skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

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

@@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
+---
+name: landing-copy
+description: Generate or audit landing page copy grounded in upstream research — hero, benefits, social proof, pricing, FAQ, and CTAs
+type: research
+version: v0.8
+argument-hint: "[generate|audit] [optional: focus section e.g. \"hero\", \"pricing\", \"FAQ\"]"
+interview_depth: full
+visual_tier: prototype
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# Landing Copy — Research-Grounded Landing Page Copy
+
+## 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**: None. Works with just a README or codebase — greenfield projects can use it immediately.
+- **Soft** (enhancement tiers — display the applicable tier to the user before starting):
+
+  | Tier | Research Docs Present | Copy Quality |
+  |------|-----------------------|--------------|
+  | 1 | None — only README / codebase | Functional but generic; many claims will be ungrounded |
+  | 2 | `positioning.md` + `icp.md` | Targeted messaging with real pain points and value props |
+  | 3 | Tier 2 + `gtm.md` + `competitive-analysis.md` + `journey-map.md` | Full funnel copy with differentiation and onboarding flow |
+  | 4 | Tier 3 + `customer-feedback.md` + `monetization.md` + `metrics.md` | Production-grade copy with social proof, pricing, and data-backed claims |
+
+  Read each if it exists (respect `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+  - `research/positioning.md` — market category, positioning statement, unique attributes, value mapping
+  - `research/gtm.md` — messaging framework, one-liner, channel strategy, launch plan
+  - `research/icp.md` — ICP segments, pain points, value props, trigger events, customer language
+  - `research/journey-map.md` — onboarding flow, aha moment, task flows
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` — real customer quotes, recurring themes, objections
+  - `research/monetization.md` — pricing tiers, packaging, free vs paid boundaries
+  - `research/metrics.md` — north star metric, activation/engagement/retention metrics
+  - `research/competitive-analysis.md` — competitor positioning, strengths, weaknesses, market gaps
+
+## 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 landing copy to the active product path by default.
+
+### 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. Determine Mode
+
+Parse `$ARGUMENTS`:
+
+- **`generate`** (default): Create complete landing page copy from research + codebase context
+- **`audit`**: Check existing copy against codebase reality, research drift, and conversion best practices
+
+If mode is `audit`, jump to the **Audit Mode** section below.
+
+---
+
+## Generate Mode
+
+### 2. Load Context
+
+Read all available research docs listed in Prerequisites (soft). For each:
+- Note which docs exist and which are missing
+- Extract the key claims, data points, and customer language that will ground copy sections
+
+Also read:
+- `CLAUDE.md`, `README.md` — product name, description, core value proposition
+- Key source files (routes, components, package.json) — to verify feature claims against reality
+
+Determine the enhancement tier and display it to the user:
+> **Research coverage: Tier [N]** — [tier description from table above].
+> Missing docs that would improve copy: [list missing soft prerequisites with their `/skill` commands].
+
+### 3. Web Research
+
+Use WebSearch with **4–6 category-aware queries**:
+
+1. **Landing page best practices** — "SaaS landing page copy best practices [year]", "high-converting landing page structure"
+2. **Category-specific examples** — "[market category from positioning.md] landing page examples", "best [category] homepage copy"
+3. **Hero section patterns** — "above the fold copy patterns", "hero section conversion optimization"
+4. **Social proof patterns** — "social proof landing page examples", "trust signals [category]"
+5. **CTA optimization** — "call to action best practices SaaS", "pricing page CTA patterns"
+6. **Objection handling** — "FAQ section landing page", "reducing purchase anxiety [category]"
+
+### 4. Interview
+
+Use AskUserQuestion for each topic (batch where possible):
+
+**Brand Voice & Tone**
+- "What tone should the copy strike? (e.g., professional but approachable, bold and provocative, calm and reassuring)"
+- "Any words or phrases you always use? Any you'd never use?"
+- "Show me 1–2 examples of copy you admire (competitors, other products, anything)."
+
+**Claims Boundaries**
+- "What claims can we make confidently? (e.g., 'saves 10 hours/week' — do you have data for this?)"
+- "Any claims we must NOT make? (legal, regulatory, unverified metrics)"
+- "Do you have specific numbers we can cite? (users, uptime, speed benchmarks, customer count)"
+
+**Social Proof Availability**
+- "Do you have customer quotes or testimonials we can use? Company logos?"
