skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-ops/claude/mvp-gap/archive/v0.8/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+---
+name: mvp-gap
+description: Evaluate codebase against ICP to identify gaps blocking first sales and retention
+type: research
+version: v0.8
+argument-hint: "[optional: path-to-icp-spec]"
+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.
+
+# MVP Gap — Startup Readiness Audit
+
+## 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
+
+`research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If it doesn't, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+
+## 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 `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — customer profile, user profile(s), current-state journey, pain map, current alternatives, stated value drivers
+- Read `research/enterprise-icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/enterprise-icp.md`) if it exists (for awareness, not primary evaluation)
+- Read `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) if it exists — check if defined metrics can actually be measured (instrumentation gaps are MVP gaps)
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, package config for project conventions
+- Read existing specs from `specs/` (or `specs/{slug}/`) for planned but unbuilt features
+- Read `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` if they exist for work in progress or advisory records
+
+### 2. Analyse the Codebase
+
+Read source files, routes, components, data models, auth setup, config, dependencies, and infrastructure files. Build a picture of what the product actually does today.
+
+### 3. Evaluate Against ICP
+
+#### User Journey Coverage
+For each step in the current-state journey from `research/icp.md`:
+- Can the product replace or improve this step?
+- Where does the UX break down, require workarounds, or not exist?
+- Does the interaction model match the user's technical sophistication?
+
+If `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) exists, map each gap to its **journey stage** (e.g., Discovery, Onboarding, Aha Moment, Habit Loop, Expansion). This enables downstream skills to understand *where* in the experience each gap bites.
+
+#### Customer Journey Coverage
+- **Discovery**: Is there a landing page, marketing site, or clear product description?
+- **Evaluation**: Can someone try the product? Free tier, trial, demo?
+- **Purchase**: Is there billing, pricing, a checkout flow?
+- **Provisioning**: Can the customer set up the product for their users? Invite flow, admin panel?
+- **Onboarding**: Does a new user have a clear path to the "aha moment" from the ICP?
+
+#### Table-Stakes Gaps
+- Authentication and authorization
+- Error handling and user-facing error messages
+- Data export and portability
+- Responsive design and accessibility basics
+- Help, documentation, or in-app guidance
+- Email notifications or transactional messaging
+- Settings and user preferences
+
+#### Integration Gaps
+- Does the ICP's current-state journey reveal tools they already use?
+- Which integrations are required vs. nice-to-have for replacing the current workflow?
+
+#### Competitive Differentiation
+- Does the product deliver the stated value drivers from `research/icp.md`?
+- Where does it fall short of the claimed wedge?
+- Would the ICP actually switch from their current alternative to this?
+
+#### Spec Validation
+For each gap identified above, check if a spec already exists in `specs/` (or `specs/{slug}/`):
+- If a spec covers the gap **fully**, mark the gap as "Spec exists — ready to build" and link the spec file.
+- If a spec covers the gap **partially**, mark it as "Spec exists — needs expansion" and suggest `/user-flow-map [topic]` when flow/design shape is missing, or `/ux-variations --layout-mode [topic]` when flow and UI requirements already exist but layout alternatives are missing.
+- If no spec exists, suggest `/user-flow-map [topic]` to map flow/design shape before UI requirements, layout variants, and production speccing.
+
+#### Metrics Tie-In
+If `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) exists, identify for each gap:
+- Which metric(s) will indicate this gap is closed (e.g., activation rate, retention at day-7)
+- If no metric exists to measure gap closure, flag it as an **instrumentation gap** — this becomes an additional item under the gap.
+
+### 4. Prioritise
+
+Tag each gap with one of:
+- **`blocks-first-sale`** — Without this, no rational customer would pay. Deal-killer.
+- **`blocks-retention`** — Customer might try it, but won't stay without this.
+- **`nice-to-have`** — Adds value but not a deciding factor for early customers.
+
+Order gaps within each priority tier by estimated effort (S/M/L).
+
+#### GTM Alignment
+If `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) exists:
+- Cross-reference the build sequence against GTM launch gates and timeline
+- Flag conflicts where a high-effort gap blocks a near-term GTM milestone
+- Surface gaps that can be deferred to post-launch without losing the GTM window
+
+### 5. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include a **Recommended** item and 2–4 other applicable options. Choose the recommendation by the first matching condition:
+
+- IF downstream impact is **Major**: `/reconcile-research` — audit and fix affected downstream research documents.
+- IF a `blocks-first-sale` gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: `/user-flow-map [top gap]` — map the highest-priority gap into concrete screen flow, decisions, branches, states, and recovery paths before UI/layout planning.
