skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/product-testing/claude/uat/archive/v0.10/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+---
+name: uat
+description: Create user acceptance test journeys from a target user's perspective, with role-based scenarios, acceptance criteria, and evidence capture
+type: analysis
+version: v0.10
+argument-hint: "[--variant-evaluation] [optional: persona, feature, release, journey, app, or variation spec]"
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+## 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>` 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.
+
+# UAT
+
+Invoke as `/uat`.
+
+Create a user acceptance testing plan from the perspective of a potential or target user. Read the product surface, specs, journeys, stories, roadmap, and relevant research, then produces realistic end-to-end user journeys that validate whether the product satisfies user goals.
+
+UAT is not dogfooding. Dogfood asks how the app owner can adopt the product into their own workflow to understand and evaluate it. UAT asks whether a target user can complete meaningful real-world journeys and would accept the product as fit for use.
+
+This is a human-run acceptance plan, not automated testing. Do not start servers, drive browsers, call APIs, create accounts, or perform the scenarios yourself.
+
+When invoked with `--variant-evaluation` (or when the user asks to test/review UI variants), create a hands-on evaluation plan for built UX/UI variants before `/consolidate-variations` (product-design pack). This mode helps the user try each variant in a comparable way and capture enough evidence to form a defensible consolidation opinion.
+
+## 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 project context**
+   - Read `.agents/project.json` if it exists.
+   - Use `project_type` and `enabled_packs` when present.
+   - If project metadata is missing, infer the project type from repo signals:
+     - business-app: SaaS, marketplace, productivity, workflow, enterprise, or user-facing app
+     - devtool: SDK, CLI, API, library, infrastructure, docs, examples, or package-first developer workflow
+     - game: game engine files, playable prototypes, store assets, or game-specific README/spec language
+     - generic: no strong domain signal
+   - Read `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, relevant `docs/`, `specs/`, `spec.md`, and `tasks/` files when present.
+
+2. **Load user evidence**
+   - Business app: read `research/icp.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/metrics.md`, and `research/mvp-gap.md` when present.
+   - Devtool: read `research/devtool-user-map.md`, `research/devtool-dx-journey.md`, `research/devtool-integration-map.md`, docs, examples, and package manifests when present.
+   - Game: read `research/game-audience.md`, `research/game-fantasy.md`, `research/game-core-loop.md`, `research/game-prototype-test.md`, and `research/game-playtest-metrics.md` when present.
+   - Generic: use specs, README, routes, tests, examples, issue descriptions, and task acceptance criteria.
+   - In product-path workspaces with `research/{slug}/` or `specs/{slug}/`, produce product-path-scoped UAT journeys for the requested app. If no app is specified and multiple apps are plausible, ask the user to choose.
+
+2b. **Variant evaluation mode**
+   - Trigger this branch when invoked with `--variant-evaluation`, when `specs/ui-layout-variations-*.md` exists for the requested topic, or when the user asks how to test/review built variants.
+   - Read `specs/ui-layout-variations-[topic].md`, `specs/ux-variations-[topic].md`, `specs/ui-requirements-[topic].md`, built variant routes/components, and any existing `research/uat-variant-evaluation-[topic].md`.
+   - Identify each variant, its intended thesis, implementation location, and the target user task it should support.
+   - Create comparable journeys that make the user perform the same core task in every variant, then capture variant-specific strengths, friction, confidence, and rejection signals.
+   - Include a side-by-side comparison matrix and a "Ready for `/consolidate-variations` (product-design pack)?" checklist.
+   - Human execution still belongs in `tasks/manual-todo.md`; this skill writes the plan and manual tasks, but does not run the variants.