+- "Any press mentions, awards, or notable integrations?"
+- "Case study data? (before/after metrics, customer stories)"
+
+**CTA Strategy**
+- "What's the primary CTA? (e.g., 'Start free trial', 'Book a demo', 'Get started')"
+- "Secondary CTA? (e.g., 'See pricing', 'Watch demo', 'Read docs')"
+- "Any urgency or scarcity elements? (limited beta, launch pricing)"
+
+**Structural Constraints**
+- "Any sections you definitely want or definitely don't want?"
+- "Target audience for this page — is it the primary ICP or a broader audience?"
+- "Any existing brand guidelines, style guides, or design constraints?"
+
+### 5. Generate Sections (Parallel Subagents)
+
+Launch **10 parallel subagents**, one per section. Each subagent receives the full research context and interview answers, and produces copy for its section with inline source attribution.
+
+**Section assignments:**
+
+1. **Hero** — Headline, subheadline, primary CTA, supporting visual description.
+   Sources: `positioning.md` (positioning statement, market category), `gtm.md` (one-liner, messaging framework).
+
+2. **Problem Agitation** — Articulate the pain the audience feels today.
+   Sources: `icp.md` (pain points, trigger events), `customer-feedback.md` (customer language, recurring complaints).
+
+3. **Solution Introduction** — Introduce the product as the answer to the pain.
+   Sources: `positioning.md` (market category, unique attributes), `icp.md` (value props).
+
+4. **Benefits** — 3–5 benefit blocks (not features — outcomes).
+   Sources: `positioning.md` (value mapping), `icp.md` (value props per segment).
+
+5. **How It Works** — 3–4 step walkthrough from signup to value.
+   Sources: `journey-map.md` (onboarding flow, aha moment, task flows).
+
+6. **Social Proof** — Testimonials, logos, metrics, trust signals.
+   Sources: `customer-feedback.md` (quotes, themes), `metrics.md` (north star, key numbers), interview answers.
+
+7. **Use Cases / Audience** — Who this is for, with scenario-specific hooks.
+   Sources: `icp.md` (user profiles, segments), `journey-map.md` (use-case task flows).
+
+8. **Pricing** — Tier summary, value anchoring, CTA per tier.
+   Sources: `monetization.md` (pricing tiers, packaging, free vs paid).
+
+9. **FAQ / Objection Handling** — Address top objections and common questions.
+   Sources: `competitive-analysis.md` (competitor strengths to counter), `customer-feedback.md` (objections, concerns).
+
+10. **Final CTA + Footer** — Closing argument, urgency, secondary links.
+    Sources: `gtm.md` (launch strategy, urgency elements), interview CTA answers.
+
+Each subagent must:
+- Write copy for its section only
+- Add `<!-- Source: research/[file].md — [specific section/claim] -->` comments after each grounded claim
+- Flag any claim that has NO research backing as `<!-- UNGROUNDED: [claim] — no research source available -->`
+- Respect brand voice and claims boundaries from the interview
+
+### 6. Assemble and Present
+
+Combine all 10 sections into a complete landing page copy document. Present to the user with:
+
+- The full copy, section by section
+- A **Research Grounding Summary** table:
+
+  | Section | Grounded Claims | Ungrounded Claims | Primary Sources |
+  |---------|----------------|-------------------|-----------------|
+  | Hero | N | N | positioning.md, gtm.md |
+  | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+- If any section has >50% ungrounded claims, flag it: "⚠ [Section] has limited research backing — consider running [/skill] first."
+
+Ask: "Ready to write this to `research/landing-copy.md`? Any sections to revise?"
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Only after user confirms, write:
+- `research/landing-copy.md` (or `research/{slug}/landing-copy.md`) — the full copy with source attribution
+- `research/landing-copy-interview.md` (or `research/{slug}/landing-copy-interview.md`) — interview Q&A log
+
+### 8. Downstream Impact Check
+
+Landing copy is a terminal artifact — it doesn't feed into other research skills. Perform a lightweight check:
+
+- If `research/gtm.md` exists and has a `## Messaging Framework` section, compare the hero headline and one-liner against it. Flag if they've diverged.
+- If `research/positioning.md` exists, confirm the positioning statement is reflected in the hero and solution sections.
+
+**Classify impact**:
+- **None**: No conflicts. Skip display.
