skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-growth/claude/experiment/archive/v0.6/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,282 @@
+---
+name: experiment
+description: Design lean validation experiments — hypothesis, method, success criteria, sample size, timeline, and decision rules
+type: planning
+version: v0.6
+argument-hint: <hypothesis or assumption to test>
+interview_depth: light
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Experiment — Lean Validation Design
+
+Takes a hypothesis (from `/assumption-tracker` or user) and designs a cheap, fast validation experiment. Covers landing page tests, fake-door tests, concierge MVPs, surveys, A/B tests, pricing tests, and smoke tests. Outputs a structured plan with hypothesis, method, success criteria, sample size, timeline, and decision rules.
+
+## Soft Prerequisites
+
+- Read `research/assumption-tracker.md` if it exists — pulls the highest-priority unvalidated assumption
+- Read `research/icp.md` if it exists — grounds experiment design in who the target is
+- Read `research/metrics.md` if it exists — aligns success criteria with existing metric definitions
+- Read `research/gtm.md` if it exists — leverages channel strategy for reaching test subjects
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Product Path Manifest
+
+Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize `active_path` (singular legacy) to `active_paths` (plural list) when reading; treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived` and exclude archived/deferred/revisit/promoted paths plus `research/_archive/` scopes from active target selection. Scope experiment design to the active product path by default. When experiment results validate or invalidate assumptions about a deferred product path, add a `## Product Path Implications` section recommending `/product-line activate` or `/product-line archive` as appropriate.
+
+### 2. Parse Input & Load Context
+
+**Read `$ARGUMENTS`:**
+- If it's a specific hypothesis or assumption: use it directly
+- If it's a reference to an assumption number (e.g., "#3"): look it up in `research/assumption-tracker.md`
+- If empty: check `research/assumption-tracker.md` for the highest-priority unvalidated assumption. If no tracker exists, ask the user what they want to test.
+
+**Load context:** Read available research docs to understand the ICP, channels, metrics, and existing knowledge.
+
+### 3. Structure the Hypothesis
+
+Convert the input into a structured hypothesis:
+
+**Format**: "We believe that [target segment] will [expected behavior] because [rationale]. We'll know this is true when [measurable outcome]."
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present and refine:
+- "Here's how I've structured the hypothesis. Does this capture what you want to test?"
+- If the hypothesis is too broad, help narrow it to something testable in 1-2 weeks
+
+### 4. Research Experiment Methods
+
+Use WebSearch with **3-5 targeted queries** to find best practices for this type of validation:
+
+1. **Method-specific** — "[experiment type] validation method", "how to test [hypothesis type]"
+2. **Sample size** — "[experiment type] sample size calculator", "minimum viable test size"
+3. **Benchmarks** — "[category] conversion rate benchmark", "[experiment type] typical results"
+4. **Tools** — "[experiment type] tools", "cheapest way to test [hypothesis]"
+
+### 5. Design the Experiment — Present & Validate
+
+Select the most appropriate experiment type and design the full plan:
+
+#### Experiment Types
+
+| Type | Best For | Timeline | Cost |
+|------|----------|----------|------|
+| **Landing page test** | Demand validation, messaging | 1-2 weeks | $50-200 (ads) |
+| **Fake-door test** | Feature demand, willingness to explore | 1 week | $0 (in-product) |
+| **Concierge MVP** | Value delivery, willingness to pay | 2-4 weeks | Time only |
+| **Survey** | Broad sentiment, preference ranking | 3-5 days | $0-100 |
+| **A/B test** | Optimization, messaging variants | 1-2 weeks | $0 (in-product) |
+| **Pricing test** | Willingness to pay, price sensitivity | 1-2 weeks | $50-200 |
+| **Smoke test** | Demand for non-existent feature | 3-5 days | $0-50 |
+| **Pre-sale / LOI** | B2B willingness to pay | 1-2 weeks | Time only |
+| **Wizard of Oz** | Complex feature viability | 2-4 weeks | Time only |
+
+**Present the experiment design to the user.** Use AskUserQuestion to show:
+- Recommended experiment type with rationale (why this method over alternatives)
+- Detailed plan with timeline and cost estimate
+- Success criteria with specific numbers (citing benchmarks from research)
+- Decision rules for both outcomes
+
+Ask:
+- "Does this experiment design feel feasible? Too ambitious or too simple?"
+- "Any resource constraints I should know about? (budget, time, access to users)"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 6. Define Decision Rules
+
+For each possible outcome, define what happens next:
+
+- **If hypothesis is validated** (success criteria met): What's the next step? (e.g., build the feature, commit to the pricing, double down on the channel)
+- **If hypothesis is invalidated** (criteria not met): What's the pivot? (e.g., test alternative, revisit ICP, change approach)
+- **If results are inconclusive** (between thresholds): What additional data is needed? Run a follow-up experiment or extend the current one?
+
+### 7. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include a **Recommended** item for the current design-stage next step, followed by **Other options**. Separate current next steps from outcome-specific next steps:
+
+Use this format in the output:
+
+```markdown
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** Run the experiment — the plan is only useful after the evidence is collected
+
+Other options:
+- [2-4 applicable alternatives]
+```
+
+- ALWAYS: Run the experiment (manual step — the plan tells you how)
+- For a newly designed experiment, do not list validation/invalidation commands as current top-level next steps; put those under `## Decision Rules` because they are only valid after results exist.
+- In `### If Validated`: include the next valid command, usually `/customer-feedback [results]` to log evidence, `/assumption-tracker` to mark the assumption validated, or `/roadmap` if the result commits the team to build.
