skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/teardown/codex/desk-flip/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+---
+name: desk-flip
+description: Autopsy a stuck project, extract salvageable artifacts, and route to a fresh start via $bootstrap-repo reset or new-repo bootstrap
+type: execution
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "<project-path>"
+---
+
+# Desk Flip
+
+Invoke as `$desk-flip`.
+
+Autopsy a stuck project, extract salvageable artifacts (lessons, valid specs, non-code assets), and route the user to a fresh start either in a new repo or by resetting the existing repo with `$bootstrap-repo --reset-existing`.
+
+Always desk-flip. If the user invoked it, the decision to restart is already made. Do not offer incremental migration or attempt to fix the old project in place.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Identify the stuck project.**
+   - Accept an optional project path from the invocation arguments; default to the current working directory.
+   - Verify the target is a git repo with existing code, not an empty repo.
+   - If the project appears to already use the new workflow (file-backed specs, prototype-first artifacts, healthy structure), warn the user and confirm before proceeding.
+
+2. **Survey the project.**
+   - Read `AGENTS.md`, `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md`, `package.json` or equivalent manifest, and directory structure when present.
+   - Read `tasks/`, `specs/`, and `docs/` directories if they exist.
+   - Scan recent git history (last ~50 commits) for commit patterns and timeline.
+   - Read any existing `tasks/lessons.md` or post-mortem docs.
+
+3. **Run the autopsy.**
+   - **Lessons extraction:** What went wrong? Look for evidence of failure modes: infrastructure before prototype, late testing, chat-driven alignment drift, scope creep, untestable architecture. Cite specific commits, files, or timeline evidence.
+   - **Spec/design extraction:** Identify specs, designs, research docs, interview logs, and product briefs that capture valid domain knowledge or user needs, regardless of whether the implementation matched. Mark each as `valid`, `partially valid`, or `stale` with a one-line rationale.
+   - **Asset inventory:** Find non-code assets worth preserving: icons, images, copy, API contracts, design tokens, brand assets, research documents.
+
+   Do not extract code, dependencies, database schemas, or infrastructure config.
+
+4. **Write the autopsy report.**
+   - Produce `desk-flip-report.md` in the project root with these sections:
+
+   ```markdown
+   ## Project Summary
+   What the project was and what state it's in now.
+
+   ## What Went Wrong
+   Specific failure modes with evidence (commits, files, timeline).
+
+   ## Salvageable Specs & Designs
+   List with file paths, validity status, and one-line descriptions.
+
+   ## Salvageable Assets
+   Non-code assets with file paths.
+
+   ## Lessons for the Fresh Start
+   Actionable guidance for the new project to avoid the same mistakes.
+
+   ## Recommended Bootstrap Input
+   A condensed brief suitable as input to $bootstrap-repo.
+   ```
+
+5. **Choose the fresh-start path.**
+   - If the user explicitly wants a new repository, route to `$bootstrap-repo <condensed brief>`.
+   - If the user wants to keep the existing repository, or the current repo name, remotes, issues, deployment linkage, or local tooling are valuable, route to `$bootstrap-repo --reset-existing <condensed brief>`.
+   - For in-place reset, state that `$bootstrap-repo --reset-existing` must archive the old implementation under `archive/` before writing the fresh bootstrap docs. It must not delete the old code outright.
+   - The archive should preserve old implementation and documentation evidence without treating it as reusable foundation code or active source-of-truth docs. The fresh start should continue only from a high-level concept seed derived from the report, plus lessons captured in the report.
+
+6. **Present and route.**
+   - Show the user a terminal summary of the report.
+   - Recommend the appropriate `$bootstrap-repo` command with the recommended bootstrap input from the report.
+   - Do not create the new repo or run `$bootstrap-repo`; the user does this.
+   - After bootstrap, route product/app restarts into the research-first alignment workflow using the high-level concept seed as input: `$customer-discovery` to define who this is for, `$competitive-analysis` to map the market, `$journey-map` to map lifecycle and task flow, `$positioning` to lock the product direction, `$user-flow-map` to map screen flow, `$ui-interview --requirements-only` to define content/actions/states, `$ux-variations --layout-mode` to explore layouts, then prototype work, `$uat --variant-evaluation`, and `$consolidate-variations` before `$spec-interview` or `$roadmap`.
+   - If the business-discovery or customer-lifecycle packs are not enabled in the fresh repo, recommend `npx skillpacks install business-discovery` and `npx skillpacks install customer-lifecycle` before the research sequence.
+
+## Output
+
+```markdown
+Desk-flipped: <project name>
+- Report: desk-flip-report.md written to <project-path>
+- Specs extracted: <count> (<valid>/<partial>/<stale>)
+- Assets found: <count>
+- Lessons captured: <count>
+
+**Next work:** Reset the existing repo by archiving old implementation files, or create a new repo if the user prefers a separate fresh start
+**Recommended next command:** $bootstrap-repo --reset-existing <condensed brief from report>
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Read-only during desk-flip**: no modifications to existing files, no archival, no branch creation. The only file written by this skill is `desk-flip-report.md`.
+- Do not carry forward code, dependencies, infrastructure, old research, old specs, or old task docs from the old project as active files.
+- Do not create the new repo or invoke `$bootstrap-repo`; the user handles that transition.
+- Do not commit or push; the report is informational, not a meaningful mutation to ship.
+- Do not delete, archive, or rename anything in the old repo during desk-flip. Only the downstream `$bootstrap-repo --reset-existing` step may perform archival after the user chooses that route.
+- If the project has no specs, docs, or meaningful git history, produce the report anyway but note the thin evidence in each section.
+
+## 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/desk-flip-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+- Do not commit or push. The only side effect is `desk-flip-report.md` written to the project root.
+- **Default next-step routing:** when reporting completion, include the two-line pair `**Next work:** <specific task>` and `**Recommended next command:** $bootstrap-repo --reset-existing <brief>` for in-place restarts, or `$bootstrap-repo <brief>` only when a separate new repo is explicitly the right path.
+- **Post-bootstrap route:** include in the report that the fresh project should proceed from the high-level concept seed to `$customer-discovery`, then `$competitive-analysis`, `$journey-map`, `$positioning`, `$user-flow-map`, `$ui-interview --requirements-only`, `$ux-variations --layout-mode`, and prototype work. Mention `npx skillpacks install business-discovery`, `npx skillpacks install customer-lifecycle`, or `npx skillpacks install product-design` first if those packs are not enabled.

