skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-ops/claude/cohort-review/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,263 @@
+---
+name: cohort-review
+description: Post-launch metrics & funnel analysis — cohort retention, channel performance, and progress against targets from /metrics
+type: analysis
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[file path to data, pasted data, or empty to be prompted]"
+interview_depth: none
+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.
+
+# Cohort Review — Post-Launch Metrics & Funnel Analysis
+
+Takes real usage/revenue data and analyzes against targets from `/metrics`. Performs cohort analysis, funnel analysis, and channel performance review. Identifies where the funnel leaks, which cohorts retain, and whether activation targets are being hit. Append-style output for tracking performance over time.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/metrics` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist for richer analysis:
+  - `research/icp.md` — segment analysis against ICP profiles
+  - `research/gtm.md` — channel strategy to compare against actual channel performance
+  - `research/monetization.md` — revenue targets and unit economics to validate
+  - `research/assumption-tracker.md` — assumptions to validate or invalidate with real data
+
+## 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. Load Context & Data
+
+**Load research context:**
+- Read `research/metrics.md` — extract all metric definitions, targets, and North Star metric
+- Read other research docs as listed in prerequisites
+
+**Ingest performance data:**
+Check `$ARGUMENTS`:
+- **File path provided**: Read the file (CSV, JSON, markdown table, or any structured format)
+- **Text provided**: Parse the data directly
+- **Empty**: Use AskUserQuestion to ask the user to provide data — accept any format: analytics exports, dashboard screenshots described in text, spreadsheet pastes, database query results
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to clarify:
+- What date range does this data cover?
+- What's the data source? (analytics tool, database, manual tracking)
+- Any known data quality issues?
+
+### 2. Funnel Analysis
+
+Map the data against the funnel stages defined in `research/metrics.md`:
+
+1. **Top of funnel** — visitors, signups, leads (from Growth metrics)
+2. **Activation** — users who reach aha moment (from Activation metrics)
+3. **Engagement** — active usage patterns (from Engagement metrics)
+4. **Retention** — users still active at D7/D30/D90 (from Retention metrics)
+5. **Revenue** — paying users, ARPU, expansion (from Business metrics)
+
+For each stage:
+- **Actual vs. Target**: Compare real numbers against targets from metrics.md
+- **Conversion rate**: What % moves to the next stage?
+- **Drop-off analysis**: Where exactly do users fall off? What's the biggest leak?
+- **Trend**: Is it improving, declining, or flat compared to previous cohort reviews?
+
+### 3. Cohort Analysis
+
+If the data supports cohort segmentation:
+
+- **Time-based cohorts**: Group users by signup week/month. Compare retention curves across cohorts — are newer cohorts retaining better or worse?
+- **Source-based cohorts**: If channel data is available, compare retention by acquisition channel
+- **Segment-based cohorts**: If ICP segment data is available, compare performance across ICP segments
+- **Behavioral cohorts**: Group by activation behavior — users who did X vs. didn't
+
+Identify:
+- Which cohorts are strongest/weakest?
+- Is there a trend in cohort quality over time?
+- Are certain channels or segments significantly better?
+
+### 4. Channel Performance Review
+
+If channel/attribution data is available:
+
+| Channel | Volume | CAC | Activation Rate | D30 Retention | LTV (est.) | ROI |
+|---------|--------|-----|-----------------|---------------|------------|-----|
+| [channel] | [count] | [$] | [%] | [%] | [$] | [ratio] |
+
+Compare against:
+- GTM channel strategy recommendations (from `research/gtm.md`)
+- Budget allocation — is spend aligned with performance?
