skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-growth/claude/gtm/archive/v0.11/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,335 @@
+---
+name: gtm
+description: Go-to-market planning — channel strategy, messaging, pricing, launch plan, and early traction tactics
+type: research
+version: v0.11
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"pricing\", \"launch plan\"]"
+interview_depth: full
+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.
+
+# GTM — Go-to-Market Planning
+
+## 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/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md` in product-path mode) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`), `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`), `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) if they exist — these improve specificity but aren't required.
+
+## 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 GTM strategy to the active product path by default. When GTM channels or messaging would serve a deferred product path better than the active one, add a `## Product Path Implications` section recommending `/product-line fork` or noting the impact.
+
+### 2. Load Context
+
+- Read `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events, current-state journey
+- Read `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) if it exists — competitor positioning, pricing, channels, market gaps
+- Read `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) if it exists — customer journey stages, discovery channels, conversion triggers
+- Read `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) if it exists — real customer language, validated/invalidated assumptions
+- Read `research/positioning.md` (or `research/{slug}/positioning.md`) if it exists — positioning framework that messaging should flow from
+- Read CLAUDE.md and README if they exist — product context
+
+### 3. Interview
+
+Use the AskUserQuestion tool. Ask 1–3 focused questions per turn.
+
+**Research and recommend by default.** For each decision point, use web search, upstream research docs (`research/*.md`), and codebase analysis to gather evidence before asking the user. Present your findings with data, state your recommendation with reasoning, and ask the user to approve, adjust, or override. Only ask the user to choose without a recommendation when the decision genuinely requires insider knowledge they haven't shared (internal constraints, personal preferences, strategic bets).
+
+Cover these areas (skip or abbreviate areas the user has already addressed in `$ARGUMENTS`):
+
+#### A. Channel Strategy
+- Where does the ICP hang out? (communities, platforms, events, publications)
+- Which channels do competitors use? Where are the gaps?
+- What's the primary acquisition channel? (content, community, outbound, product-led, partnerships)
+- What's the secondary/backup channel?
+- What's the budget and resource constraint? (bootstrapped, funded, team size)
+
+#### B. Messaging Framework
+- IF `research/positioning.md` exists: use positioning statement, market category, unique attributes, and value mapping as the foundation for messaging — do not contradict positioning decisions
+- What's the one-liner? (the sentence that makes the ICP lean in — should flow from positioning statement)
+- What's the primary value prop framing? (save time, save money, reduce risk, unlock capability — should align with positioning value mapping)
+- What pain point does the headline address? (from ICP pain map)
+- What proof points exist? (metrics, testimonials, case studies, demos)
+- How does positioning differ from competitors? (from positioning.md if it exists, otherwise from competitive analysis)
+
+#### C. Pricing Strategy
+- What's the pricing model? (freemium, free trial, paid-only, usage-based, seat-based)
+- What's the entry price point? What does the ICP currently pay for alternatives?
+- What triggers the upgrade? (usage limits, team features, advanced capabilities)
+- Are there pricing tiers? What differentiates them?
+- How does pricing compare to competitors?
+
+#### D. Launch Plan
+- What's the launch timeline? (soft launch, beta, public launch)
+- What's the launch channel? (Product Hunt, Hacker News, Twitter, email list, direct outreach)
+- What's the launch goal? (signups, revenue, feedback, press)
+- What launch assets are needed? (landing page, demo, video, blog post)
+- Who are the first 10 customers? (specific names or types)
+
+#### E. Early Traction Tactics
+- What's the 30-day post-launch plan?
+- What manual/unscalable things will you do? (concierge onboarding, personal outreach, hand-holding)
+- What's the feedback loop? (how will you learn from early users?)
+- What's the one metric that matters for the first 90 days?
+- When do you pivot from manual to scalable?
+
+### 4. Present Findings & Validate
+
+**Present the complete GTM plan to the user before writing.** Summarise with evidence:
+1. Channel strategy — primary and secondary channels, with ICP behavior data supporting each choice
+2. Messaging framework — one-liner, value prop framing, proof points, citing specific ICP pain points addressed
+3. Pricing strategy — model, entry point, tiers, with competitor pricing benchmarks as anchors
+4. Launch plan — timeline, channels, goals, assets needed, citing trigger events that inform timing
+5. Early traction tactics — 30/60/90 day plan, the one metric that matters, with journey data supporting the traction approach
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to ask:
+- "Does this capture your go-to-market strategy? Anything missing or off?"
+
+Continue until the user confirms. Only then proceed to writing.
+
+### 5. Populate Next Steps
+
+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 `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 `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
+- IF downstream impact is **Minor**: annotate relevant skill suggestions with "(stale — [brief description])"
+- If downstream impact has not been classified yet, run the downstream impact check against the proposed output before selecting the final recommendation. Do not emit a Minor/Major impact recommendation speculatively.
+
+### 6. Write Output
+
+Only after the user has validated the findings, write the output files.