+   - After writing files, recommend `/consolidate-variations` (product-design pack) only as the next step after the manual evaluation tasks are completed or when the user explicitly says they have already evaluated the variants.
+   - Stop after this branch. Do not generate generic target-user acceptance journeys unless the user also requested them.
+
+3. **Define acceptance perspective**
+   - Identify 1-3 target user personas or roles from the evidence.
+   - For each selected persona, define the job-to-be-done, context, goal, constraints, and acceptance threshold.
+   - Prefer external target users, buyers, evaluators, administrators, developers, or players over the product owner unless the owner is also the target user.
+   - If the target user is unclear, stop and recommend `/customer-discovery` (business-discovery pack), `/journey-map` (customer-lifecycle pack), or the relevant pack research skill. For `/customer-discovery`, `/journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `/pack install <pack>` before the skill.
+
+4. **Create UAT journeys**
+   - Generate 3-7 journeys unless the user requested a narrower focus.
+   - Cover at least one critical happy path, one realistic obstacle or recovery path, and one return-use or handoff path when supported by the product evidence.
+   - Each journey must include:
+     - target user
+     - user goal
+     - real-world trigger
+     - setup and preconditions
+     - end-to-end task sequence
+     - expected user-visible success state
+     - acceptance criteria
+     - non-acceptance signals
+     - evidence to capture
+     - tester notes prompt
+     - follow-up routing
+   - Use concrete product language from specs and journeys. Avoid vague instructions such as "verify the feature works."
+
+5. **Classify follow-up work**
+   - Human-run UAT journeys go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` under `## UAT Journeys`.
+   - Use `_(after: research/uat-plan.md)_` unless the journey blocks or follows a known roadmap step. If tied to a known step, use `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`.
+   - Do not put human-run UAT journeys in `tasks/todo.md`.
+   - Implementation or documentation fixes discovered after a completed UAT run belong in `tasks/todo.md`, but do not invent fixes before the user journey has been attempted.
+   - One-time evidence collection belongs in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+   - Recurring release acceptance checks belong in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` only when there is a clear release cadence.
+   - If a journey needs step-by-step tester guidance, recommend `/uat-guide` (guided-walkthrough pack).
+   - If a journey step needs click-by-click help for a human-only external blocker (OAuth, DNS, service signup), recommend `/guide` (guided-walkthrough pack).
+
+6. **Present findings before writing when risk is high**
+   - If source material is thin, contradictory, or missing target-user evidence, summarize the gap and ask whether to proceed with assumptions.
+   - If source material is sufficient, write the plan and task sections directly.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- `research/uat-plan.md` - persona assumptions, journey matrix, source evidence, acceptance checklist, result log template, and follow-up guidance.
+- In variant evaluation mode: `research/uat-variant-evaluation-[topic].md` - variant inventory, task script, comparison matrix, result logs, and consolidation readiness checklist.
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` - append or replace only the `## UAT Journeys` section.
+- `tasks/recurring-todo.md` - optional, only when recurring UAT is useful and not already tracked.
+
+If `tasks/manual-todo.md` does not exist, create it with a `# Manual Tasks - [Project Name]` title, a short note that these items require human-only action, and the UAT section. Preserve all non-UAT sections when updating an existing file.
+
+Use this journey format in `research/uat-plan.md`:
+
+```markdown
+### Journey N: [Name]
+
+- Target user: [persona or role]
+- User goal: [what the user is trying to accomplish]
+- Trigger: [real-world reason the user starts]
