skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/youtube-ops/codex/youtube-competitive-research/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+---
+name: youtube-competitive-research
+description: Analyze why an external YouTube video performed well and extract evidence-backed competitive lessons, positioning gaps, and adaptation opportunities
+type: research
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "<video URL or ID...> [--primary-channel <slug>] [--comments N] [--angle packaging|topic|retention|positioning]"
+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 `$pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# YouTube Competitive Research
+
+Invoke as `$youtube-competitive-research`.
+
+## 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, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved 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.
+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. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. 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. 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.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Required: one or more YouTube video URLs or video IDs.
+- Optional `--primary-channel <slug>`: compare the lessons against existing evidence for the user's channel under `research/youtube/data/<slug>/`.
+- Optional `--comments N`: fetch up to N public top-level comments when public comment tooling/API access is available. Default 50, max 200.
+- Optional `--angle packaging|topic|retention|positioning`: default is to cover all four.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Resolve every target into a video ID from watch URLs, Shorts URLs, youtu.be URLs, embed URLs, or raw 11-character IDs.
+2. Require `yt-dlp` for public metadata:
+
+   ```bash
+   command -v yt-dlp
+   ```
+
+3. Select a transcript Python interpreter. Prefer a workspace-local `.venv`; create it if missing. Install `youtube-transcript-api` into `.venv` only when the import check fails and network access is available.
+4. Persist raw evidence under `research/youtube/data/<video-id>/`:
+   - `metadata-YYYY-MM-DD.json`: raw `yt-dlp --dump-json "VIDEO_URL"` output.
+   - `transcript/<video-id>.json`: raw transcript JSON when available.
+   - `transcript/transcript-summary.json`: transcript text or failure reason.
+   - `api/comment-threads-YYYY-MM-DD.json`: optional public comments when an already-authorized API path is available.
+5. Extract performance signals from public metadata when present: views, likes, comments, age, views/day, duration, views/minute, title, thumbnail URLs, description, tags, chapters, upload timing, and channel identity.
+6. Analyze:
+   - Performance hypothesis: why the video likely earned attention relative to public evidence.
+   - Audience job: the problem, desire, identity, fear, or curiosity the video served.
+   - Packaging: title, thumbnail, topic framing, specificity, novelty, and expectation match.
+   - Content/retention drivers: hook, pacing, proof, examples, conflict, payoff, structure, and CTA.
+   - Distribution context: timing, trend fit, search demand, collaboration, controversy, community, or platform format signals when evidence supports them.
+   - Comment themes only when comments were captured; separate praise, objections, confusion, requests, and spam/noise.
+   - Adaptation opportunities for the user's channel, product, or content strategy.
+7. If a primary channel slug is supplied, compare against the user's existing raw channel evidence and state what the competitor proves that the primary channel does not yet prove.
+
+## Output
+
+Create the `research/youtube/` and `research/youtube/data/<video-id>/` directories if they do not exist.
+
+Write:
+
+```text
+research/youtube/competitive-research-<video-id-or-slug>-YYYY-MM-DD.md
+```
+
+Use this structure:
+
+```markdown
+# YouTube Competitive Research - [Title or Video Set]
+
+> Videos: [URLs]
+> Primary channel: [slug or not provided]
+> Date captured: YYYY-MM-DD
+> Evidence: [raw paths used]
+> Angle: packaging / topic / retention / positioning / all
+
+## Evidence Coverage
+
+| Video | Metadata | Transcript | Comments | Primary-channel comparison |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [Title](URL) | Available / Missing | Available / Missing | Available / Missing / Not requested | Available / Not provided |
+
+## Performance Snapshot
+
+| Video | Published | Duration | Views | Likes | Comments | Views/day | Views/min |
+|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Why It Likely Worked
+
+1. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+2. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+3. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+
+## Audience Job And Positioning
+
+[Audience need, competitor promise, category wedge, and emotional or practical trigger.]
+
+## Packaging And Retention Lessons
+
+- **Title / thumbnail promise**: ...
+- **Topic timing / novelty**: ...
+- **Hook and structure**: ...
+- **Proof and payoff**: ...
+- **Comments / audience signal**: ...
+
+## Adaptation Opportunities
+
+| Opportunity | Adapt, avoid, or counter-position | Evidence | Suggested next move |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Risks Of Copying
+
+[What would be derivative, off-brand, unsupported by evidence, or risky to imitate.]
+
+## Open Questions And Evidence Gaps
+
+[Missing transcript, unavailable comments, absent owner analytics, uncertain distribution cause, or claims needing independent verification.]
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not invent metrics, transcript quotes, comments, thumbnail details, or distribution causes.
+- Separate observed public evidence from performance hypotheses.
+- Do not recommend copying a competitor directly; translate evidence into differentiated positioning and execution.
+- Do not treat public views as proof of profitability, subscriber conversion, retention, CTR, or revenue.
+- Do not bypass login walls, bot protections, access controls, or private YouTube Studio data.
+- Archive existing canonical artifacts before replacing them under `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+
+## Approved Artifact Handoff
+
+After an approved synthesized write, explicit write/update mode, or any direct artifact mutation:
+
+- List every created or updated synthesized artifact path in the final response.