+- IF any other gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: `/user-flow-map [top gap]` — map the highest-priority unspecced gap from `research/mvp-gap.md` before UI/layout planning.
+- IF required context is missing: the corresponding research skill (`/journey-map`, `/competitive-analysis`, `/metrics`, or `/brainstorm` when creative alternatives could reduce high-effort gaps).
+- OTHERWISE: `/roadmap` — sequence the existing specs into implementation phases.
+
+Only recommend `/roadmap` as the primary next step when the MVP gap analysis found no unspecced priority gaps.
+If downstream impact has not been classified yet, run the downstream impact check before finalizing `## Next Steps`.
+
+### 6. Downstream Impact Check
+
+Before finalizing the output, check for downstream research documents that may be affected by what was just decided. Only check documents that exist on disk.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/journey-map.md`
+- `research/metrics.md`
+- `research/gtm.md`
+- `research/monetization.md`
+- `tasks/roadmap.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `> Based on:` header, `## Summary`, and sections that reference concepts this skill just defined or changed
+2. Identify **specific conflicts**: claims, assumptions, or references that contradict what was just decided. Examples:
+   - Journey stages that assume features exist which are now identified as gaps
+   - Metric targets anchored to capabilities the product doesn't have yet
+   - GTM launch plan that depends on features flagged as missing
+   - Monetization pricing tied to features identified as gaps
+   - Roadmap phases that don't account for newly identified first-sale blockers
+3. Note each conflict: downstream file, section, the stale claim (quote it), and what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream documents exist, or no conflicts found. Skip display entirely.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display conflicts to user inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR a foundational gap was identified that changes the build sequence — e.g., a new first-sale blocker, a key assumption invalidated): Display conflicts and strongly recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+Display to the user with the written file confirmation.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/mvp-gap.md` (or `research/{slug}/mvp-gap.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# MVP Gap Analysis
+
+> Evaluated against: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md)
+> Date: [current date]
+> Codebase state: [brief summary of what exists]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: overall readiness assessment and the most critical gaps]
+
+## Blocks First Sale
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters to the ICP]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage from journey-map, or "N/A" if no journey-map exists]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric from metrics.md, or "⚠ No metric defined" if none]
+  _Spec:_ [link to spec if exists + status, or `/user-flow-map [topic]` if no spec]
+- ...
+
+## Blocks Retention
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric or "⚠ No metric defined"]
+  _Spec:_ [spec link/status or `/user-flow-map [topic]`]
+- ...
+
+## Nice to Have
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric or "⚠ No metric defined"]
+  _Spec:_ [spec link/status or `/user-flow-map [topic]`]
+- ...
+
+## Recommended Build Sequence
+[Ordered list of gaps to address, combining priority and dependency logic.
+ First sale blockers first, then retention blockers, then nice-to-haves.
+ Within each tier, order by dependency — what must exist before other things can be built.
+ If GTM exists: note conflicts between build order and GTM launch gates.]
+
+## Downstream Impact
+[Only if conflicts found in step 6 — list each conflict with file, section, stale claim, and correction needed. If Major, recommend `/reconcile-research`.]
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [first matching command from step 5] — [reason grounded in this analysis]
+
+Other options:
+- [conditional items from step 5 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+## 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
+
+- **Do not make code changes.** Analysis only.
+- **Every gap must cite evidence** — a missing route, missing component, absent dependency, no billing integration, etc. No vague claims.
+- **Prioritise by market impact**, not technical interest. Things that block the first sale come before things that block the 10th.
+- **If no code exists yet**, report that clearly and suggest running `/user-flow-map` to map flow/design shape first. Do not fabricate gaps for a nonexistent codebase.
+- **Include `/user-flow-map` prompts** for gaps lacking flow/design shape or full specs. Use `/ux-variations --layout-mode` only when flow and UI requirements already exist but layout alternatives are missing.
+- **Do not duplicate work already tracked** in `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, or `tasks/recurring-todo.md` — note it as "in progress" or "advisory" instead.
+
+## 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/mvp-gap-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/mvp-gap/archive/v0.9/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+---
+name: mvp-gap
+description: Evaluate codebase against ICP to identify gaps blocking first sales and retention
+type: research
+version: v0.9
+argument-hint: "[optional: path-to-icp-spec]"
+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 `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
+
+## 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
+
+`research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If it doesn't, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+
+## 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 `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) — customer profile, user profile(s), current-state journey, pain map, current alternatives, stated value drivers
+- Read `research/enterprise-icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/enterprise-icp.md`) if it exists (for awareness, not primary evaluation)
+- Read `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) if it exists — check if defined metrics can actually be measured (instrumentation gaps are MVP gaps)
+- Read CLAUDE.md, README, package config for project conventions
+- Read existing specs from `specs/` (or `specs/{slug}/`) for planned but unbuilt features
+- Read `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, and `tasks/recurring-todo.md` if they exist for work in progress or advisory records
+
+### 2. Analyse the Codebase
+
+Read source files, routes, components, data models, auth setup, config, dependencies, and infrastructure files. Build a picture of what the product actually does today.
