skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+---
+name: strategic-group-map
+description: Strategic group map competitive analysis - cluster competitors by market axes and identify segment whitespace
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Strategic Group Map - Competitive Cluster Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `/competitive-analysis/frameworks/strategic-group-map`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `/competitive-analysis`. It maps competitors into strategic groups using evidence-backed axes so the parent synthesis can reason about clusters, crowded zones, and whitespace. It must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, positioning research, journey research, customer feedback, and specs.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load seeded competitors and use web search to broaden the competitor list enough for meaningful clustering.
+2. Select 2-3 evidence-backed axes, such as:
+   - enterprise vs SMB
+   - high-service vs self-serve
+   - broad platform vs focused workflow
+   - premium vs low-cost
+   - incumbent suite vs specialist tool
+3. Place competitors on the map only when evidence supports their position.
+4. Identify clusters, crowded zones, underserved segments, and competitors that blur categories.
+5. Record axis uncertainty and alternative maps when the market does not fit one clean 2x2.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Strategic Group Map
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Strategic Group Mapping
+
+## Axis Selection
+| Axis | Why It Matters | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------|----------------|----------|------------|
+
+## Competitor Placement
+| Competitor | Axis 1 Position | Axis 2 Position | Group | Evidence | Confidence |
+|------------|-----------------|-----------------|-------|----------|------------|
+
+## Strategic Groups
+[Named clusters, shared traits, and how they compete]
+
+## Whitespace And Crowded Zones
+[Underserved spaces and over-served clusters]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not force a 2x2 when the market needs a table or multiple maps; explain the limitation.
+- Competitor placement must cite evidence.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/strategic-group-map-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

@@ -57,7 +57,13 @@ 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-swot-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-swot-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-swot-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-swot-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.
+
+**SWOT translation.** Research focus: Classify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats with evidence for each item. Separate internal facts from external market signals, inference from assumption, confidence level, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render four SWOT quadrants plus a prioritized evidence table that maps each item to source, confidence, owner scope, time horizon, and recommended action or watch item. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm quadrant placement, priority, evidence sufficiency, stale or missing sources, overclaimed strengths, understated threats, and implications for the parent competitive recommendation. 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.
+
+**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.
 
 **Glossary Additions gate.** When this research introduces domain-specific terms, acronyms, or concept definitions that a reader outside the project would not know, include a `## Glossary Additions` section in the alignment page. Render a table of proposed terms with columns: Term, Definition, Source (`swot`), Category (business/tooling/workflow/technical/domain), and per-term Approve/Edit/Reject/Flag radio controls. Only user-approved terms are appended to the target glossary (`research/glossary.md` or `research/{slug}/glossary.md` for scoped paths) during the confirmed-page write step. When the skill operates in a product-path scope, ask whether each term belongs in the parent or scoped glossary; default to the scoped glossary.
 

package/packs/business-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # 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 - 2026-06-12
+
+- Standardized active pack and skill install guidance on `npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>` instead of agent-native `/pack install` or `$pack install` recommendations.
+
 ## v0.2 - 2026-06-10
 
 - Added npm-aware `npx skillpacks install <pack>` wording to the Pack Availability Guard while preserving runner-specific in-agent pack install routes.

package/packs/business-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: swot
 description: SWOT competitive analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in market evidence
 type: research
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.4
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: competitive-analysis
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
 
 # SWOT - Competitive Evidence Analysis
 
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ 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-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+name: swot
+description: SWOT competitive analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in market evidence
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# SWOT - Competitive Evidence Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `/competitive-analysis`. It translates product, customer, and competitor evidence into a SWOT matrix for parent synthesis. It must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and source files that reveal product capability.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load product/customer context and seeded competitors.
+2. Use web search and repo evidence to identify competitor strengths, weaknesses, unmet opportunities, and threats.
+3. Separate internal-ish product evidence from external market evidence:
+   - strengths and weaknesses must be grounded in actual product/repo/research capability, not aspiration
+   - opportunities and threats must be grounded in competitor, market, customer, or trend evidence
+4. Score each SWOT item by evidence strength and strategic relevance.
+5. Identify contradictions or uncertain assumptions for parent synthesis.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-swot.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-swot.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# SWOT Competitive Analysis
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: SWOT
+
+## SWOT Matrix
+| Quadrant | Item | Evidence | Confidence | Synthesis Implication |
+|----------|------|----------|------------|-----------------------|
+| Strength | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Weakness | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Opportunity | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Threat | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+
+## Strategic Tensions
+[Where strengths meet threats, weaknesses block opportunities, or evidence conflicts]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not invent strengths from product aspirations; cite repo/research evidence.
+- Do not turn SWOT into positioning or feature recommendations.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/swot-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+---
+name: swot
+description: SWOT competitive analysis - strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in market evidence
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: competitive-analysis
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# SWOT - Competitive Evidence Analysis
+
+Invoke from the parent queue as `/competitive-analysis/frameworks/swot`.
+
+This is a framework subskill for `/competitive-analysis`. It translates product, customer, and competitor evidence into a SWOT matrix for parent synthesis. It must not emit downstream next-step routing.
+
+## 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.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or product-path equivalent. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or product-path equivalent plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Existing competitive framework outputs, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and source files that reveal product capability.
+
+## Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope from `research/.progress.yaml` and active non-archived paths before writing under `research/{slug}/`.
+
+## Process
+
+1. Load product/customer context and seeded competitors.
+2. Use web search and repo evidence to identify competitor strengths, weaknesses, unmet opportunities, and threats.
+3. Separate internal-ish product evidence from external market evidence:
+   - strengths and weaknesses must be grounded in actual product/repo/research capability, not aspiration
+   - opportunities and threats must be grounded in competitor, market, customer, or trend evidence
+4. Score each SWOT item by evidence strength and strategic relevance.
+5. Identify contradictions or uncertain assumptions for parent synthesis.
+6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/competitive-analysis-swot.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-swot.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# SWOT Competitive Analysis
+
+> Based on: [parent context, sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: SWOT
+
+## SWOT Matrix
+| Quadrant | Item | Evidence | Confidence | Synthesis Implication |
+|----------|------|----------|------------|-----------------------|
+| Strength | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Weakness | [item] | [source/repo evidence] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Opportunity | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+| Threat | [item] | [source] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
+
+## Strategic Tensions
+[Where strengths meet threats, weaknesses block opportunities, or evidence conflicts]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Do not invent strengths from product aspirations; cite repo/research evidence.
+- Do not turn SWOT into positioning or feature recommendations.
+- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.
+
+## 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/swot-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md

