skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

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

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance for business-ops cross-pack recommendations, preserving `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code while offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/risk-register/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: risk-register
 description: Broad risk assessment — key-person, technical, regulatory, competitive, financial, and execution risks beyond product/market
 type: analysis
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"technical\", \"regulatory\", \"financial\"]"
-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.
 
 # Risk Register — Systematic Risk Assessment
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/risk-register/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,226 @@
+---
+name: risk-register
+description: Broad risk assessment — key-person, technical, regulatory, competitive, financial, and execution risks beyond product/market
+type: analysis
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"technical\", \"regulatory\", \"financial\"]"
+interview_depth: light
+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.
+
+# Risk Register — Systematic Risk Assessment
+
+Identifies and tracks risks beyond product/market: key-person, technical, regulatory, competitive, financial, and execution risks. Complements `/assumption-tracker` (which focuses on product/market assumptions) with broader organizational and environmental risks.
+
+## Soft Prerequisites
+
+- Read all that exist: `research/icp.md`, `research/competitive-analysis.md`, `research/gtm.md`, `research/monetization.md`, `research/runway-model.md`, `research/assumption-tracker.md`, CLAUDE.md, README
+- The more context exists, the more thorough the risk identification.
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Load Context
+
+Read all available research docs and codebase files. Extract signals relevant to risk:
+- **Financial**: runway, burn rate, revenue concentration
+- **Technical**: tech debt, single points of failure, scaling concerns
+- **Market**: competitive threats, market shifts, regulatory changes
+- **Team**: key-person dependencies, skill gaps, hiring needs
+- **Execution**: timeline risks, scope creep, dependency chains
+
+### 2. Identify Risks
+
+Use WebSearch with **3-5 targeted queries** for domain-specific risks:
+1. "[industry/category] startup risks"
+2. "[category] regulatory requirements"
+3. "[technology stack] scaling risks"
+4. "[category] common failure modes"
+
+Systematically identify risks in each category:
+
+#### A. Key-Person Risk
+- Single points of failure in the team
+- Critical knowledge held by one person
+- Founder dependency
+
+#### B. Technical Risk
+- Architecture limitations, scaling bottlenecks
+- Security vulnerabilities, data privacy
+- Dependency on third-party services
+- Technical debt accumulation
+
+#### C. Regulatory & Legal Risk
+- Compliance requirements (GDPR, SOC2, industry-specific)
+- IP risks, patent exposure
+- Terms of service dependencies on platforms
+
+#### D. Competitive Risk
+- Well-funded competitor entering the space
+- Platform risk (building on someone else's platform)
+- Open-source alternatives emerging
+
+#### E. Financial Risk
+- Revenue concentration (one big customer)
+- Runway constraints
+- Pricing pressure from competitors
+- Cost structure changes (API pricing, infrastructure)
+
+#### F. Execution Risk
+- Scope creep, feature bloat
+- Hiring challenges
+- Timeline slippage
+- Integration complexity
+
+### 3. Score Each Risk
+
+| Dimension | Scale |
+|-----------|-------|
+| **Likelihood** | 1 (unlikely) → 5 (near certain) |
+| **Impact** | 1 (minor setback) → 5 (existential threat) |
+| **Priority** | Likelihood × Impact (max 25) |
+
+### 4. Define Mitigations
+
+For each high-priority risk (score ≥ 12):
+- **Accept**: Acknowledge and monitor
+- **Mitigate**: Actions to reduce likelihood or impact
+- **Transfer**: Insurance, contracts, or partnerships
+- **Avoid**: Change plans to eliminate the risk
+
+### 5. Present & Validate
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present the top risks:
+- "Here are the highest-priority risks I've identified. Any I'm missing or scoring wrong?"
+- "Are there any risks you're already mitigating that I should note?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 6. Write Output
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/risk-register.md` (or `research/{slug}/risk-register.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Risk Register
+
+> Last updated: [current date]
+> Sources: [research docs reviewed]
+> Total risks: [count] | High priority: [count]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the top risks and overall risk posture]
+
+## Top Risks
+
+| # | Risk | Category | Likelihood | Impact | Priority | Mitigation |
+|---|------|----------|-----------|--------|----------|------------|
+| 1 | [risk] | [category] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [L×I] | [strategy] |
+| ... | | | | | | |
+
+## Key-Person Risks
+| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Priority | Mitigation |
+|------|-----------|--------|----------|------------|
+| [risk] | [1-5] | [1-5] | [L×I] | [action] |
+
+## Technical Risks
+[Same table format]
+
+## Regulatory & Legal Risks
+[Same table format]
+
+## Competitive Risks
+[Same table format]
+
+## Financial Risks
+[Same table format]
+
+## Execution Risks
+[Same table format]
+
+## Mitigation Plan
+
+### Immediate Actions (This Month)
+1. [Action] — mitigates [risk #]
+2. ...
+
+### Ongoing Monitoring
+| Risk | Trigger Signal | Check Frequency |
+|------|---------------|-----------------|
+| [risk] | [what to watch for] | [weekly/monthly/quarterly] |
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [recommended skill] — [one-line reason grounded in the highest-priority risk]
+
+Other options:
+- `/assumption-tracker` — Cross-reference product/market assumptions with these broader risks
+- `/experiment [top risk assumption]` — Test the riskiest uncertainty when it can be validated cheaply
+- `/reconcile-research` — Update downstream research if risk findings contradict existing assumptions
+- `/research-roadmap` — Check overall project status
+```
+
+Create the `research/` directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+### 7. Populate Next Steps
+
+Before writing, choose one recommended next step using the first applicable rule:
+
+1. IF a high-priority risk is a product/market assumption: recommend `/assumption-tracker`.
+2. IF the top risk can be cheaply validated: recommend `/experiment [top risk assumption]`.
+3. IF the findings contradict existing research: recommend `/reconcile-research`.
+4. Otherwise recommend `/research-roadmap`.
+
+## 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
+
+- **Complement, don't duplicate.** Product/market assumptions belong in `/assumption-tracker`. Cover organizational, technical, regulatory, competitive, financial, and execution risks.
+- **Be specific.** "Competition" is not a risk. "Well-funded competitor X launching a free tier in Q3" is.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write until the user validates the assessment.
+- **Score honestly.** Don't inflate risks to seem thorough. Low-probability risks should be scored low.
+- **Update, don't duplicate.** If `research/risk-register.md` exists, ask whether to update or overwrite.
+
+## 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/risk-register-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/runway-model/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@ When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports,
 