+- Channel-specific benchmarks from research
+
+Flag:
+- Channels performing above/below expectations
+- Channels with high volume but poor retention (leaky bucket)
+- Channels with low volume but high quality (scale opportunity)
+
+### 5. Key Findings & Present
+
+Synthesize findings into:
+
+1. **Health summary** — overall: on track, at risk, or off track against metrics targets
+2. **Top 3 wins** — what's working better than expected
+3. **Top 3 concerns** — what's underperforming, where the funnel leaks
+4. **Biggest lever** — the single change that would most improve metrics
+5. **Assumption updates** — which assumptions from `/assumption-tracker` are validated or invalidated by this data
+
+**Present to the user.** Use AskUserQuestion:
+- "Here's what the data shows. Does this match your intuition? Any context I'm missing?"
+- "Any data quality issues that would change these conclusions?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 6. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF activation below target: `/experiment` — Design an experiment to improve the activation funnel
+- IF channel performing poorly: `/gtm` — Revisit channel strategy with real performance data
+- IF pricing/revenue below target: `/monetization` — Update monetization strategy with real unit economics
+- IF assumptions invalidated: `/assumption-tracker` — Update register with real-data validations
+- IF metrics targets need adjustment: `/metrics` — Revisit targets based on baseline reality
+- IF overall on track: `/research-roadmap` — Check what's next in the project lifecycle
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Present final analysis to user. Ask:
+- "Ready to write this analysis? Anything to adjust?"
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/cohort-review-[YYYY-MM-DD].md` (or `research/{slug}/cohort-review-[YYYY-MM-DD].md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Cohort Review: [Date Range]
+
+> Date: [current date]
+> Data source: [analytics tool / database / manual]
+> Period: [start date] — [end date]
+> Based on: research/metrics.md
+
+## Health Summary
+
+**Overall**: [On Track / At Risk / Off Track]
+[2-3 sentences: the headline — are we hitting our numbers? What's the biggest story?]
+
+### North Star Metric
+**Target**: [from metrics.md]
+**Actual**: [real number]
+**Status**: [On Track / Below / Above] — [trend: improving / declining / flat]
+
+## Funnel Analysis
+
+| Stage | Metric | Target | Actual | Delta | Trend |
+|-------|--------|--------|--------|-------|-------|
+| Acquisition | [metric] | [target] | [actual] | [+/-] | [↑↓→] |
+| Activation | [metric] | [target] | [actual] | [+/-] | [↑↓→] |
+| Engagement | [metric] | [target] | [actual] | [+/-] | [↑↓→] |
+| Retention | [metric] | [target] | [actual] | [+/-] | [↑↓→] |
+| Revenue | [metric] | [target] | [actual] | [+/-] | [↑↓→] |
+
+### Biggest Leak
+**Stage**: [where the biggest drop-off occurs]
+**Conversion**: [actual %] vs. target [target %]
+**Analysis**: [why this is happening — evidence from data]
+**Recommendation**: [what to do about it]
+
+## Cohort Analysis
+
+### Retention Curves
+| Cohort | D1 | D7 | D14 | D30 | D60 | D90 |
+|--------|----|----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
+| [cohort] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] |
+
+### Cohort Quality Trend
+[Are newer cohorts better or worse? What's driving the trend?]
+
+### Segment Performance
+| Segment | Activation | D30 Retention | Revenue/User | Notes |
+|---------|------------|---------------|-------------|-------|
+| [segment] | [%] | [%] | [$] | [observation] |
+
+## Channel Performance
+
+| Channel | Volume | CAC | Activation | D30 Retention | Est. LTV | ROI |
+|---------|--------|-----|-----------|---------------|----------|-----|
+| [channel] | [n] | [$] | [%] | [%] | [$] | [x] |
+
+### Channel Insights
+- **Best performer**: [channel] — [why]
+- **Worst performer**: [channel] — [why]
+- **Scale opportunity**: [channel] — [evidence]
+- **Cut/reduce**: [channel] — [evidence]
+
+## Key Findings
+
+### Wins
+1. [What's working — with data]
+2. [What's working — with data]
+3. [What's working — with data]
+
+### Concerns
+1. [What's underperforming — with data and impact]
+2. [What's underperforming — with data and impact]
+3. [What's underperforming — with data and impact]
+
+### Biggest Lever
+[The single change that would most improve overall metrics — with reasoning]
+
+## Assumption Validations
+
+| Assumption | Previous Status | New Status | Evidence |
+|-----------|----------------|------------|----------|
+| [assumption from tracker] | [old status] | Validated/Invalidated | [data point] |
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 6 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+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
+
+- **Data-driven.** Every claim must reference specific numbers from the provided data. Do not fabricate data or fill in placeholders.