+- **Minor**: 1–2 messaging inconsistencies. Display inline.
+- **Major**: Hero/positioning fundamentally misaligned. Recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+### 9. Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF no `research/positioning.md`: `/positioning` — Positioning drives hero copy; running it would significantly strengthen the headline
+- IF no `research/customer-feedback.md`: `/customer-feedback` — Real customer quotes would replace placeholder social proof
+- IF no `research/monetization.md`: `/monetization` — Pricing section is thin without a monetization strategy
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: `/journey-map` — "How It Works" section would benefit from mapped onboarding flows
+- ALWAYS: "Implement the copy in your codebase — the source attribution comments show where each claim comes from"
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists: `/gtm` — Refresh messaging framework to align with the final landing copy
+
+---
+
+## Audit Mode
+
+### A1. Locate Existing Copy
+
+Search for landing page copy in order of priority:
+1. `research/landing-copy.md` (or `research/{slug}/landing-copy.md`)
+2. `src/pages/index.*`, `src/app/page.*`, `app/page.*`, `pages/index.*`
+3. `index.html`, `public/index.html`
+4. Any file matching `*landing*`, `*homepage*` in common source directories
+
+If no copy is found, tell the user and suggest running `/landing-copy generate` instead.
+
+### A2. Extract Verifiable Claims
+
+Parse the located copy and extract every verifiable claim:
+- Feature claims ("supports X", "integrates with Y")
+- Performance claims ("10x faster", "99.9% uptime")
+- Social proof claims ("trusted by N companies", "rated #1")
+- Positioning claims ("the only X that Y", "unlike Z")
+- Pricing claims (tier names, prices, feature lists)
+
+### A3. Run Audit Categories (4 Parallel Subagents)
+
+**Category 1: Staleness vs. Codebase**
+- Check feature claims against actual codebase (do the features exist? have any been removed?)
+- Check integration claims (are the integrations still present?)
+- Flag features in codebase NOT mentioned in copy (missed selling points)
+
+**Category 2: Drift from Research Docs**
+- Compare claims against `research/positioning.md` (has the positioning changed?)
+- Compare against `research/gtm.md` (has the messaging framework changed?)
+- Compare against `research/icp.md` (are we still targeting the same audience?)
+- Flag copy that contradicts current research
+
+**Category 3: Conversion Best Practices**
+- Check for missing sections (no hero? no social proof? no CTA?)
+- Evaluate CTA strength and placement
+- Check for above-the-fold value proposition clarity
+- Assess objection handling coverage
+
+**Category 4: Broken Promises**
+- Claims the product can't currently deliver
+- Metrics that are outdated or unverifiable
+- Social proof that may be stale (old customer counts, outdated quotes)
+
+### A4. Classify and Present Findings
+
+Classify each finding:
+- **Error**: Copy contradicts codebase or makes undeliverable claims
+- **Warning**: Copy drifts from research or misses best practices
+- **Info**: Suggestions for improvement, missed opportunities
+
+Present interactively, errors first:
+
+```
+## Audit Results
+
+### Errors (N)
+1. **[Section]**: "[exact claim]" — [why it's wrong] (Source: [file:evidence])
+...
+
+### Warnings (N)
+...
+
+### Info (N)
+...
+```
+
+Ask: "Want me to generate updated copy for any of these sections?"
+
+### A5. Read-Only
+
+Audit mode does **not** write any files. It is purely diagnostic. If the user wants fixes, suggest running `/landing-copy generate` with the audit findings as context.