+- Setup: [accounts, data, environment, permissions, or sample state needed]
+- Task sequence:
+  - [step the human tester performs as the target user]
+- Expected success state: [observable user-visible result]
+- Acceptance criteria:
+  - [ ] [specific criterion]
+- Non-acceptance signals: [confusion, delay, missing affordance, incorrect result, trust issue, or blocker]
+- Evidence to capture: [screenshots, recordings, notes, timestamps, records, command output, or artifacts]
+- Tester notes prompt: [question that captures whether the target user would accept this]
+- Follow-up routing: [manual note, /customer-discovery (business-discovery pack), /journey-map (customer-lifecycle pack), /guide (guided-walkthrough pack), or task promotion guidance]
+
+#### UAT result log
+
+- Status: Not run | Pass | Fail | Blocked
+- Evidence captured:
+- Tester notes:
+- Follow-up tasks promoted:
+```
+
+Use this variant evaluation format in `research/uat-variant-evaluation-[topic].md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Variant Evaluation Plan
+
+### Variant Inventory
+
+| Variant | Implementation location | Thesis | Primary task |
+|---|---|---|---|
+
+### Shared Evaluation Script
+
+- Target user:
+- Scenario:
+- Setup:
+- Core task sequence:
+- Success criteria:
+- Non-acceptance signals:
+- Evidence to capture:
+
+### Per-Variant Result Log
+
+#### [Variant name]
+
+- Status: Not run | Pass | Fail | Blocked
+- Evidence captured:
+- What worked:
+- What felt wrong:
+- Time/friction notes:
+- Keep for consolidation:
+- Reject for consolidation:
+- Confidence: Low | Medium | High
+
+### Side-by-Side Comparison Matrix
+
+| Dimension | Variant A | Variant B | Variant C | Current preference | Evidence |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+
+### Ready for `/consolidate-variations` (product-design pack)?
+
+- [ ] Every built variant has been tried or explicitly skipped.
+- [ ] Evidence exists for each kept/rejected design element.
+- [ ] Open blockers are documented.
+- [ ] The user has enough confidence to converge.
+```
+
+Use this item format in `tasks/manual-todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## UAT Journeys
+
+- [ ] Run UAT journey: [Journey name] as [target user] _(after: research/uat-plan.md)_ - capture evidence in `research/uat-plan.md`.
+```
+
+## Task Classification
+
+- Human UAT journey execution goes in `tasks/manual-todo.md`.
+- Variant evaluation tasks go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` under `## UAT Journeys` and should reference `research/uat-variant-evaluation-[topic].md`.
+- Immediate implementation or documentation fixes confirmed by completed UAT go in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated evidence collection goes in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Release-cadence UAT checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not run or operate the product in this skill.
+- Do not start dev servers, launch browsers, use Playwright, call APIs, create accounts, or perform CLI workflows.
+- Do not mark journeys complete; only a human tester can do that after performing them.
+- Do not recommend `/consolidate-variations` (product-design pack) before variant evaluation evidence exists, unless the user explicitly confirms they have already reviewed the variants and are ready to converge.
+- Do not duplicate existing unchecked UAT or manual tasks. Reference existing items when they already cover the same journey.
+- Prefer evidence-backed target-user journeys over exhaustive feature coverage.
+- Keep dogfood and UAT separate: use `/dogfood` for owner/operator adoption into the builder's workflow; use `/uat` for target-user acceptance journeys.
+- If no credible user journey, story, spec, or product surface can be found, stop and recommend `/customer-discovery` (business-discovery pack), `/journey-map` (customer-lifecycle pack), or the relevant pack research skill. Apply the Pack Availability Guard for pack-based skills.
+- When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If not installed, prepend `/pack install <pack-name>` to the recommendation.
+
+## 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/uat-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-testing/codex/dogfood/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