+
+### 7. Downstream Impact Check
+
+After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected by what was just decided. Only check documents that exist on disk.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/monetization.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `> Based on:` header, `## Summary`, and sections that reference concepts this skill just defined or changed
+2. Identify **specific conflicts**: claims, assumptions, or references that contradict what was just decided. Examples:
+   - A pricing model reference that contradicts the pricing strategy just defined
+   - Channel strategy assumptions that have shifted
+   - Launch timeline or traction targets that no longer align
+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., pricing model changed, primary channel shifted, launch timeline moved significantly): Display conflicts and strongly recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+Display to the user after showing the written file confirmation. This should be quick — one read per downstream doc, scan for conflicts against key decisions. Not a deep reconciliation.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Go-to-Market Plan
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md)[, research/competitive-analysis.md, research/journey-map.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the core GTM thesis — who you're targeting, how you'll reach them, and what makes this approach viable]
+
+## Channel Strategy
+
+### Primary Channel: [channel name]
+**Why**: [rationale grounded in ICP behavior and competitive gaps]
+**How**: [specific tactics]
+**Cost**: [budget/resource requirement]
+**Timeline**: [when this ramps up]
+
+### Secondary Channel: [channel name]
+**Why**: [rationale]
+**How**: [specific tactics]
+
+### Channels Explicitly Deprioritized
+[Channels considered and rejected, with reasoning — prevents revisiting]
+
+## Messaging Framework
+
+### One-Liner
+[The sentence that makes the ICP lean in]
+
+### Value Prop Framing
+**Primary frame**: [save time / save money / reduce risk / unlock capability]
+**Pain point addressed**: [from ICP pain map]
+**Proof points**: [metrics, testimonials, demos]
+
+### Positioning vs. Competitors
+[How messaging differentiates from top 2-3 competitors]
+
+## Pricing Strategy
+
+### Model
+[Freemium / free trial / paid-only / usage-based / seat-based]
+
+### Entry Point
+**Price**: [amount]
+**Comparable**: [what the ICP currently pays for alternatives]
+**Includes**: [what's in the base tier]
+
+### Tiers (if applicable)
+| Tier | Price | Target Segment | Key Differentiator |
+|------|-------|----------------|-------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Upgrade Triggers
+[What causes users to move up tiers]
+
+## Launch Plan
+
+### Timeline
+[Soft launch → beta → public launch dates and goals]
+
+### Launch Channel(s)
+[Where and how — specific platforms and tactics]
+
+### Launch Assets Needed
+- [ ] [Asset 1]
+- [ ] [Asset 2]
+
+### First 10 Customers
+[Who they are, how to reach them, why they'd say yes]
+
+## Early Traction — 30/60/90 Days
+
+### First 30 Days
+[Manual, unscalable tactics — concierge onboarding, personal outreach]
+
+### Days 30-60
+[Start systematizing what works — templates, automation, repeatable processes]
+
+### Days 60-90
+[Scale what's working, drop what isn't — the metric that decides]
+
+### The One Metric That Matters
+[The single metric for the first 90 days, with target]
+
+## Open Questions
+[Decisions deferred, experiments to run, things that need real-world data]
+
+<!-- Only include this section when downstream impact is Minor or Major. Omit entirely for None. -->
+## 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
+
+**Recommended:** [first matching item from step 5]
+
+**Other options:**
+- [remaining conditional items from step 5 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+### `research/gtm-interview.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm-interview.md`)
+Raw interview log — questions, options presented, user responses, and a closing summary of key decisions.
+
+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 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
+
+- **Requires ICP.** Cannot build a GTM plan without knowing who you're selling to.
+- **Ground in research.** Every channel, message, and pricing decision should trace back to ICP insights, competitive gaps, or customer feedback.
+- **Be specific.** "Use social media" is not a channel strategy. "Post weekly technical deep-dives on Twitter targeting DevOps engineers who follow [competitor]" is.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented and validated.
+- **Don't prescribe product changes.** GTM is about reaching and converting the market with what exists. Product gaps belong in `/mvp-gap` or `/brainstorm`.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/gtm.md`** (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) without asking the user first.
+
+## Interview Protocol
+
+**Step 1 — Gather context.** Read `.agents/project.json`, README, CLAUDE.md, existing research and specs, git history, and any argument-provided context. Build an internal evidence base before asking questions.
+
+**Step 2 — Assumptions manifest.** Present 3–7 assumptions about the user's situation, goals, and constraints. Tag each with source (`[from prompt]`, `[from repo]`, `[from research]`, `[inferred]`). Ask the user to confirm, correct, or flag before proceeding.
+
+**Step 3 — Focused interview.** Ask 1–3 questions per turn via `AskUserQuestion`. Research and recommend by default — present options with a recommended default. Continue until all areas are covered or the user signals enough.
+
+**Step 4 — Coverage checkpoint.** Present a summary of everything established. Ask the user to confirm completeness before building the alignment page.
+
+## 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/gtm-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-growth/claude/hook-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-hook-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-hook-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-hook-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-hook-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/hook-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/hook-model/SKILL.md

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 ---
 name: hook-model
 type: research
-version: v0.7
+version: v0.9
 description: Nir Eyal engagement loop design — trigger, action, variable reward, investment
 argument-hint: "[optional: specific engagement loop or user behavior to focus on]"
-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.
 
 # Hook Model — Engagement 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.