 The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected by the upgrade script). The bundled ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md receives tier-appropriate rendering guidance from the generator.
 
+**Context intake.** This skill declares `context_intake: scoped` (Scoped intake). Ask only the focused questions needed to scope the research or analysis, then validate critical findings before building review artifacts.
+
 **Alignment lifecycle.** Alignment pages have three lifecycle states. `review` is the draft/pre-approval page: it contains the complete deliverable preview, evidence, required inline gate questions, section feedback controls, local section-feedback YAML only after a section feedback choice is selected, and one bottom `Compile Responses` control. `confirmed` is the post-approval page after the agent has consumed final compiled response YAML, made any approved user-requested edits, and written or updated the approved canonical artifacts. A confirmed page is finished and current for the completed alignment cycle, but it remains amendable when later research changes or extends the conclusions. `amended` is a future revision of a confirmed page: archive the previous confirmed page first, mark what changed, preserve the prior approval record, and highlight the new evidence, decisions, or scope that changed the earlier conclusion.
 
 **Central alignment index.** When a research-producing skill writes or updates an HTML alignment page, also maintain the repository's central alignment index. Look for `alignment/index.html` at the repository root; if the target repo documents a different central alignment-index path, use that path and report it. If the index does not exist, create it as a self-contained HTML page that works from `file://`, links to every active `alignment/*.html` page except itself, and includes the newly written page. Every index entry must include the page's alignment date in a muted meta span after the link, formatted `YYYY-MM-DD`, for example `<a href="page.html">Title</a> <span class="meta">2026-06-09</span>`. The alignment date is the review or confirmed date written inside the page itself; new pages use today's date. If the index exists, update it instead of blindly appending: preserve valid existing entries, metadata, and entry dates; remove duplicate entries for the same page path; keep links repo-relative; and include the new or updated page. When updating an existing index, add a date only to entries that are missing one, deriving it from the page's internal alignment date, or from file history when the page has no internal date. If a `new` marker is used, combine it with the date as `<span class="meta">new · YYYY-MM-DD</span>`, and remove stale `new` markers from entries that are no longer the latest addition.
@@ -57,7 +59,9 @@ The tier is set per skill via `visual_tier` in SKILL.md frontmatter (or detected
 
 **Report-only research gates.** For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the first `review` alignment page must explicitly contain proposed research scope, source plan, assumptions/confidence, recommended output path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before synthesized research begins and before any working packet, canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.
 