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

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: vard-align
 description: Quick feasibility and novelty check — go/no-go decision for this week's build
 type: analysis
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 # VARD Align

package/packs/vard/claude/vard-scan/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

package/packs/vard/claude/vard-scan/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
 ## v0.1
 
 - Added strict scope-first staged research: scope-review alignment page, preliminary working packet, artifact approval page, and approved canonical scan artifact.

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

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: vard-scan
 description: Scan for viral app opportunities from trends, gaps, and user pain points
 type: research
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # VARD Scan
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`.
-2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
 3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
 
 Canonical output paths remain unchanged. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/vard-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.

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

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+---
+name: vard-scan
+description: Scan for viral app opportunities from trends, gaps, and user pain points
+type: research
+version: v0.1
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# VARD Scan
+
+Invoke as `/vard-scan`.
+
+Rapid opportunity scanner for viral app ideas. Produces a lightweight brief after scope and artifact approval - enough to decide whether to build this week, not a full idea-scope-brief.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, timely signal categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the rapid VARD scan and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with the candidate briefs and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, task, or alignment files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language before final artifact approval. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit `/vard-align` routing after the approved canonical scan artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/vard-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Resolve scope:** Use `$ARGUMENTS` to narrow domain, audience, platform, timing window, or product path. If a non-archived `research/{slug}/` product path is in scope, use product-path output locations; otherwise use flat `research/` output locations.
+2. **Gather signals:** After Stage 1 approval, scan for opportunities across:
+   - Trending topics, memes, cultural moments with app potential
+   - App Store / Play Store gaps and underserved niches
+   - Twitter/Reddit/HN pain points that a simple tool could solve
+   - Existing apps with poor UX that could be reimagined
+   - Seasonal or time-sensitive opportunities
+3. **Filter for VARD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+   - Buildable in 1-3 days by a solo developer
+   - Viral or shareable mechanic (results people screenshot, share, or talk about)
+   - No complex backend requirements (serverless-friendly)
+   - Clear distribution channel (social, SEO, Product Hunt, etc.)
+4. **Produce preliminary brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), write the Stage 2 working packet with:
+   - One-line concept
+   - Why now (timeliness signal)
+   - Viral mechanic (what makes people share it)
+   - Build estimate (hours)
+   - Distribution channel
+   - Revenue potential (none / ads / freemium / one-time)
+   - Evidence notes and confidence level
+5. **Rank for artifact review:** Order candidates by virality, feasibility, and distribution clarity. Highlight the proposed top pick only in the Stage 2 working packet and artifact-review alignment page.
+6. **Finalize after approval:** After final artifact approval, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical scan artifact, confirm the alignment page, and then recommend `/vard-align`.
+
+## Output
+
+Stage 1 output is only the scope-review alignment page and a concise request for final compiled YAML approving scope.
+
+Stage 2 output is the working packet at `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`, plus the updated artifact-review alignment page.
+
+Stage 3 output is the approved canonical scan artifact at `research/vard-scan.md` or `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. End the final approved artifact with:
+
+```md
+**Top pick:** <concept name>
+**Next work:** validate top pick feasibility
+**Recommended next command:** /vard-align
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth - keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
+- Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint, narrow the scan accordingly.
+- Do not write canonical scan artifacts, specs, tasks, or next-command routing before final artifact approval.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/vard-scan-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

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

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: vard-ship
 description: Deploy the app, create landing page, set up analytics, and log the shipment
 type: ops
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # VARD Ship

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

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: vard-align
 description: Quick feasibility and novelty check — go/no-go decision for this week's build
 type: analysis
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 # VARD Align

package/packs/vard/codex/vard-scan/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

package/packs/vard/codex/vard-scan/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Clarified staged research review pages must render complete working-packet substance as structured HTML UI, with raw Markdown packet text allowed only as a supplemental source view.
+
 ## v0.1
 
 - Added strict scope-first staged research: scope-review alignment page, preliminary working packet, artifact approval page, and approved canonical scan artifact.