+- In `### If Invalidated`: include `/assumption-tracker` to mark the assumption invalidated, plus `/brainstorm`, `/customer-discovery`, `/gtm`, or `/monetization` only when the failed assumption belongs to that domain.
+- In `### If Inconclusive`: include `/experiment [follow-up]` if the test needs another run, or `/customer-feedback` if qualitative evidence is the missing signal.
+- IF more assumptions remain untested after this design: `/experiment [next assumption]` — Design the next experiment
+- IF enough assumptions are validated after completed results: `/research-roadmap` — Check if research docs need updating based on learnings
+
+### 8. Write Output
+
+Present final plan to user. Ask:
+- "Ready to write this experiment plan? Anything to adjust?"
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/experiments/[experiment-name].md` (or `research/{slug}/experiments/[experiment-name].md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Experiment: [Descriptive Name]
+
+> Date designed: [current date]
+> Status: Designed | Running | Completed
+> Assumption: [from assumption-tracker, if applicable — include # reference]
+> Priority: [from assumption-tracker score, if applicable]
+
+## Hypothesis
+
+**We believe that** [target segment]
+**will** [expected behavior]
+**because** [rationale from research]
+
+**We'll know this is true when** [measurable outcome with specific threshold]
+
+## Method
+
+**Type**: [Landing page test / Fake-door / Concierge MVP / Survey / A/B test / Pricing test / Smoke test / Pre-sale / Wizard of Oz]
+**Why this method**: [rationale — why this is the cheapest/fastest way to test this hypothesis]
+
+### Setup
+[Step-by-step instructions for setting up the experiment]
+
+1. [Step 1]
+2. [Step 2]
+3. ...
+
+### Tools Needed
+- [Tool 1] — [purpose]
+- [Tool 2] — [purpose]
+
+### Audience
+**Who**: [specific segment from ICP]
+**How to reach them**: [channel — from GTM if available]
+**Sample size**: [number needed for statistical significance]
+**Recruitment method**: [how to get participants]
+
+## Success Criteria
+
+| Metric | Failure | Inconclusive | Success |
+|--------|---------|--------------|---------|
+| [Primary metric] | < [threshold] | [range] | ≥ [threshold] |
+| [Secondary metric] | < [threshold] | [range] | ≥ [threshold] |
+
+**Benchmarks**: [what industry/competitor data says is typical]
+
+## Timeline
+
+| Phase | Duration | Tasks |
+|-------|----------|-------|
+| Setup | [days] | [what to prepare] |
+| Run | [days] | [data collection period] |
+| Analyze | [days] | [how to analyze results] |
+| **Total** | **[days]** | |
+
+## Budget
+
+| Item | Cost |
+|------|------|
+| [item] | [amount] |
+| **Total** | **[amount]** |
+
+## Decision Rules
+
+### If Validated (success criteria met)
+[Specific next actions — what to build, commit to, or double down on]
+
+### If Invalidated (failure criteria met)
+[Specific pivot — what to change, test next, or abandon]
+
+### If Inconclusive
+[What additional data is needed, whether to extend or redesign]
+
+## Results
+
+> Fill this section after the experiment completes.
+
+**Status**: [Validated / Invalidated / Inconclusive]
+**Date completed**: [date]
+
+### Raw Data
+[Key numbers and observations]
+
+### Analysis
+[What the data shows — connect back to hypothesis]
+
+### Decision
+[What was decided based on the results]
+
+### Learnings
+[What was learned beyond the hypothesis — surprises, side findings]
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [recommended next step] — [one-line reason grounded in this artifact]
+
+Other options:
+- [conditional items from step 6 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+Create the `research/experiments/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **One hypothesis per experiment.** If the user has multiple things to test, design separate experiments. Don't bundle.
+- **Cheap and fast.** Every experiment should be completable in 1-4 weeks with minimal budget. If the design is expensive or slow, simplify.
+- **Specific success criteria.** "Users like it" is not a success criterion. "≥40% of landing page visitors click 'Get Early Access'" is.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the experiment design has been presented and validated.
+- **Include decision rules.** Every experiment must specify what happens for each possible outcome. No experiment should end with "we'll figure it out."
+- **Reference benchmarks.** Success thresholds should be grounded in industry benchmarks or competitor data, not arbitrary numbers.
+- **Don't overdesign.** A simple survey can validate an assumption just as well as an elaborate A/B test. Recommend the simplest method that produces a clear signal.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/experiment-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-growth/claude/growth-model/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-growth-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-growth-model-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-growth-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-growth-model-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.
 
 **Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 

package/packs/business-growth/claude/growth-model/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.9 - 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.
+
+## v0.8 - 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.
+
 ## v0.7 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving the runner-specific `/pack install <pack>` route.

package/packs/business-growth/claude/growth-model/SKILL.md

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 ---
 name: growth-model
 type: research
-version: v0.7
+version: v0.9
 description: Reforge-style growth loop design — acquisition, retention, and monetization loops
 argument-hint: "[optional: specific loop type e.g. \"viral\", \"content\", \"paid\"]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Growth Model — Reforge-Style Growth Loop Design
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ 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.