+- State the verification performed, such as readback, schema/check command, or why no executable verification applies for a Markdown-only strategy artifact.
+- Check and report the relevant git status for intended artifacts when the project is a git repository. If intended artifacts are modified or untracked, make the next action shipping, committing, or an explicit dirty-artifact handoff before recommending downstream strategy work.
+- Do not imply the research workflow is complete while approved artifacts remain untracked or uncommitted unless the user explicitly asked not to ship.
+- If stopping for approval before writing, the approval request remains the next action; do not include downstream routing.
+
+## Intent-Aware Routing
+
+Before applying the default `## Next-Skill Routing` sequence, classify the user's immediate intent and route to the missing action that best serves that intent:
+
+- Strategy refresh: recommend the missing or stale positioning, programming, portfolio, metrics, or product-media artifact.
+- Recording prep: recommend the missing series spec, script, build proof, walkthrough guide, or validation artifact needed before recording.
+- Upload prep: recommend packaging, title/thumbnail, description, chapters, or final metadata work before broader strategy work.
+- Performance review: recommend metrics, cadence, portfolio, peer benchmark, or owner-analytics export work before new content planning.
+- Owner analytics or private/manual platform evidence: route to an explicit manual/guide handoff instead of inventing unavailable metrics.
+- Dirty intended artifacts: route to shipping/commit/handoff first, not another creator strategy skill.
+
+Use the default next-skill sequence only when no stronger user intent, missing artifact, manual blocker, or dirty-artifact handoff applies.
+
+## 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/youtube-competitive-research-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/youtube-ops/codex/youtube-competitive-research/archive/v0.5/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+---
+name: youtube-competitive-research
+description: Analyze why an external YouTube video performed well and extract evidence-backed competitive lessons, positioning gaps, and adaptation opportunities
+type: research
+version: v0.5
+argument-hint: "<video URL or ID...> [--primary-channel <slug>] [--comments N] [--angle packaging|topic|retention|positioning]"
+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 `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.
+
+# YouTube Competitive Research
+
+Invoke as `$youtube-competitive-research`.
+
+## 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, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved 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.
+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. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. 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. 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.
+
+## Inputs
+
+- Required: one or more YouTube video URLs or video IDs.
+- Optional `--primary-channel <slug>`: compare the lessons against existing evidence for the user's channel under `research/youtube/data/<slug>/`.
+- Optional `--comments N`: fetch up to N public top-level comments when public comment tooling/API access is available. Default 50, max 200.
+- Optional `--angle packaging|topic|retention|positioning`: default is to cover all four.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Resolve every target into a video ID from watch URLs, Shorts URLs, youtu.be URLs, embed URLs, or raw 11-character IDs.
+2. Require `yt-dlp` for public metadata:
+
+   ```bash
+   command -v yt-dlp
+   ```
+
+3. Select a transcript Python interpreter. Prefer a workspace-local `.venv`; create it if missing. Install `youtube-transcript-api` into `.venv` only when the import check fails and network access is available.
+4. Persist raw evidence under `research/youtube/data/<video-id>/`:
+   - `metadata-YYYY-MM-DD.json`: raw `yt-dlp --dump-json "VIDEO_URL"` output.
+   - `transcript/<video-id>.json`: raw transcript JSON when available.
+   - `transcript/transcript-summary.json`: transcript text or failure reason.
+   - `api/comment-threads-YYYY-MM-DD.json`: optional public comments when an already-authorized API path is available.
+5. Extract performance signals from public metadata when present: views, likes, comments, age, views/day, duration, views/minute, title, thumbnail URLs, description, tags, chapters, upload timing, and channel identity.
+6. Analyze:
+   - Performance hypothesis: why the video likely earned attention relative to public evidence.
+   - Audience job: the problem, desire, identity, fear, or curiosity the video served.
+   - Packaging: title, thumbnail, topic framing, specificity, novelty, and expectation match.
+   - Content/retention drivers: hook, pacing, proof, examples, conflict, payoff, structure, and CTA.
+   - Distribution context: timing, trend fit, search demand, collaboration, controversy, community, or platform format signals when evidence supports them.
+   - Comment themes only when comments were captured; separate praise, objections, confusion, requests, and spam/noise.
+   - Adaptation opportunities for the user's channel, product, or content strategy.
+7. If a primary channel slug is supplied, compare against the user's existing raw channel evidence and state what the competitor proves that the primary channel does not yet prove.
+
+## Output
+
+Create the `research/youtube/` and `research/youtube/data/<video-id>/` directories if they do not exist.
+
+Write:
+
+```text
+research/youtube/competitive-research-<video-id-or-slug>-YYYY-MM-DD.md
+```
+
+Use this structure:
+
+```markdown
+# YouTube Competitive Research - [Title or Video Set]
+
+> Videos: [URLs]
+> Primary channel: [slug or not provided]
+> Date captured: YYYY-MM-DD
+> Evidence: [raw paths used]
+> Angle: packaging / topic / retention / positioning / all
+
+## Evidence Coverage
+
+| Video | Metadata | Transcript | Comments | Primary-channel comparison |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [Title](URL) | Available / Missing | Available / Missing | Available / Missing / Not requested | Available / Not provided |
+
+## Performance Snapshot
+
+| Video | Published | Duration | Views | Likes | Comments | Views/day | Views/min |