+
+### 3. Evaluate Against ICP
+
+#### User Journey Coverage
+For each step in the current-state journey from `research/icp.md`:
+- Can the product replace or improve this step?
+- Where does the UX break down, require workarounds, or not exist?
+- Does the interaction model match the user's technical sophistication?
+
+If `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) exists, map each gap to its **journey stage** (e.g., Discovery, Onboarding, Aha Moment, Habit Loop, Expansion). This enables downstream skills to understand *where* in the experience each gap bites.
+
+#### Customer Journey Coverage
+- **Discovery**: Is there a landing page, marketing site, or clear product description?
+- **Evaluation**: Can someone try the product? Free tier, trial, demo?
+- **Purchase**: Is there billing, pricing, a checkout flow?
+- **Provisioning**: Can the customer set up the product for their users? Invite flow, admin panel?
+- **Onboarding**: Does a new user have a clear path to the "aha moment" from the ICP?
+
+#### Table-Stakes Gaps
+- Authentication and authorization
+- Error handling and user-facing error messages
+- Data export and portability
+- Responsive design and accessibility basics
+- Help, documentation, or in-app guidance
+- Email notifications or transactional messaging
+- Settings and user preferences
+
+#### Integration Gaps
+- Does the ICP's current-state journey reveal tools they already use?
+- Which integrations are required vs. nice-to-have for replacing the current workflow?
+
+#### Competitive Differentiation
+- Does the product deliver the stated value drivers from `research/icp.md`?
+- Where does it fall short of the claimed wedge?
+- Would the ICP actually switch from their current alternative to this?
+
+#### Spec Validation
+For each gap identified above, check if a spec already exists in `specs/` (or `specs/{slug}/`):
+- If a spec covers the gap **fully**, mark the gap as "Spec exists — ready to build" and link the spec file.
+- If a spec covers the gap **partially**, mark it as "Spec exists — needs expansion" and suggest `/user-flow-map [topic]` when flow/design shape is missing, or `/ux-variations --layout-mode [topic]` when flow and UI requirements already exist but layout alternatives are missing.
+- If no spec exists, suggest `/user-flow-map [topic]` to map flow/design shape before UI requirements, layout variants, and production speccing.
+
+#### Metrics Tie-In
+If `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) exists, identify for each gap:
+- Which metric(s) will indicate this gap is closed (e.g., activation rate, retention at day-7)
+- If no metric exists to measure gap closure, flag it as an **instrumentation gap** — this becomes an additional item under the gap.
+
+### 4. Prioritise
+
+Tag each gap with one of:
+- **`blocks-first-sale`** — Without this, no rational customer would pay. Deal-killer.
+- **`blocks-retention`** — Customer might try it, but won't stay without this.
+- **`nice-to-have`** — Adds value but not a deciding factor for early customers.
+
+Order gaps within each priority tier by estimated effort (S/M/L).
+
+#### GTM Alignment
+If `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) exists:
+- Cross-reference the build sequence against GTM launch gates and timeline
+- Flag conflicts where a high-effort gap blocks a near-term GTM milestone
+- Surface gaps that can be deferred to post-launch without losing the GTM window
+
+### 5. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include a **Recommended** item and 2–4 other applicable options. Choose the recommendation by the first matching condition:
+
+- IF downstream impact is **Major**: `/reconcile-research` — audit and fix affected downstream research documents.
+- IF a `blocks-first-sale` gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: `/user-flow-map [top gap]` — map the highest-priority gap into concrete screen flow, decisions, branches, states, and recovery paths before UI/layout planning.
+- IF any other gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: `/user-flow-map [top gap]` — map the highest-priority unspecced gap from `research/mvp-gap.md` before UI/layout planning.
+- IF required context is missing: the corresponding research skill (`/journey-map`, `/competitive-analysis`, `/metrics`, or `/brainstorm` when creative alternatives could reduce high-effort gaps).
+- OTHERWISE: `/roadmap` — sequence the existing specs into implementation phases.
+
+Only recommend `/roadmap` as the primary next step when the MVP gap analysis found no unspecced priority gaps.
+If downstream impact has not been classified yet, run the downstream impact check before finalizing `## Next Steps`.