-**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-runway-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-runway-model-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+**Staged research workflow.** Heavy report-first research uses a scope-first three-stage approval workflow. Stage 1 is minimal scope discovery only: inspect enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, research-scope approval gates, and a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that shows the future Stage 2 review shape before research starts. Stop for final compiled response YAML approval of the research scope. Do not synthesize findings, rank candidates, recommend a path, or create working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1. Stage 2 starts only after final compiled response YAML approves the research scope with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet. Flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-runway-model-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-runway-model-research.md`. Existing raw evidence or search-log outputs may remain as supporting evidence when the skill contract already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the same `review` alignment page so it renders the complete working-packet substance as structured HTML review UI: purpose-built sections, tables, matrices, gates, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams that preserve every packet section, finding, caveat, and decision detail without summary loss. Raw Markdown packet text may appear only as a supplemental source view after the rendered review UI; do not make a `Full Preliminary Packet` or `Full Working Packet` raw Markdown dump, giant `<pre><code>` block, link-only view, or source-only view the primary review surface. Include the evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Partial compiled responses revise the working packet and review page, then remain in Stage 2. Stage 3 consumes final compiled response YAML for artifact approval only when it has `approval_status: ready-for-agent-review` and no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths, and convert the page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+**Stage 2 review-page template.** Stage 1 scope-review pages must include a `Stage 2 Preview / Expected Review Format` section that previews the exact section sequence, table shapes, evidence treatment, visual density, and approval gates the user will see after research; make it specific enough for the user to flag preferred content formats, grouping, labels, visuals, and evidence density before the agent does heavy research. After scope approval and research, the Stage 2 review page must include these sections as structured HTML, not as raw Markdown dumps: `Research Scope Approved` status block with approved scope, source plan, output paths, and unresolved caveats; `Executive Findings` or a skill-specific top-findings section with confidence labels; `Evidence Matrix` mapping claim, evidence/source/path, inference, confidence, assumptions, and decision impact; `Working Packet Review` with the complete working-packet substance rendered as purpose-built HTML sections, lists, tables, matrices, cards, and tier-appropriate charts or diagrams; `Alternatives / Rejected or Lower-Confidence Findings`; `Source Coverage & Gaps`; `Assumptions / Confidence Register`; `Proposed Canonical Artifacts & File Changes`; a required `User Format Preferences` gate asking whether the layout, tables, grouping, visuals, labels, and evidence density match expectations; and a required `Final Artifact Approval` gate for Stage 3 readiness. Raw Markdown packet text, search logs, or source notes may appear only as supplemental source views after the rendered review UI and never replace the Stage 2 review sections.
 
 **Visual tier rendering.** This skill's alignment page uses the `visual` tier. Inline charts and diagrams are rendered via self-contained Canvas/SVG within the HTML file. Use the alignment chart snippet library (`scripts/alignment-chart-snippets.js`) as reference — copy needed chart functions directly into the page's `<script>` block. Charts must read CSS variables (`--chart-1` through `--chart-8`) for the data visualization palette. Every chart must include a `<table>` fallback, `aria-label` on canvas/SVG, and a "View as table" toggle. Data is embedded as inline JSON — no external fetches.
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/runway-model/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,9 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.4 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.3 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance for business-ops cross-pack recommendations, preserving `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code while offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-ops/claude/runway-model/SKILL.md

@@ -2,15 +2,15 @@
 name: runway-model
 description: Financial runway & unit economics tracker — burn rate, revenue trajectory, runway in months, scenario modeling
 type: analysis
-version: v0.3
+version: v0.4
 argument-hint: "[file path to financials, pasted data, or empty to be prompted]"
-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.
 