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

@@ -1,5 +1,20 @@
+# Changelog
+
+## v1.5 - 2026-06-13
+
+- Removed direct execution-loop command handoffs from non-exec routing; route through approved YAML, task, or roadmap artifacts instead.
+
+
 # customer-discovery changelog (claude)
 
+## v1.4 - 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.
+
+## v1.3 - 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.
+
 ## v1.2 - 2026-06-11
 
 - Added npm-aware install-route guidance so unavailable-pack fallbacks keep `/pack install` while also offering `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell.

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/SKILL.md

@@ -2,16 +2,16 @@
 name: customer-discovery
 description: Orchestrator — detect pre-product vs product-exists mode, bootstrap ICP candidates, recommend customer-discovery frameworks, synthesize outputs into unified ICP research
 type: research
-version: v1.2
+version: v1.5
 argument-hint: "[optional: \"discovery\" | \"validate\" | \"--synthesize\" | concept/idea, spec file path]"
 invocation: orchestrator
-interview_depth: full
+context_intake: deep
 visual_tier: visual
 ---
 
 ## Pack Availability Guard
 
-Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. 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.
+Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell, instead of the target skill. 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.
 
 # Customer Discovery — Orchestrator
 
@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ 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.
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ Write selected frameworks as sequential steps in `tasks/todo.md`:
 
 Only include frameworks the user selected. Always append the synthesis step last.
 
-Stop after writing `tasks/todo.md`. The user runs `/exec` to execute each framework sequentially.
+Stop after writing `tasks/todo.md`. The approved task artifact records the ordered framework execution and synthesis steps.
 
 ### 6. Mode B — Synthesis (`/customer-discovery --synthesize`)
 
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ After user approval via final compiled YAML, write this execution plan to `tasks
 - [ ] Synthesize: `/customer-discovery --synthesize` — Write research/icp.md
 ```
 
-Stop — user runs `/exec`.
+Stop; the approved task artifact is the routing contract.
 
 ### 8. Mode D — Validation Shortcut (`/customer-discovery validate`)
 
@@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ After user approval via final compiled YAML, write this execution plan to `tasks
 - [ ] Synthesize: `/customer-discovery --synthesize` — Write research/icp.md
 ```
 
-Stop — user runs `/exec`.
+Stop; the approved task artifact is the routing contract.
 
 ### 9. Next Steps (after synthesis only)
 
@@ -324,9 +324,9 @@ Before writing, check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section
 
 - ALWAYS: `/competitive-analysis` — Research competitors and market gaps for this ICP
 - IF no `specs/` directory or it's empty: `/competitive-analysis` — Map the competitive landscape for this ICP's market
-- IF `specs/` exist but no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install customer-lifecycle` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/journey-map`
-- IF codebase exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install business-ops` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/mvp-gap`
-- IF `research/competitive-analysis.md` exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-design` — if not enabled, recommend `/pack install product-design` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install product-design` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/brainstorm`
+- IF `specs/` exist but no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install customer-lifecycle` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/journey-map`
+- IF codebase exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install business-ops` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/mvp-gap`
+- IF `research/competitive-analysis.md` exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `product-design` — if not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install product-design` from the project shell; if enabled, recommend `/brainstorm`
 
 **Impact-aware adjustments:**
 - IF downstream impact is **Major**: prepend `/reconcile-research — [N] conflicts found in downstream docs` as the first item
@@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
 
 ## Constraints
 
-- **Parent does not execute frameworks.** It bootstraps candidates, selects frameworks, and synthesizes. `/exec` handles framework execution.
+- **Parent does not execute frameworks.** It bootstraps candidates, selects frameworks, and synthesizes. the approved task artifact records framework execution.
 - **Synthesis requires at least one framework output.** Do not synthesize from zero evidence.
 - **Mode detection is evidence-based.** Do not override mode detection without user confirmation.
 - **Stay in problem space.** Do not propose features, architecture, UI, or technical solutions. That is `/spec-interview`'s job.