skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-growth/claude/growth-model/archive/v0.8/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
+---
+name: growth-model
+type: research
+version: v0.8
+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
+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 `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
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/metrics` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/gtm` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist:
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — retention stages, aha moment, habit loop
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing model, revenue mechanics
+  - `research/hook-model.md` — engagement patterns, trigger-action-reward-investment cycle
+
+## Process
+
+### 0a. 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 the growth model to the active product path by default. When modeling reveals that a deferred product path has significantly different growth characteristics, note the finding in a `## Product Path Implications` section.
+
+### 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. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) — success targets, KPIs, activation/engagement/retention/growth metrics
+- Read `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) — channels, acquisition strategy, pricing model, early traction tactics
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) if it exists — customer journey stages, aha moment, habit loop, churn triggers
+- Read `research/monetization.md` (or `research/{slug}/monetization.md`) if it exists — pricing tiers, upgrade triggers, revenue model
+- Read `research/hook-model.md` (or `research/{slug}/hook-model.md`) if it exists — engagement loops, trigger-action-reward-investment cycle
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context
+
+### 2. Research Growth Loops
+
+Use WebSearch with **4-6 targeted queries**:
+
+1. **Reforge methodology** — "Reforge growth loops [category]"
+2. **Domain-specific models** — "growth model [domain] examples"
+3. **Competitor growth strategies** — "[competitor] growth strategy"
+4. **Viral mechanisms** — "viral loop [product type]"
+5. **Content loops** — "content loop B2B SaaS"
+6. **Compounding mechanisms** — "compounding growth mechanisms [category]"
+
+### 3. Identify Loop Candidates
+
+Categorize potential loops from research and product context:
+
+**Acquisition loops** — how new users are acquired:
+- **Viral** — user invites user (referral, sharing, word-of-mouth)
+- **Content** — content attracts user (SEO, UGC, community content)
+- **Paid** — revenue funds acquisition (paid ads, sponsorships)
+- **Sales** — revenue funds sales team (outbound, enterprise sales)
+
+**Retention loops** — how users stay and deepen engagement:
+- **Engagement** — usage deepens value (more data, personalization, history)
+- **Network** — more users = more value (marketplace, social, collaboration)
+- **Switching cost** — investment creates lock-in (integrations, customization, data)
+
+**Monetization loops** — how revenue compounds:
+- **Expansion** — usage drives upgrades (seat growth, tier upgrades, usage-based expansion)
+- **Cross-sell** — one product leads to another (platform play, add-ons)
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present and validate:
+- "Here are the growth loop candidates I see for this product. Which feel realistic given your current stage, resources, and product type? Any I should add or remove?"
+
+### 4. Design Primary Loop
+
+For the highest-potential loop, design it in detail:
+
+- **Each step in the loop** — what happens at each stage, who does what
+- **Conversion hypothesis between steps** — what must be true for users to move from one step to the next (each is a hypothesis until validated)
+- **Compounding mechanism** — what makes the output feed back as input, creating exponential rather than linear growth
+- **Key metric at each step** — the measurable signal that this step is working
+- **Time-to-complete-cycle estimate** — how long one full loop iteration takes
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Is this primary loop realistic? What's the weakest step?"
+
+### 5. Design Supporting Loops (1-2)
+
+Design secondary loops that reinforce the primary:
+- Show how they interact — which loop's output feeds another's input
+- Identify where loops share steps or handoff points
+- Keep these lighter than the primary — they support, not compete
+
+### 6. Map Dependencies & Metrics
+
+- Align each loop step with metrics from `research/metrics.md`
+- Identify gaps where metrics don't cover loop steps
+- Show loop-to-loop dependencies — where one loop's output feeds another's input
+- Flag metrics that need to be added to track loop health
+
+Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Does this growth model align with your metrics framework? Any metric gaps or misalignments?"
+
+### 7. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3-5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- RECOMMEND: `/experiment [top growth hypothesis]` — Test the highest-impact growth mechanism before committing to build
+- IF `specs/` exist and `tasks/roadmap.md` exists: `/roadmap` — Update roadmap with growth loop implementation work
+- IF product is live or launching: `/experiment [growth hypothesis]` — Test the primary loop's weakest conversion hypothesis
+- IF no `research/hook-model.md`: `/hook-model` — Design engagement hooks that power the retention loop
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: `/monetization` — Define monetization mechanics that feed the expansion loop
+
+**Impact-aware adjustments:**
+- IF downstream impact is **Major**: prepend `/reconcile-research — [N] conflicts found in downstream docs` as the first item
+- IF downstream impact is **Minor**: annotate relevant skill suggestions with "(stale — [brief description])"
+
+### 8. Write Output
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+### 9. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected. Only check documents that exist on disk.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/metrics.md`
+- `research/gtm.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on sections that reference growth strategy, acquisition channels, retention mechanisms, or expansion metrics
+2. Identify **specific conflicts**: claims, assumptions, or references that contradict what was just decided. Examples:
+   - A growth metric that doesn't align with the loop steps defined here