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

@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
 name: vard-scan
 description: Scan for viral app opportunities from trends, gaps, and user pain points
 type: research
-version: v0.1
-interview_depth: none
+version: v0.2
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # VARD Scan
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`.
-2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
 3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
 
 Canonical output paths remain unchanged. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/vard-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.

package/packs/vard/codex/vard-scan/archive/v0.1/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+---
+name: vard-scan
+description: Scan for viral app opportunities from trends, gaps, and user pain points
+type: research
+version: v0.1
+interview_depth: none
+---
+
+# VARD Scan
+
+Invoke as `$vard-scan`.
+
+Rapid opportunity scanner for viral app ideas. Produces a lightweight brief after scope and artifact approval - enough to decide whether to build this week, not a full idea-scope-brief.
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, timely signal categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the rapid VARD scan and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with the candidate briefs and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, task, or alignment files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language before final artifact approval. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit `$vard-align` routing after the approved canonical scan artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. For this skill, flat mode proposes `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`; product-path mode proposes `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. For VARD scan, write `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Keep the packet lightweight: 2-5 candidates, each only a few lines plus evidence/source notes. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. For this skill, flat mode writes the approved scan to `research/vard-scan.md`; product-path mode writes `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Process
+
+1. **Resolve scope:** Use `$ARGUMENTS` to narrow domain, audience, platform, timing window, or product path. If a non-archived `research/{slug}/` product path is in scope, use product-path output locations; otherwise use flat `research/` output locations.
+2. **Gather signals:** After Stage 1 approval, scan for opportunities across:
+   - Trending topics, memes, cultural moments with app potential
+   - App Store / Play Store gaps and underserved niches
+   - Twitter/Reddit/HN pain points that a simple tool could solve
+   - Existing apps with poor UX that could be reimagined
+   - Seasonal or time-sensitive opportunities
+3. **Filter for VARD fit:** Each candidate must pass:
+   - Buildable in 1-3 days by a solo developer
+   - Viral or shareable mechanic (results people screenshot, share, or talk about)
+   - No complex backend requirements (serverless-friendly)
+   - Clear distribution channel (social, SEO, Product Hunt, etc.)
+4. **Produce preliminary brief:** For each viable candidate (aim for 2-5), write the Stage 2 working packet with:
+   - One-line concept
+   - Why now (timeliness signal)
+   - Viral mechanic (what makes people share it)
+   - Build estimate (hours)
+   - Distribution channel
+   - Revenue potential (none / ads / freemium / one-time)
+   - Evidence notes and confidence level
+5. **Rank for artifact review:** Order candidates by virality, feasibility, and distribution clarity. Highlight the proposed top pick only in the Stage 2 working packet and artifact-review alignment page.
+6. **Finalize after approval:** After final artifact approval, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical scan artifact, confirm the alignment page, and then recommend `$vard-align`.
+
+## Output
+
+Stage 1 output is only the scope-review alignment page and a concise request for final compiled YAML approving scope.
+
+Stage 2 output is the working packet at `research/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-vard-scan-research.md`, plus the updated artifact-review alignment page.
+
+Stage 3 output is the approved canonical scan artifact at `research/vard-scan.md` or `research/{slug}/vard-scan.md`. End the final approved artifact with:
+
+```md
+**Top pick:** <concept name>
+**Next work:** validate top pick feasibility
+**Recommended next command:** $vard-align
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not produce full idea-scope-brief depth - keep each candidate to a few lines.
+- Do not begin implementation or scaffolding.
+- Do not run paid API calls or external account actions.
+- If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a domain or constraint, narrow the scan accordingly.
+- Do not write canonical scan artifacts, specs, tasks, or next-command routing before final artifact approval.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/vard-scan-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention.

package/packs/vard/codex/vard-ship/SKILL.md

@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ name: vard-ship
 description: Deploy the app, create landing page, set up analytics, and log the shipment
 type: ops
 version: v0.0
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 ---
 
 # VARD Ship

package/packs/website-polish/claude/icon-handler/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-icon-handler-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-icon-handler-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-icon-handler-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-icon-handler-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Required inline questions.** In `review` pages, each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. Confirmed pages must not keep these as required input controls; render the answered decisions as read-only records.
 

package/packs/website-polish/codex/icon-handler/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-icon-handler-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-icon-handler-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-icon-handler-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-icon-handler-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Required inline questions.** In `review` pages, each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section. Confirmed pages must not keep these as required input controls; render the answered decisions as read-only records.
 

package/packs/youtube-ops/claude/youtube/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,16 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## v0.3 - 2026-06-13
+
+- Removed direct execution-loop command handoffs from non-exec routing; route through approved YAML, task, or roadmap artifacts instead.
+
+
 # youtube Changelog
 
+## v0.2 - 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.
+
 ## v0.1 - 2026-06-09
 
 - Added routing for the new `/youtube-video-prelaunch-audit` skill.