package/packs/product-testing/codex/dogfood/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 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.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-07
 
 - Routed missing-discovery dogfood handoffs from the retired `$icp` executable to `$customer-discovery` while preserving `research/icp.md` as evidence input.

package/packs/product-testing/codex/dogfood/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: dogfood
 description: Derive owner/operator dogfood scenarios from product evidence and active-use cadence, then produce adoption instructions and manual evaluation checks
 type: analysis
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[optional: scenario focus, persona, feature, or release]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 ## 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>` 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>` 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.
 
 # Dogfood
 
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ Use this item format in `tasks/manual-todo.md`:
 - Do not duplicate existing unchecked dogfood/manual tasks. Reference existing items when they already cover the same scenario.
 - Prefer evidence-backed owner/operator adoption scenarios over exhaustive coverage.
 - Keep dogfood and UAT separate: use `$dogfood` for owner/operator adoption into the builder's workflow; use `$uat` for target-user acceptance journeys.
-- If no credible user journey, story, spec, or product surface can be found, stop and recommend `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, or the relevant pack research skill. For `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `$pack install <pack>` before the skill.
+- If no credible user journey, story, spec, or product surface can be found, stop and recommend `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, or the relevant pack research skill. For `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` before the skill.
 
 ## Alignment Page
 

package/packs/product-testing/codex/dogfood/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+---
+name: dogfood
+description: Derive owner/operator dogfood scenarios from product evidence and active-use cadence, then produce adoption instructions and manual evaluation checks
+type: analysis
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[optional: scenario focus, persona, feature, or release]"
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+## 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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Dogfood
+
+Invoke as `$dogfood`.
+
+Create a practical dogfood plan for the app owner or operator. Read the codebase, specs, journey maps, stories, roadmap, and pack-specific research, then tells the operator how to adopt the product into their own workflow so they can understand, evaluate, and improve it through real use.
+
+Dogfood is not UAT. Dogfood asks how the app owner can use the product in their own work and observe what that reveals. UAT asks whether a target user can complete meaningful real-world journeys and would accept the product as fit for use; use `$uat` for that.
+
+This is a human-run product adoption plan, not automated testing. Do not run the product, start servers, drive a browser, call APIs, create accounts, or perform the scenarios yourself.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$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 project context**
+   - Read `.agents/project.json` if it exists.
+   - Use `project_type` and `enabled_packs` when present.
+   - If project metadata is missing, infer the project type from repo signals:
+     - business-app: SaaS, marketplace, productivity, workflow, enterprise, or user-facing app
+     - devtool: SDK, CLI, API, library, infrastructure, docs, examples, or package-first developer workflow
+     - game: game engine files, playable prototypes, store assets, or game-specific README/spec language
+     - generic: no strong domain signal
+   - Read `README.md`, `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, relevant `docs/`, `specs/`, `spec.md`, and `tasks/` files when present.
+
+2. **Load journey and story evidence**
+   - Business app: read `research/icp.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/metrics.md`, and `research/mvp-gap.md` when present.
+   - Devtool: read `research/devtool-user-map.md`, `research/devtool-dx-journey.md`, `research/devtool-integration-map.md`, `research/devtool-adoption.md`, docs, examples, and package manifests when present.
+   - Game: read `research/game-core-loop.md`, `research/game-prototype-test.md`, `research/game-playtest-metrics.md`, `research/game-audience.md`, `research/game-fantasy.md`, and `research/game-comparables.md` when present.
+   - Generic: use specs, README, routes, tests, examples, and task acceptance criteria.
+   - In product-path workspaces with `research/{slug}/` or `specs/{slug}/`, produce product-path-scoped scenarios for the requested app. If no app is specified and multiple apps are plausible, ask the user to choose.
+
+3. **Identify active-use cadence**
+   - Infer how often the app owner or operator should use the product in their own workflow: first session, daily, weekly, per incident, per project, per release, monthly review, or another cadence supported by the docs.
+   - If cadence is unclear, recommend a default and state the assumption in the audit.
+   - Prefer scenarios that exercise owner/operator adoption, repeated use, and product understanding over isolated feature checks.
+
+4. **Create owner/operator scenarios**
+   - Generate 3-7 scenarios unless the user requested a narrower focus.
+   - Cover at least one happy path, one recovery/failure path, and one return-use or retention path when the product evidence supports them.
+   - Each scenario must include:
+     - owner/operator role
+     - active cadence
+     - trigger
+     - setup and preconditions
+     - exact task for the operator to perform in their own workflow
+     - expected success state
+     - acceptance checks
+     - evidence to capture
+     - friction or failure signals
+     - follow-up routing
+   - Use concrete product language from specs and journeys. Avoid vague instructions such as "verify the flow works."
+   - If the scenario is primarily about whether a target user would accept the product, route it to `$uat` instead.
+
+5. **Classify follow-up work**
+   - Operator-run dogfood scenarios go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` under `## Dogfood Operator Scenarios`.