 # Runway Model — Financial Runway & Unit Economics
 

package/packs/business-ops/claude/runway-model/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,284 @@
+---
+name: runway-model
+description: Financial runway & unit economics tracker — burn rate, revenue trajectory, runway in months, scenario modeling
+type: analysis
+version: v0.3
+argument-hint: "[file path to financials, pasted data, or empty to be prompted]"
+interview_depth: light
+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.
+
+# Runway Model — Financial Runway & Unit Economics
+
+Simple financial model: burn rate, revenue trajectory, runway in months, and scenario modeling. Takes real numbers, projects forward with optimistic/realistic/pessimistic scenarios. Append-only updates for tracking over time.
+
+## Soft Prerequisites
+
+- Read `research/monetization.md` if it exists — theoretical unit economics and pricing to compare against actuals
+- Read `research/metrics.md` if it exists — growth rate targets for projections
+- Read `research/cohort-review-*.md` if any exist — real performance data for revenue trajectory
+- Read `research/gtm.md` if it exists — channel costs for CAC calculations
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Load Context & Data
+
+**Load research context:** Read all soft prerequisite files.
+
+**Ingest financial data:**
+Check `$ARGUMENTS`:
+- **File path provided**: Read the file
+- **Text provided**: Parse the data directly
+- **Empty**: Use AskUserQuestion to gather the numbers
+
+**Required inputs** (ask for each that's missing):
+- Monthly burn rate (total expenses)
+- Current cash/bank balance
+- Monthly revenue (if any)
+- Revenue growth rate (if applicable)
+- Team size and key cost categories
+
+**Nice-to-have inputs:**
+- Detailed cost breakdown (salaries, infrastructure, tools, marketing)
+- Customer count and ARPU
+- CAC by channel
+- Churn rate
+- Expected cost changes (new hires, infrastructure scaling)
+
+### 2. Calculate Core Metrics
+
+**Runway calculation:**
+- **Gross burn**: Total monthly expenses
+- **Net burn**: Expenses minus revenue
+- **Runway (months)**: Cash balance ÷ net burn
+- **Zero-cash date**: Projected date when cash runs out
+
+**Unit economics (if revenue exists):**
+- **MRR / ARR**: Monthly/annual recurring revenue
+- **ARPU**: Average revenue per user
+- **CAC**: Customer acquisition cost (if channel spend data available)
+- **LTV**: Lifetime value (ARPU × average lifespan, or ARPU ÷ monthly churn rate)
+- **LTV:CAC ratio**: Is acquisition sustainable?
+- **Payback period**: Months to recover CAC
+- **Gross margin**: Revenue minus cost of delivery
+
+Compare actuals against theoretical estimates from `research/monetization.md` if it exists.
+
+### 3. Scenario Modeling
+
+Build three scenarios projecting 12 months forward:
+
+**Pessimistic** (what if things go wrong):
+- Revenue grows at 50% of current rate (or flat)
+- Costs increase 10-20% (unexpected expenses, needed hires)
+- Churn increases
+- Runway: [months]
+
+**Realistic** (current trajectory continues):
+- Revenue grows at current rate
+- Costs grow as planned
+- Churn stays flat
+- Runway: [months]
+
+**Optimistic** (what if things go well):
+- Revenue grows at 150-200% of current rate
+- Costs stay controlled
+- Churn decreases
+- Runway: [months]
+
+For each scenario, show monthly projections for cash balance, revenue, and expenses.
+
+### 4. Identify Critical Decisions
+
+Based on the model:
+- **Break-even point**: When does revenue cover expenses? (per scenario)
+- **Hiring runway**: Can you afford to hire? When?
+- **Marketing budget**: How much can you spend on acquisition?
+- **Runway triggers**: At what cash balance should you raise, cut costs, or change strategy?
+- **Revenue milestones needed**: What MRR is needed to extend runway to [target]?
+
+### 5. Present & Validate
+
+Use AskUserQuestion to present:
+- Core metrics summary
+- Three scenarios with runway projections
+- Critical decisions and trigger points
+
+Ask:
+- "Do these numbers match your records? Any costs or revenue I'm missing?"
+- "Are the scenario assumptions realistic? Too conservative or too aggressive?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 6. Populate Next Steps
+
+Include 3–5 applicable items with "Pick one:" framing:
+
+- IF runway < 6 months: Prioritize revenue — `/experiment` to validate fastest path to revenue, or cut costs
+- IF unit economics unhealthy (LTV:CAC < 3): `/monetization` — Revisit pricing or acquisition strategy
+- IF no `research/cohort-review-*.md`: `/cohort-review` — Get real performance data to improve projections