+- **Compare to targets.** Always reference metric targets from `research/metrics.md`. The value of this skill is target vs. actual, not just reporting numbers.
+- **Handle incomplete data gracefully.** If data doesn't cover all funnel stages or cohort dimensions, analyze what's available and note gaps. Don't skip the analysis.
+- **Append-style.** Each cohort review is a separate dated file. Previous reviews are not modified.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the analysis has been presented and validated.
+- **Be honest about data quality.** If the data is too sparse for statistical significance, say so. Don't over-interpret small samples.
+- **Recommend actions.** Every finding should connect to a concrete next step.
+
+## 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/cohort-review-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/investor-update/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: artifact_only` (Artifact-driven). Work from concrete artifacts, data, logs, or existing instructions by default; ask concise clarification questions only when the available artifacts are missing, contradictory, or unsafe to interpret.
+
 **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-investor-update-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-investor-update-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-investor-update-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-investor-update-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-ops/claude/investor-update/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 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.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance for business-ops cross-pack recommendations, preserving `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code while offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/investor-update/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: investor-update
 description: Generate structured monthly stakeholder update from current research state, metrics, roadmap, and feedback
 type: analysis
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[optional: month e.g. \"March 2026\"]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 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.
 
 # Investor Update — Stakeholder Communication
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/investor-update/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+---
+name: investor-update
+description: Generate structured monthly stakeholder update from current research state, metrics, roadmap, and feedback
+type: analysis
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[optional: month e.g. \"March 2026\"]"
+interview_depth: none
+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.
+
+# Investor Update — Stakeholder Communication
+
+Generates a structured monthly update from current research state, metrics, roadmap progress, and customer feedback. Uses standard YC/First Round format suitable for investors, accelerator mentors, or advisory boards.
+
+## Soft Prerequisites
+
+- Read all that exist: `research/metrics.md`, `research/cohort-review-*.md`, `research/runway-model.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/gtm.md`, `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, `tasks/recurring-todo.md`, `tasks/history.md`
+- The more data exists, the richer the update. Works with as little as a roadmap + basic metrics.
+
+## 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. Load Context
+
+Read all available data sources:
+- **Metrics**: `research/metrics.md` for targets, `research/cohort-review-*.md` (most recent) for actuals
+- **Financial**: `research/runway-model.md` for runway, burn, revenue
+- **Customer**: `research/customer-feedback.md` for qualitative signal
+- **Progress**: `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md` (if it exists), `tasks/history.md` for what was built; `tasks/record-todo.md` and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` for advisory measurements or cadence work that may affect asks/risks
+- **GTM**: `research/gtm.md` for go-to-market context
+
+Also check git log for the month to see what was shipped.
+
+### 2. Compile Update Sections
+
+For each section, pull from the appropriate data source. If a data source doesn't exist, either skip the section or ask the user for the data.
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to fill gaps:
+- "What were the top 3 accomplishments this month?"
+- "What's the #1 thing you need help with?"
+- "Any key hires, partnerships, or milestones?"
+- "What are you most worried about right now?"