+   - Channel strategy assumptions that don't match the acquisition loops designed
+   - Retention targets that don't account for the retention loop mechanics
+3. Note each conflict: downstream file, section, the stale claim (quote it), and what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream documents exist, or no conflicts found. Skip display entirely.
+- **Minor** (1-2 small conflicts): Display conflicts to user inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR a foundational assumption changed — e.g., primary acquisition loop contradicts GTM channel strategy, retention model fundamentally differs from metrics targets): Display conflicts and strongly recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/growth-model.md` (or `research/{slug}/growth-model.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Growth Model
+
+> Based on: research/metrics.md, research/gtm.md[, research/journey-map.md, research/monetization.md, research/hook-model.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Reforge Growth Loops
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the growth thesis — what loops drive this product's growth, why they compound, and what stage they're appropriate for]
+
+## Loop Inventory
+
+| Loop | Type | Potential | Stage-Readiness |
+|------|------|-----------|-----------------|
+| [loop name] | Acquisition / Retention / Monetization | High / Medium / Low | [why it fits or doesn't fit current stage] |
+
+## Primary Growth Loop: [Loop Name]
+
+**Type**: [Acquisition / Retention / Monetization]
+**Compounding mechanism**: [what makes the output feed back as input]
+**Cycle time estimate**: [how long one full loop iteration takes]
+
+### Loop Steps
+
+1. **[Step name]**
+   - What happens: [description]
+   - Key metric: [measurable signal]
+   - Conversion hypothesis: [what must be true to reach step 2]
+
+2. **[Step name]**
+   - What happens: [description]
+   - Key metric: [measurable signal]
+   - Conversion hypothesis: [what must be true to reach step 3]
+
+3. **[Step name]**
+   - What happens: [description]
+   - Key metric: [measurable signal]
+   - Conversion hypothesis: [what must be true to feed back into step 1]
+
+### Why This Loop Compounds
+[Explain the specific mechanism — why does more output create more input? What's the flywheel effect?]
+
+### Weakest Step
+[Which conversion hypothesis is most uncertain, and what would validate it]
+
+## Supporting Loop 1: [Loop Name]
+
+**Type**: [Acquisition / Retention / Monetization]
+**Compounding mechanism**: [what makes the output feed back as input]
+**Cycle time estimate**: [how long one full loop iteration takes]
+
+### Loop Steps
+[Same structure as primary, lighter detail]
+
+### Interaction with Primary Loop
+[How this loop's output feeds the primary loop's input, or vice versa]
+
+## Supporting Loop 2: [Loop Name]
+
+**Type**: [Acquisition / Retention / Monetization]
+**Compounding mechanism**: [what makes the output feed back as input]
+**Cycle time estimate**: [how long one full loop iteration takes]
+
+### Loop Steps
+[Same structure as primary, lighter detail]
+
+### Interaction with Primary Loop
+[How this loop's output feeds the primary loop's input, or vice versa]
+
+## Loop Interaction Map
+
+[How loops feed each other — which loop's output becomes another's input]
+
+- **[Loop A]** step [N] output --> feeds **[Loop B]** step [M] input
+- **[Loop B]** step [N] output --> feeds **[Loop A]** step [M] input
+
+## Metrics Alignment
+
+| Loop Step | Metric | Current Target | Gap? |
+|-----------|--------|---------------|------|
+| [Primary loop - step 1] | [metric from metrics.md] | [target] | [Yes — no metric covers this / No] |
+| [Primary loop - step 2] | [metric from metrics.md] | [target] | [Yes / No] |
+| [Supporting loop - step 1] | [metric from metrics.md] | [target] | [Yes / No] |
+
+### Metric Gaps
+[List loop steps that have no corresponding metric in research/metrics.md — these need to be added]
+
+## Growth Hypotheses to Test
+
+| Hypothesis | Loop | Priority | Validation Method |
+|-----------|------|----------|-------------------|
+| [conversion hypothesis between loop steps] | [which loop] | High / Medium / Low | [how to test — experiment, survey, instrumentation] |
+
+## Strategic Implications
+
+### What This Model Means for Product
+[Feature priorities that support loop mechanics — what to build to strengthen the weakest steps]
+
+### What This Model Means for GTM
+[How growth loops should shape channel investment, messaging, and launch sequencing]
+
+### What This Model Means for Metrics
+[Which metrics need to be added or reframed to track loop health]
+
+### Stage-Appropriate Sequencing
+[Which loops to activate now vs. later — match loop complexity to current stage]
+
+<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
+## Downstream Impact
+
+> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
+> Impact: Minor | Major
+
+### Conflicts Found
+
+1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
+   - **Stale**: "[exact quote from downstream doc]"
+   - **Now**: [what this skill's output says instead]
+
+[For Major only:]
+> **Recommended action**: Run `/reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 7 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+### `research/growth-model-search-log.md` (or `research/{slug}/growth-model-search-log.md`)
+Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each growth loop decision.
+
+Create the `research/` 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 stays 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
+
+- **Requires metrics + GTM.** Growth loops without success targets and channel strategy are theoretical.
+- **Stage-appropriate.** Don't design viral loops for pre-launch products with no users. Match loop complexity to current stage.
+- **Compounding is key.** If the loop's output doesn't feed back as input, it's not a loop — it's a funnel step.
+- **Hypothesis-driven.** Every conversion between loop steps is a hypothesis until validated.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the growth model has been presented and validated.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/growth-model.md`** (or `research/{slug}/growth-model.md`) without asking the user first.
+
+## 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/growth-model-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-growth/claude/gtm/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.12 - 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.
+
+## v0.11 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.10 - 2026-06-10
 