+   - Use `_(after: research/dogfood-audit.md)_` unless the scenario blocks or follows a known roadmap step. If tied to a known step, use `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`.
+   - Do not put operator scenarios in `tasks/todo.md`.
+   - Agent-executable implementation fixes discovered after a human run belong in `tasks/todo.md`, but do not invent fixes before the operator has attempted the scenario.
+   - Cadence-based dogfood obligations, such as weekly dogfood or pre-release dogfood, go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+   - If a scenario needs click-by-click help for a human-only external blocker, recommend `$guide`.
+
+6. **Present findings before writing when risk is high**
+   - If source material is thin, contradictory, or missing the target user journey, summarize the gap and ask whether to proceed with assumptions.
+   - If source material is sufficient, write the audit and task sections directly.
+
+## Deliverables
+
+- `research/dogfood-audit.md` - scenario matrix, source evidence, owner/operator adoption instructions, evaluation checklist, findings template, and next steps.
+- `tasks/manual-todo.md` - append or replace only the `## Dogfood Operator Scenarios` section.
+- `tasks/recurring-todo.md` - optional, only when a recurring dogfood cadence is useful and not already tracked.
+
+If `tasks/manual-todo.md` does not exist, create it with a `# Manual Tasks - [Project Name]` title, a short note that these items require human-only action, and the dogfood section. Preserve all non-dogfood sections when updating an existing file.
+
+Use this scenario format in `research/dogfood-audit.md`:
+
+```markdown
+### Scenario N: [Name]
+
+- Owner/operator role: [role]
+- Active cadence: [first session/daily/weekly/per incident/per release/etc.]
+- Trigger: [why the user opens the product]
+- Setup: [accounts, data, environment, permissions, or sample state needed]
+- Task: [specific action sequence in the operator's own workflow]
+- Expected success state: [observable result]
+- Acceptance checks:
+  - [ ] [specific check]
+- Evidence to capture: [screenshots, command output, notes, timestamps, records]
+- Friction/failure signals: [what counts as confusion, delay, breakage, or mismatch]
+- Follow-up routing: [manual note, $uat, $customer-discovery, $journey-map, $guide, or task promotion guidance]
+
+#### Operator result log
+
+- Status: Not run | Pass | Fail | Blocked
+- Evidence captured:
+- Notes:
+- Follow-up tasks promoted:
+```
+
+Use this item format in `tasks/manual-todo.md`:
+
+```markdown
+## Dogfood Operator Scenarios
+
+- [ ] Perform dogfood scenario: [Scenario name] for [owner/operator role] ([cadence]) _(after: research/dogfood-audit.md)_ - capture evidence in `research/dogfood-audit.md`.
+```
+
+## Task Classification
+
+- Human/operator scenario execution goes in `tasks/manual-todo.md`.
+- Immediate implementation or documentation fixes confirmed by a completed dogfood run go in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated evidence collection goes in `tasks/record-todo.md`.
+- Cadence-based dogfood checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md`.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not run or operate the product in this skill.
+- Do not start dev servers, launch browsers, use Playwright, call APIs, create accounts, or perform CLI workflows.
+- Do not mark scenarios complete; only the human operator can do that after performing them.
+- Do not duplicate existing unchecked dogfood/manual tasks. Reference existing items when they already cover the same scenario.
+- Prefer evidence-backed owner/operator adoption scenarios over exhaustive coverage.
+- Keep dogfood and UAT separate: use `$dogfood` for owner/operator adoption into the builder's workflow; use `$uat` for target-user acceptance journeys.
+- If no credible user journey, story, spec, or product surface can be found, stop and recommend `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, or the relevant pack research skill. For `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `$pack install <pack>` before the skill.
+
+## 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/dogfood-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/product-testing/codex/uat/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.11 - 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.
+
 ## v0.10 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Converted the hand-authored alignment-page section to the generator-owned stub plus a bundled `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md`; the page contract now follows the full shared convention (lifecycle states, central alignment index, section feedback, gate/feedback YAML, TTS, browser open) with the uat-specific gates from the generator gate map.

package/packs/product-testing/codex/uat/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: uat
 description: Create user acceptance test journeys from a target user's perspective, with role-based scenarios, acceptance criteria, and evidence capture
 type: analysis
-version: v0.10
+version: v0.11
 argument-hint: "[--variant-evaluation] [optional: persona, feature, release, journey, app, or variation spec]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 ## 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>` 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>` 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.
 
 # UAT
 
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{s
    - Identify 1-3 target user personas or roles from the evidence.
    - For each selected persona, define the job-to-be-done, context, goal, constraints, and acceptance threshold.
    - Prefer external target users, buyers, evaluators, administrators, developers, or players over the product owner unless the owner is also the target user.
-   - If the target user is unclear, stop and recommend `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, or the relevant pack research skill. For `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `$pack install <pack>` before the skill.
+   - If the target user is unclear, stop and recommend `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, or the relevant pack research skill. For `$customer-discovery`, `$journey-map`, and other pack-based skills, apply the Pack Availability Guard — if the target skill's pack is not in `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` before the skill.
 
 4. **Create UAT journeys**
    - Generate 3-7 journeys unless the user requested a narrower focus.