+
+### 3. Present & Validate
+
+Show the complete update to the user before writing:
+- "Here's the draft update. Does it accurately represent the month? Anything to add or change?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 4. Write Output
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/investor-update-[YYYY-MM].md` (or `research/{slug}/investor-update-[YYYY-MM].md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Investor Update: [Month Year]
+
+> Date: [current date]
+> From: [product/company name]
+
+## TL;DR
+[2-3 sentences: the month in a nutshell — wins, challenges, and trajectory]
+
+## Key Metrics
+
+| Metric | Last Month | This Month | Target | Trend |
+|--------|-----------|------------|--------|-------|
+| [North Star] | [value] | [value] | [target] | [↑↓→] |
+| MRR | [value] | [value] | [target] | [↑↓→] |
+| Users | [value] | [value] | [target] | [↑↓→] |
+| [Key metric] | [value] | [value] | [target] | [↑↓→] |
+
+## Wins
+1. [Accomplishment with impact — e.g., "Shipped X, resulting in Y"]
+2. [Accomplishment]
+3. [Accomplishment]
+
+## Challenges
+1. [Challenge and what you're doing about it]
+2. [Challenge]
+
+## Product
+[What was built, shipped, or launched this month — concrete deliverables]
+
+## Customers / Users
+[New customers, notable feedback, retention signals, churn events]
+
+## Financial
+- **Cash**: $[amount]
+- **Burn**: $[amount/mo]
+- **Revenue**: $[MRR]
+- **Runway**: [months]
+
+## Plan for Next Month
+1. [Top priority]
+2. [Second priority]
+3. [Third priority]
+
+## Asks
+[What you need help with — intros, advice, hiring, resources. Be specific.]
+
+## Team
+[Any changes — hires, departures, role changes]
+```
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+### Next Steps Guidance
+
+The final response and output file must include a `## Next Steps` section with one explicit recommendation and 2-4 other options.
+
+**Recommendation priority** (first applicable becomes the recommendation):
+
+1. IF runway, burn, or revenue data is missing or stale: recommend `/runway-model` — investor updates need current financial context.
+2. IF metrics are missing or stale: recommend `/metrics` — investor updates need a defensible KPI frame.
+3. IF actual usage or retention data exists but has not been reviewed: recommend `/cohort-review` — convert operational data into investor-ready signal.
+4. IF the update surfaced strategic misses, stale assumptions, or missed commitments: recommend `/retro` — turn the update into a corrective learning loop.
+5. Otherwise recommend `/research-roadmap` — choose the next lifecycle task after the stakeholder update is current.
+
+Use this format:
+
+```markdown
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [recommended skill] — [one-line reason grounded in the update]
+
+Other options:
+- [2-4 applicable alternatives]
+```
+
+## 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
+
+- **Honest and concise.** Investor updates should be transparent, not spin. Bad news delivered with a plan is better than hidden problems.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write until the user validates the update.
+- **Separate dated files.** Each update is a new file. Don't modify previous updates.
+- **No fabrication.** Only include metrics that have real data behind them. If a metric isn't tracked yet, omit it rather than estimate.
+- **Standard format.** Stick to the YC/First Round format — investors expect this structure.
+
+## 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/investor-update-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/mvp-gap/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: artifact_only` (Artifact-driven). Work from concrete artifacts, data, logs, or existing instructions by default; ask concise clarification questions only when the available artifacts are missing, contradictory, or unsafe to interpret.
+
 **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-mvp-gap-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-mvp-gap-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-mvp-gap-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-mvp-gap-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Research-pack translation.** For business, devtool, game, creator, and media research packs, render the claim/evidence/inference/assumption/decision-impact structure, source coverage categories appropriate to the domain, lower-confidence findings, and downstream implications before asking for approval or routing to the next skill.
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/mvp-gap/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.10 - 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.
+
+## v0.9 - 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.
+
 ## v0.8 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance for business-ops cross-pack recommendations, preserving `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code while offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/mvp-gap/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: mvp-gap
 description: Evaluate codebase against ICP to identify gaps blocking first sales and retention
 type: research
-version: v0.8
+version: v0.10
 argument-hint: "[optional: path-to-icp-spec]"
-interview_depth: none
+context_intake: artifact_only
 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.
 
 # MVP Gap — Startup Readiness Audit
 
@@ -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.