+
+### 6. Downstream Impact Check
+
+Before finalizing the output, check for downstream research documents that may be affected by what was just decided. Only check documents that exist on disk.
+
+**Downstream documents to check** (use `{slug}/` prefix when product-path scope is active):
+- `research/journey-map.md`
+- `research/metrics.md`
+- `research/gtm.md`
+- `research/monetization.md`
+- `tasks/roadmap.md`
+
+For each existing downstream document:
+1. Read it — focus on `> Based on:` header, `## Summary`, and sections that reference concepts this skill just defined or changed
+2. Identify **specific conflicts**: claims, assumptions, or references that contradict what was just decided. Examples:
+   - Journey stages that assume features exist which are now identified as gaps
+   - Metric targets anchored to capabilities the product doesn't have yet
+   - GTM launch plan that depends on features flagged as missing
+   - Monetization pricing tied to features identified as gaps
+   - Roadmap phases that don't account for newly identified first-sale blockers
+3. Note each conflict: downstream file, section, the stale claim (quote it), and what it should now say
+
+**Classify the impact**:
+- **None**: No downstream documents exist, or no conflicts found. Skip display entirely.
+- **Minor** (1–2 small conflicts): Display conflicts to user inline.
+- **Major** (3+ conflicts OR a foundational gap was identified that changes the build sequence — e.g., a new first-sale blocker, a key assumption invalidated): Display conflicts and strongly recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+
+Display to the user with the written file confirmation.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/mvp-gap.md` (or `research/{slug}/mvp-gap.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# MVP Gap Analysis
+
+> Evaluated against: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md)
+> Date: [current date]
+> Codebase state: [brief summary of what exists]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: overall readiness assessment and the most critical gaps]
+
+## Blocks First Sale
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters to the ICP]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage from journey-map, or "N/A" if no journey-map exists]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric from metrics.md, or "⚠ No metric defined" if none]
+  _Spec:_ [link to spec if exists + status, or `/user-flow-map [topic]` if no spec]
+- ...
+
+## Blocks Retention
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric or "⚠ No metric defined"]
+  _Spec:_ [spec link/status or `/user-flow-map [topic]`]
+- ...
+
+## Nice to Have
+- **[Gap title]** — [What's missing and why it matters]. Effort: S/M/L
+  _Journey stage:_ [stage]
+  _Closure metric:_ [metric or "⚠ No metric defined"]
+  _Spec:_ [spec link/status or `/user-flow-map [topic]`]
+- ...
+
+## Recommended Build Sequence
+[Ordered list of gaps to address, combining priority and dependency logic.
+ First sale blockers first, then retention blockers, then nice-to-haves.
+ Within each tier, order by dependency — what must exist before other things can be built.
+ If GTM exists: note conflicts between build order and GTM launch gates.]
+
+## Downstream Impact
+[Only if conflicts found in step 6 — list each conflict with file, section, stale claim, and correction needed. If Major, recommend `/reconcile-research`.]
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [first matching command from step 5] — [reason grounded in this analysis]
+
+Other options:
+- [conditional items from step 5 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+## 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
+
+- **Do not make code changes.** Analysis only.
+- **Every gap must cite evidence** — a missing route, missing component, absent dependency, no billing integration, etc. No vague claims.
+- **Prioritise by market impact**, not technical interest. Things that block the first sale come before things that block the 10th.
+- **If no code exists yet**, report that clearly and suggest running `/user-flow-map` to map flow/design shape first. Do not fabricate gaps for a nonexistent codebase.
+- **Include `/user-flow-map` prompts** for gaps lacking flow/design shape or full specs. Use `/ux-variations --layout-mode` only when flow and UI requirements already exist but layout alternatives are missing.
+- **Do not duplicate work already tracked** in `tasks/roadmap.md`, `tasks/todo.md`, `tasks/manual-todo.md`, `tasks/record-todo.md`, or `tasks/recurring-todo.md` — note it as "in progress" or "advisory" instead.
+
+## 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/mvp-gap-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/platform-strategy/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.11 - 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.
+
+## v0.10 - 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.
+
 ## v0.9 - 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/platform-strategy/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: platform-strategy
 description: Expand from a single product into a multi-product platform — map vertical and horizontal growth vectors, score candidates, design validation experiments, and sequence the portfolio
 type: research
-version: v0.9
+version: v0.11
 argument-hint: "[optional: expansion direction e.g. \"vertical\", \"horizontal\", or specific adjacent market]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # Platform Strategy — Multi-Product Expansion Planning
 
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstre
 Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
 
 1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
-2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
 3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
 
 Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.