 - 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/gtm/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: gtm
 description: Go-to-market planning — channel strategy, messaging, pricing, launch plan, and early traction tactics
 type: research
-version: v0.10
+version: v0.12
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"pricing\", \"launch plan\"]"
-interview_depth: full
+context_intake: deep
 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.
 
 # GTM — Go-to-Market Planning
 
@@ -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.
@@ -140,12 +140,12 @@ Continue until the user confirms. Only then proceed to writing.
 Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3–5 applicable items with a "Recommended + Other options" framing — the first matching condition becomes the **Recommended** item, remaining items become **Other options**:
 
 - IF no `research/growth-model.md`: `/growth-model` — Design compounding growth loops to make the GTM strategy sustainable
-- IF `specs/` exist and no `tasks/roadmap.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-work-admin` — if `agent-work-admin` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install agent-work-admin` first; if `agent-work-admin` is enabled, recommend `/roadmap` — Plan the build with launch milestones from above
+- IF `specs/` exist and no `tasks/roadmap.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-work-admin` — if `agent-work-admin` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install agent-work-admin` first; if `agent-work-admin` is enabled, recommend `/roadmap` — Plan the build with launch milestones from above
 - IF no `research/metrics.md`: `/metrics` — Define success metrics for the launch goals
 - IF open questions need research: `/experiment [top question]` — Validate the most critical open question
 - IF `tasks/roadmap.md` exists: `/exec` — Start executing — the GTM plan is set
-- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map` — Map the customer journey to validate funnel assumptions
-- IF no `research/positioning.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-discovery` — if `business-discovery` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-discovery` first; if `business-discovery` is enabled, recommend `/positioning` — Define strategic positioning — messaging should flow from positioning
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map` — Map the customer journey to validate funnel assumptions
+- IF no `research/positioning.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-discovery` — if `business-discovery` is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install business-discovery` first; if `business-discovery` is enabled, recommend `/positioning` — Define strategic positioning — messaging should flow from positioning
 
 **Impact-aware adjustments:**
 - IF downstream impact is **Major**: prepend `/reconcile-research — [N] conflicts found in downstream docs` as the first item