skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/frameworks/pmf-engine/archive/v0.2/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+---
+name: pmf-engine
+description: Vohra/Supan PMF Engine - evaluate existing user data with Sean Ellis PMF signal, very-disappointed segmentation, retention/usage evidence, and High-Expectation Customer synthesis
+type: research
+version: v0.2
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: customer-discovery
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# PMF Engine - Vohra/Supan Product-Market Fit Analysis
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
+- For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If neither exists, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: Real user or customer evidence must exist. Acceptable evidence includes `research/customer-feedback.md`, survey/interview data, support tickets, churn/retention notes, product analytics, sales calls, usage logs, or a user-provided dataset. If no real-user evidence exists, explain that PMF Engine is unavailable for pre-product work and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/competitive-analysis.md`, specs, product analytics exports, NPS/CSAT reports, cohort retention data, customer support records, sales notes, and codebase context when available.
+
+## 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.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`.
+
+### 1. Load Context And Evidence
+
+- Read ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md`.
+- