skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-ops/claude/repo-glossary/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # repo-glossary Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 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.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Reclassified the active skill as `type: research` because it already uses the staged research lifecycle and writes approved glossary research artifacts.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/repo-glossary/SKILL.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 name: repo-glossary
 description: Audit and reconcile the shared project glossary — find stale terms, missing definitions, conflicts, shadows, inheritance gaps, and cross-path divergences across research docs
 type: research
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"tooling\", \"business\", \"workflow\"]"
 ---
 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ 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.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/repo-glossary/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,251 @@
+---
+name: repo-glossary
+description: Audit and reconcile the shared project glossary — find stale terms, missing definitions, conflicts, shadows, inheritance gaps, and cross-path divergences across research docs
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"tooling\", \"business\", \"workflow\"]"
+---
+
+# Repo Glossary — Glossary Audit & Reconciliation
+
+Scans all research documents, CLAUDE.md, and docs for domain-specific terminology, then audits the shared glossary for accuracy, conflicts, staleness, shadows, inheritance gaps, and cross-path divergences. In multi-path repos, glossaries form a two-level hierarchy: a parent glossary (`research/glossary.md`) with shared terms and scoped glossaries (`research/{slug}/glossary.md`) that inherit parent terms and can override them. This is the look-back complement to the write-forward glossary convention: research skills add terms during their alignment flow, and this skill periodically reviews the full glossary hierarchy for drift and gaps.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: At least 2 files must exist in `research/` (or `research/{slug}/`). If fewer exist, tell the user to run more research skills first and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/glossary.md` may or may not exist. If it does not exist, the skill runs in bootstrap mode — all discovered terms are treated as proposed additions.
+
+## 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 Sources
+
+Read every file in scope and extract terminology. Load glossary files hierarchy-aware:
+
+**Parent glossary** (`research/glossary.md`):
+- Always load when it exists, even when running in scoped mode
+- Parse all existing entries from the Terms table (Term, Definition, Source, Category, Status, and optional Scope)
+- Parse Acronyms table and Recently Added table
+- Tag each term with origin `parent`
+
+**Scoped glossary** (`research/{slug}/glossary.md`):
+- Load the target scoped glossary when running in product-path mode
+- Parse Terms table (Term, Definition, Source, Category, Status — no Scope column)
+- Tag each term with origin `scoped:{slug}`
+
+**Sibling glossaries** (cross-path audit mode):
+- When auditing across all product paths, also load `research/{other-slug}/glossary.md` for each active product path
+- Tag each sibling term with origin `scoped:{other-slug}`
+
+**Research documents** (`research/*.md` or `research/{slug}/*.md`):
+- Extract terms that appear with inline definitions, parenthetical expansions, or "i.e." / "a.k.a." markers
+- Extract capitalized compound nouns or quoted terms used as domain jargon
+- Extract acronyms used without expansion
+
+**Convention and documentation files** (`CLAUDE.md`, `docs/*.md`, `packs/*/PACK.md`):
+- Extract terms defined in glossary-like sections, definition lists, or tables
+- Extract tool/workflow/concept names that carry project-specific meaning
+
+Build a combined term index: `{ term, definition (if found), sources[], category (inferred) }`.
+
+### 2. Surface & Interrogate
+
+Cross-reference the combined term index against the existing glossary to classify every term into one of four groups:
+
+**Existing terms** — present in glossary.md:
+- Check whether the current definition still matches how the term is used across research docs
+- Flag terms whose usage has drifted from the glossary definition
+- Show source count and last-seen document
+
+**Missing terms** — used in research docs but absent from glossary:
+- Propose a definition based on context where the term appears
+- Infer category (business / tooling / workflow / technical / domain)
+- Rank by frequency and number of distinct source documents
+
+**Conflicting terms** — same term defined or used differently across documents:
+- List each conflicting definition with its source
+- Ask user to select the canonical definition or provide a new one
+
+**Stale terms** — present in glossary but no longer appear in any scanned document:
+- Show the term, its glossary definition, and original source
+- Ask whether to keep, update, or remove
+
+**Shadowed terms** — same term defined in both parent and scoped glossary with different definitions:
+- Show parent definition and scoped definition side by side
+- Ask: intentional override (set `status: confirmed-override` in scoped) / promote scoped definition to parent / align scoped definition to match parent
+
+**Cross-path divergences** — same term defined differently in sibling scoped glossaries:
+- List each sibling's definition with its slug
+- Ask: all valid in context (each scope uses its own meaning) / reconcile to a shared parent definition / provide a new shared definition
+
+**Inheritance gaps** — hierarchy inconsistencies between parent and scoped glossaries:
+- Parent terms with Scope references to removed or archived product paths
+- Scope-restricted parent terms that conflict with their target scoped glossary's definition
+- Scoped terms that duplicate a parent term identically (candidate for removal from scoped glossary)
+
+If `$ARGUMENTS` specifies a focus area, filter findings to that category.
+
+### 3. Present in Alignment Page
+
+Build the alignment page with findings grouped by the four categories above. Each category is a gate section with inline approval questions:
+
+**For missing terms**: per-term radio — Approve proposed definition / Edit definition / Reject / Needs clarification
+**For existing terms**: per-term radio — Confirm accurate / Update definition / Remove / Needs clarification
+**For conflicting terms**: per-term radio showing each conflicting definition — select canonical / Provide new / Needs clarification
+**For stale terms**: per-term radio — Keep / Remove / Needs clarification
+
+**For shadowed terms**: per-term radio — Intentional override (confirm shadow) / Promote scoped to parent / Align scoped to parent / Needs clarification
+**For cross-path divergences**: per-term radio showing each sibling definition — All valid in context / Reconcile to parent / Provide new shared definition / Needs clarification
+**For inheritance gaps**: per-term radio — Fix scope reference / Remove duplicate from scoped / Update conflicting definition / Needs clarification
+
+Include an evidence matrix mapping each proposed change to the source documents that support it.
+
+### 4. Write Output
+
+After final compiled YAML approval, apply approved changes to the appropriate glossary file(s):
+
+**Base write rules** (apply to both parent and scoped glossaries):
+- Add approved new terms to the Terms table with `status: confirmed`
+- Update definitions for terms marked "Update definition"
+- Remove terms marked "Remove"
+- Resolve conflicts by writing the user-selected canonical definition
+- Update the Acronyms table for any new acronym expansions
+- Update the Recently Added table with terms added in this run
+- Update the header metadata (last updated date, source count, term count)
+
+**Hierarchy-aware write rules:**
+- **Promote scoped → parent**: add the term to the parent glossary with `Scope: shared`, remove the term from the scoped glossary
+- **Align scoped → parent**: update the scoped definition to match the parent, or remove the scoped entry entirely
+- **Acknowledge shadow**: set `status: confirmed-override` in the scoped glossary entry; future audits skip the shadow warning for that term
+- **Reconcile cross-path divergence**: write the reconciled definition to the parent glossary, remove or update sibling scoped entries
+- **Fix inheritance gap**: remove stale Scope references from parent, remove duplicate scoped entries that match parent identically
+- **Add Scope column**: add the Scope column to the parent glossary only when the repo has multiple active product paths; omit for flat repos
+
+If a target glossary does not exist, create it with the appropriate standard format before writing entries.
+
+**Standard parent glossary format** (multi-path repos — includes Scope column):
+
+```markdown
+# Glossary
+
+> Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD | Sources: [count] docs | Terms: [count]
+
+## Terms
+
+| Term | Definition | Source | Category | Status | Scope |
+|------|-----------|--------|----------|--------|-------|
+
+## Acronyms
+
+| Acronym | Expansion | Source |
+|---------|-----------|--------|
+
+## Recently Added
+
+| Term | Added | Source Skill | Approved In |
+|------|-------|-------------|-------------|
+```
+
+**Standard glossary format** (flat repos and scoped glossaries — no Scope column):
+
+```markdown
+# Glossary
+
+> Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD | Sources: [count] docs | Terms: [count]
+
+## Terms
+
+| Term | Definition | Source | Category | Status |
+|------|-----------|--------|----------|--------|
+
+## Acronyms
+
+| Acronym | Expansion | Source |
+|---------|-----------|--------|
+
+## Recently Added
+
+| Term | Added | Source Skill | Approved In |
+|------|-------|-------------|-------------|
+```
+
+### 5. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF conflicting terms remain unresolved: `/repo-glossary` — Re-run to resolve remaining conflicts
+- IF assumption-tracker exists and references undefined terms: `/assumption-tracker` — Update assumption register with clarified terminology
+- IF research docs have many undefined terms: run more research skills to build context, then `/repo-glossary` again
+- IF glossary is comprehensive: `/reconcile-research` — Check cross-document consistency now that terms are aligned
+- ALWAYS: `/research-roadmap` — Check overall project status
+
+## 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.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/glossary.md` (parent glossary)
+
+The shared cross-path project glossary in the standard parent format shown in Section 4. Includes the Scope column only in multi-path repos.
+
+### `research/{slug}/glossary.md` (scoped glossary, when product-path mode is active)
+
+The scoped glossary for a specific product path, inheriting all parent terms. Uses the standard format without the Scope column.
+
+## 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
+
+- **Read-only on research docs.** Extract terms from existing research — do not modify source documents. Only glossary files (`research/glossary.md` and `research/{slug}/glossary.md`) are writable.
+- **Be specific.** "A thing" is not a term. "Pack — a collection of related skills installed together via pack.sh" is.
+- **Trace to source.** Every term must reference the specific document it was extracted from.
+- **Update, don't duplicate.** If a glossary already exists, merge new findings with existing entries. When updating, preserve confirmation status, `confirmed-override` status, and Recently Added history.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented and validated via the alignment page.
+- **Respect write-forward.** Terms added by research skills during their alignment flow have `status: confirmed`. Do not downgrade confirmed terms to `proposed` during audit.
+- **Hierarchy consistency.** A scoped glossary entry with `status: confirmed-override` is an acknowledged shadow — do not re-flag it as a conflict in future audits. When promoting or reconciling terms, ensure the parent and scoped glossaries remain consistent.
+
+## 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/repo-glossary-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/retro/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-retro-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-retro-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-retro-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-retro-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.
 
 **Risk-validation gates.** Render assumption/risk evidence coverage, confidence, candidate verdicts or mitigations, output-location/change-scope decisions, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route as gates. Durable tracker outputs remain canonical markdown artifacts and must also be fully rendered in the alignment page. Apply the shared artifact-destination/proposed-file-changes de-duplication rule: combine them into one visual gate when they ask only the same path-destination question, and render separate gates when destination approval differs from downstream mutation scope, timing, or allowed files.
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/retro/CHANGELOG.md

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

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: retro
 description: Strategic decision retrospective — review research decisions against actual outcomes, update confidence levels
 type: analysis
-version: v0.4
+version: v0.5
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"ICP\", \"pricing\", \"channels\"]"
-interview_depth: light
+context_intake: scoped
 ---
 
 ## 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.
 
 # Retro — Strategic Decision Retrospective
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/retro/archive/v0.4/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+---
+name: retro
+description: Strategic decision retrospective — review research decisions against actual outcomes, update confidence levels
+type: analysis
+version: v0.4
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"ICP\", \"pricing\", \"channels\"]"
+interview_depth: light
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# Retro — Strategic Decision Retrospective
+
+Reviews decisions made in research docs against actual outcomes. Was the primary ICP right? Did pricing work? Did the launch channel deliver? Captures lessons and updates confidence levels across all research documents.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: At least 2 research docs must exist, AND at least one source of outcome data must exist (`research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/cohort-review-*.md`, or `research/runway-model.md`). If no outcome data exists, tell the user there's nothing to retrospect against yet and stop.
+- **Soft**: The more research + outcome data exists, the richer the retro. Reads all of: `research/icp.md`, `research/competitive-analysis.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, `research/metrics.md`, `research/gtm.md`, `research/monetization.md`, `research/positioning.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/cohort-review-*.md`, `research/runway-model.md`, `research/experiments/*.md`.
+
+## 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 Everything
+
+Read ALL research documents and outcome data. Build a map of:
+- **Decisions made**: Key choices documented in each research file (primary ICP, pricing model, launch channel, positioning, etc.)
+- **Predictions/targets**: Expected outcomes (metric targets, revenue projections, conversion estimates)
+- **Actual outcomes**: Real data from customer feedback, cohort reviews, runway model, experiment results
+
+### 2. Decision-by-Decision Review
+
+For each major decision found in research docs:
+
+#### A. ICP Decisions (from `research/icp.md`)
+- Was the primary ICP selection correct?
+- Did the pain points rank correctly?
+- Were the trigger events accurate?
+- Did the market sizing hold up?
+
+#### B. Competitive Decisions (from `research/competitive-analysis.md`)
+- Did the competitive landscape change?
+- Were the identified gaps real?
+- Did differentiation hold?
+
+#### C. Journey Decisions (from `research/journey-map.md`)
+- Did users follow the mapped journey?
+- Was the aha moment correctly identified?
+- Were the churn triggers right?
+
+#### D. Metrics Decisions (from `research/metrics.md`)
+- Were targets realistic?
+- Was the North Star metric the right choice?
+- Which metrics turned out to be leading vs. lagging indicators?
+
+#### E. GTM Decisions (from `research/gtm.md`)
+- Did the primary channel work?
+- Was the messaging effective?
+- Did the launch plan execute as designed?
+
+#### F. Monetization Decisions (from `research/monetization.md`)
+- Was the pricing model correct?
+- Were price points right?
+- Did unit economics match estimates?
+
+#### G. Positioning Decisions (from `research/positioning.md`)
+- Was the market category right?
+- Did the competitive framing resonate?
+- Was the target segment correct?
+
+For each decision, classify:
+- **Correct** — the decision was right, outcomes match
+- **Partially correct** — directionally right but details were off
+- **Wrong** — the decision was incorrect and outcomes show it
+- **Unknown** — insufficient outcome data to judge
+
+### 3. Pattern Analysis
+
+Look across all decisions for patterns:
+- **Systematic biases** — are we consistently too optimistic? Too conservative? Biased toward certain segments?
+- **Research gaps** — which decisions had the least evidence and turned out wrong?
+- **Compounding errors** — where did one wrong decision cascade into others?
+- **Surprising successes** — what worked that we didn't expect?
+- **Timing issues** — were decisions right but timing wrong?
+
+### 4. Present & Validate
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present findings:
+- Summary of decisions reviewed and their correctness
+- Key patterns identified
+- Recommendations for which research docs to re-run
+
+Ask:
+- "Does this assessment feel accurate? Any decisions I'm judging too harshly or too generously?"
+- "Any context I'm missing about why certain decisions were made?"
+- "What surprised you most in practice vs. what the research predicted?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 5. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF ICP decisions were wrong: `/customer-discovery` — Re-run customer discovery with what you now know
+- IF pricing was wrong: `/monetization` — Revisit pricing with real revenue data
+- IF channels underperformed: `/gtm` — Update GTM with actual channel performance
+- IF assumptions tracker exists: `/assumption-tracker` — Bulk-update validation status from retro findings
+- IF metrics targets were off: `/metrics` — Recalibrate targets based on baseline reality
+- IF multiple docs need updating: `/reconcile-research` — Audit all research for consistency after retro findings
+- ALWAYS: `/research-roadmap` — Check overall project status
+
+### 6. Write Output
+
+Present final retro to user. Ask:
+- "Ready to write this? Anything to adjust?"
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/retro-[YYYY-MM-DD].md` (or `research/{slug}/retro-[YYYY-MM-DD].md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Strategic Retro: [Date]
+
+> Date: [current date]
+> Period reviewed: [timeframe — e.g., "launch through Q1 2026"]
+> Research docs reviewed: [count]
+> Outcome data sources: [list]
+
+## Summary
+
+[3-5 sentences: the headline findings — what was right, what was wrong, and the biggest lesson]
+
+## Decision Scorecard
+
+| Area | Decision | Status | Evidence | Impact |
+|------|----------|--------|----------|--------|
+| ICP | [decision] | Correct/Partial/Wrong/Unknown | [data source] | [what it affected] |
+| Competitive | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+| Journey | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+| Metrics | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+| GTM | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+| Monetization | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+| Positioning | [decision] | ... | ... | ... |
+
+**Score**: [X/Y correct] — [percentage]
+
+## Detailed Analysis
+
+### What We Got Right
+[Decisions that were correct and why — what made the research good here]
+
+1. **[Decision]** — [evidence it was right] — [lesson: what to keep doing]
+2. ...
+
+### What We Got Wrong
+[Decisions that were wrong and why — what the research missed]
+
+1. **[Decision]** — [evidence it was wrong] — [lesson: what to change]
+2. ...
+
+### What We Got Partially Right
+[Decisions that were directionally correct but details were off]
+
+1. **[Decision]** — [what was right, what was off] — [lesson]
+2. ...
+
+## Patterns
+
+### Systematic Biases
+[Recurring patterns in how decisions were made — e.g., consistently overestimating market size, underestimating competition]
+
+### Research Gaps
+[Where lack of evidence led to wrong decisions — what should have been researched more]
+
+### Compounding Errors
+[Where one wrong decision led to others — the chain of consequences]
+
+## Confidence Updates
+
+Research docs that should be re-run based on retro findings:
+
+| Document | Current Confidence | Recommended Action | Why |
+|----------|-------------------|-------------------|-----|
+| research/icp.md | [High/Med/Low] | [Re-run / Update section / Keep] | [reason] |
+| research/gtm.md | [High/Med/Low] | [Re-run / Update section / Keep] | [reason] |
+| ... | | | |
+
+## Lessons Learned
+
+1. **[Lesson title]** — [description — specific, actionable, grounded in evidence from this retro]
+2. ...
+
+## Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 5]
+```
+
+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
+
+- **Evidence-based judgments.** Every "correct" or "wrong" assessment must cite specific outcome data. Don't judge decisions without evidence.
+- **No hindsight bias.** Judge decisions based on what was knowable at the time, not what we know now. A decision can be "right process, wrong outcome" — note when this is the case.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented and validated.
+- **Separate dated files.** Each retro is a new file. Don't modify previous retros.
+- **Be constructive.** The goal is learning, not blame. Frame "wrong" decisions as lessons, not failures.
+- **Recommend actions.** Every finding should connect to a concrete next step for improving the research.
+- **Quarterly or milestone-based.** Designed for periodic use, not continuous. Note the recommended next retro date.
+
+## Context Gathering
+
+**Step 1 — Scope questions.** Before researching, ask the user 1–3 questions via `AskUserQuestion` to understand: their product/service, target audience, and what they hope to learn or decide from this research.
+
+**Step 2 — Research.** Conduct research scoped by the user's answers.
+
+**Step 3 — Findings validation.** Before building the alignment page, present the 3–5 most important findings and ask the user to validate or correct any critical assumptions.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/retro-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.