec-interview` by default. Use `$feature-interview` to create a scoped add-on spec or update the existing spec unless the baseline spec is missing or unfit.
+- Do not update roadmap or task sequencing until the planning destination and priority are confirmed by the user.
+- Do not produce a full implementation spec unless the interview proves a new or rewritten spec is the right destination.
+- Do not route brainstorm ideas directly to `$spec-interview`; use `$feature-interview` for triage unless the user explicitly asks for a full spec.
+- Do not implement fixes or feature code from this skill. If the evidence pass uncovers a bug, route to `$investigate`; if it uncovers buildable planned work, route through `$roadmap`, `$plan-phase`, or `$exec`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-design/codex/prototype/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-prototype-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-prototype-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-prototype-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-prototype-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-specific gates.** Render source-spec coverage, prototype scope, non-goals and deferred infrastructure, route/file destinations, file mutation scope, validation plan, and post-approval UAT route 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/codex/prototype/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.14 - 2026-06-13
+
+- Moved prototype gates and source reads from pre-prototype `specs/` files to `design/` flow maps, UX variation plans, UI branch packets, and flow-tree manifests.
+- Clarified that prototype output remains under `prototypes/` and consumes design-phase branch approval state before post-prototype specification work.
+
+## v0.13 - 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.
+
 ## v0.12 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route wording for product-testing recommendations while preserving Codex `$pack install ...` routes.