+
+---
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/landing-copy.md` (or `research/{slug}/landing-copy.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Landing Page Copy
+
+> Based on: [list all research docs used]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Enhancement Tier: [1-4]
+
+## Hero
+<!-- Source: research/positioning.md — Positioning Statement -->
+<!-- Source: research/gtm.md — One-Liner -->
+
+**Headline**: [headline]
+**Subheadline**: [subheadline]
+**Primary CTA**: [CTA text] → [CTA destination]
+**Supporting visual**: [description of what the hero image/video should convey]
+
+## Problem Agitation
+<!-- Source: research/icp.md — Pain Points -->
+<!-- Source: research/customer-feedback.md — Customer Language -->
+
+[2-3 paragraphs articulating the pain]
+
+## Solution Introduction
+<!-- Source: research/positioning.md — Market Category, Unique Attributes -->
+
+[1-2 paragraphs introducing the product as the answer]
+
+## Benefits
+
+### [Benefit 1 — Outcome-Focused Title]
+<!-- Source: research/positioning.md — Value Mapping -->
+[Benefit description]
+
+### [Benefit 2]
+<!-- Source: research/icp.md — Value Props -->
+[Benefit description]
+
+### [Benefit 3]
+[Benefit description]
+
+## How It Works
+
+### Step 1: [Action]
+<!-- Source: research/journey-map.md — Onboarding Flow -->
+[Description]
+
+### Step 2: [Action]
+[Description]
+
+### Step 3: [Action — The Aha Moment]
+<!-- Source: research/journey-map.md — Aha Moment -->
+[Description]
+
+## Social Proof
+<!-- Source: research/customer-feedback.md — Quotes -->
+<!-- Source: research/metrics.md — Key Numbers -->
+
+[Testimonials, logos, metrics]
+
+## Use Cases
+
+### For [Audience Segment 1]
+<!-- Source: research/icp.md — User Profiles -->
+[Scenario-specific hook and value]
+
+### For [Audience Segment 2]
+[Scenario-specific hook and value]
+
+## Pricing
+<!-- Source: research/monetization.md — Pricing Tiers -->
+
+| [Tier 1] | [Tier 2] | [Tier 3] |
+|-----------|-----------|-----------|
+| [Price] | [Price] | [Price] |
+| [Features] | [Features] | [Features] |
+| [CTA] | [CTA] | [CTA] |
+
+## FAQ
+<!-- Source: research/competitive-analysis.md — Competitor Strengths -->
+<!-- Source: research/customer-feedback.md — Objections -->
+
+**Q: [Common objection as question]**
+A: [Answer that addresses the objection]
+
+**Q: [Question]**
+A: [Answer]
+
+## Final CTA
+<!-- Source: research/gtm.md — Launch Strategy -->
+
+[Closing argument]
+**[Primary CTA]** | [Secondary CTA]
+
+---
+
+## Research Grounding Summary
+
+| Section | Grounded | Ungrounded | Primary Sources |
+|---------|----------|------------|-----------------|
+| Hero | N | N | [sources] |
+| Problem Agitation | N | N | [sources] |
+| Solution | N | N | [sources] |
+| Benefits | N | N | [sources] |
+| How It Works | N | N | [sources] |
+| Social Proof | N | N | [sources] |
+| Use Cases | N | N | [sources] |
+| Pricing | N | N | [sources] |
+| FAQ | N | N | [sources] |
+| Final CTA | N | N | [sources] |
+
+### Ungrounded Claims
+[List each ungrounded claim and what research would be needed to ground it]
+
+### Missing Research
+[List research docs that would most improve copy quality, with /skill commands]
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 9]
+```
+
+### `research/landing-copy-interview.md` (or `research/{slug}/landing-copy-interview.md`)
+Interview Q&A log — brand voice decisions, claims boundaries, social proof inventory, CTA strategy, structural constraints.
+
+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
+
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the full copy has been presented and the user confirms.
+- **Source-attribute every claim.** Every factual claim in the copy must have an inline HTML comment citing its research source. If no source exists, mark it `UNGROUNDED`.
+- **Respect claims boundaries.** Never include claims the user explicitly ruled out in the interview. Never fabricate metrics or social proof.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/landing-copy.md`** without asking the user first.
+- **Copy ≠ design.** Produce the words, not the layout. Visual suggestions are limited to "supporting visual" descriptions, not mockups.
+- **Audit mode is read-only.** Never write files in audit mode.
+- **Brand voice is law.** Once the user defines tone and vocabulary in the interview, every section must respect it — no section should feel like it was written by a different voice.
+- **Check `tasks/manual-todo.md`** — if it exists, read it. If it lists items related to landing page copy, messaging, or marketing, incorporate those requirements into your work and call them out to the user.
+
+## 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/landing-copy-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

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

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.5 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.4 - 2026-06-10
 
 - 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/metrics/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: metrics
 description: Define success metrics framework — activation, engagement, retention, growth, and business metrics tied to journey stages
 type: analysis
-version: v0.4
+version: v0.5
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"activation\", \"retention\"]"
-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.
 
 # Metrics — Success Metrics Framework