+|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Why It Likely Worked
+
+1. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+2. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+3. [Hypothesis] - [evidence]
+
+## Audience Job And Positioning
+
+[Audience need, competitor promise, category wedge, and emotional or practical trigger.]
+
+## Packaging And Retention Lessons
+
+- **Title / thumbnail promise**: ...
+- **Topic timing / novelty**: ...
+- **Hook and structure**: ...
+- **Proof and payoff**: ...
+- **Comments / audience signal**: ...
+
+## Adaptation Opportunities
+
+| Opportunity | Adapt, avoid, or counter-position | Evidence | Suggested next move |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Risks Of Copying
+
+[What would be derivative, off-brand, unsupported by evidence, or risky to imitate.]
+
+## Open Questions And Evidence Gaps
+
+[Missing transcript, unavailable comments, absent owner analytics, uncertain distribution cause, or claims needing independent verification.]
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not invent metrics, transcript quotes, comments, thumbnail details, or distribution causes.
+- Separate observed public evidence from performance hypotheses.
+- Do not recommend copying a competitor directly; translate evidence into differentiated positioning and execution.
+- Do not treat public views as proof of profitability, subscriber conversion, retention, CTR, or revenue.
+- Do not bypass login walls, bot protections, access controls, or private YouTube Studio data.
+- Archive existing canonical artifacts before replacing them under `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>`.
+
+## Approved Artifact Handoff
+
+After an approved synthesized write, explicit write/update mode, or any direct artifact mutation:
+
+- List every created or updated synthesized artifact path in the final response.
+- State the verification performed, such as readback, schema/check command, or why no executable verification applies for a Markdown-only strategy artifact.
+- Check and report the relevant git status for intended artifacts when the project is a git repository. If intended artifacts are modified or untracked, make the next action shipping, committing, or an explicit dirty-artifact handoff before recommending downstream strategy work.
+- Do not imply the research workflow is complete while approved artifacts remain untracked or uncommitted unless the user explicitly asked not to ship.
+- If stopping for approval before writing, the approval request remains the next action; do not include downstream routing.
+
+## Intent-Aware Routing
+
+Before applying the default `## Next-Skill Routing` sequence, classify the user's immediate intent and route to the missing action that best serves that intent:
+
+- Strategy refresh: recommend the missing or stale positioning, programming, portfolio, metrics, or product-media artifact.
+- Recording prep: recommend the missing series spec, script, build proof, walkthrough guide, or validation artifact needed before recording.
+- Upload prep: recommend packaging, title/thumbnail, description, chapters, or final metadata work before broader strategy work.
+- Performance review: recommend metrics, cadence, portfolio, peer benchmark, or owner-analytics export work before new content planning.
+- Owner analytics or private/manual platform evidence: route to an explicit manual/guide handoff instead of inventing unavailable metrics.
+- Dirty intended artifacts: route to shipping/commit/handoff first, not another creator strategy skill.
+
+Use the default next-skill sequence only when no stronger user intent, missing artifact, manual blocker, or dirty-artifact handoff applies.
+
+## 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/youtube-competitive-research-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/youtube-ops/codex/youtube-concept-research/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: scoped` (Scoped intake). Ask only the focused questions needed to scope the research or analysis, then validate critical findings before building review artifacts.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-youtube-concept-research-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-youtube-concept-research-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-youtube-concept-research-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-youtube-concept-research-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.
 
 **Research-pack translation.** For business, devtool, game, creator, and media research packs, render the claim/evidence/inference/assumption/decision-impact structure, source coverage categories appropriate to the domain, lower-confidence findings, and downstream implications before asking for approval or routing to the next skill.
 

package/packs/youtube-ops/codex/youtube-concept-research/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.6 - 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.
+
+## v0.5 - 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.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Changed report-first research flow to require alignment-page research-scope approval before synthesized findings, candidate rankings, recommendations, working packets, or canonical research writes.

package/packs/youtube-ops/codex/youtube-concept-research/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: youtube-concept-research
 description: Research a proposed YouTube video concept against successful direct and adjacent content, then extract evidence-backed lessons, concept variants, packaging directions, and differentiated execution guidance
 type: research
-version: v0.4
+version: v0.6
 argument-hint: "\"<video concept>\" [--channel <slug>] [--comparables N] [--angle search|browse|packaging|retention|format|all]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 ## 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.
 
 # YouTube Concept Research
 
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ 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.
-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. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. 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. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. 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. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.