+- IF actuals diverge from monetization estimates: `/monetization` — Update strategy with real data
+- ALWAYS: `/roadmap` — Ensure build plan accounts for runway constraints
+
+### 7. Write Output
+
+Present final model to user. Ask:
+- "Ready to write this? Anything to adjust?"
+
+Only after confirmation, write the output file.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/runway-model.md` (or `research/{slug}/runway-model.md`)
+
+Append-only — each update adds a new section at the top (below the header). Previous snapshots remain for historical tracking.
+
+```markdown
+# Runway Model
+
+> Last updated: [current date]
+> Snapshots: [total count]
+
+## Latest Snapshot: [Month Year]
+
+> Data source: [where the numbers came from]
+> As of: [date of financial data]
+
+### Core Metrics
+
+| Metric | Value | vs. Last Snapshot |
+|--------|-------|-------------------|
+| Cash balance | $[amount] | [+/- change] |
+| Monthly revenue (MRR) | $[amount] | [+/- change] |
+| Gross burn | $[amount/mo] | [+/- change] |
+| Net burn | $[amount/mo] | [+/- change] |
+| Runway | [months] | [+/- change] |
+| Zero-cash date | [date] | [+/- change] |
+
+### Unit Economics
+
+| Metric | Actual | Target (from monetization) | Status |
+|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
+| ARPU | $[amount] | $[target] | [On/Below/Above] |
+| CAC | $[amount] | $[target] | [On/Below/Above] |
+| LTV | $[amount] | $[target] | [On/Below/Above] |
+| LTV:CAC | [ratio] | [target] | [Healthy/Unhealthy] |
+| Payback period | [months] | [target] | [On/Below/Above] |
+| Gross margin | [%] | [target] | [On/Below/Above] |
+
+### Cost Breakdown
+
+| Category | Monthly Cost | % of Total | Trend |
+|----------|-------------|------------|-------|
+| Salaries/contractors | $[amount] | [%] | [↑↓→] |
+| Infrastructure | $[amount] | [%] | [↑↓→] |
+| Tools & services | $[amount] | [%] | [↑↓→] |
+| Marketing/ads | $[amount] | [%] | [↑↓→] |
+| Other | $[amount] | [%] | [↑↓→] |
+
+### Revenue Breakdown
+
+| Source | MRR | Customers | ARPU | Growth |
+|--------|-----|-----------|------|--------|
+| [tier/product] | $[amount] | [count] | $[amount] | [%/mo] |
+
+### 12-Month Projections
+
+#### Pessimistic
+| Month | Revenue | Expenses | Net Burn | Cash Balance |
+|-------|---------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| [M1] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] |
+| ... | | | | |
+**Runway**: [months] | **Break-even**: [month or "not in window"]
+
+#### Realistic
+| Month | Revenue | Expenses | Net Burn | Cash Balance |
+|-------|---------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| [M1] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] |
+| ... | | | | |
+**Runway**: [months] | **Break-even**: [month or "not in window"]
+
+#### Optimistic
+| Month | Revenue | Expenses | Net Burn | Cash Balance |
+|-------|---------|----------|----------|-------------|
+| [M1] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] | $[amt] |
+| ... | | | | |
+**Runway**: [months] | **Break-even**: [month or "not in window"]
+
+### Assumptions
+[List every assumption behind the projections — growth rates, churn rates, cost changes, hiring plans]
+
+### Critical Decisions
+
+| Trigger | Condition | Action |
+|---------|-----------|--------|
+| Low runway | Cash < $[amount] or < [months] runway | [action: raise, cut, pivot] |
+| Break-even path | Need $[MRR] by [date] | [what must happen to get there] |
+| Hiring decision | Can afford hire when runway > [months] | [role and timing] |
+| Marketing budget | Can spend $[amount/mo] on acquisition | [when and how] |
+
+### Next Steps
+
+Pick one:
+- [conditional items from step 6]
+
+---
+
+[Previous snapshots remain below, newest first]
+```
+
+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
+
+- **Real numbers only.** Do not fabricate financial data. If numbers aren't provided, ask for them.
+- **Append-only.** Previous snapshots are never deleted or modified. Only add new snapshots at the top.
+- **State assumptions.** Every projection must list its assumptions explicitly. Never present projections as predictions.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until the model has been presented and validated.
+- **Conservative by default.** When estimating, err on the conservative side. Optimistic projections should be labeled clearly.
+- **No investment advice.** This is a planning tool, not financial advice. Note this in the output.
+- **Privacy-aware.** Financial data is sensitive. Do not log raw financial data to search logs or interview logs.
+
+## 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/runway-model-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.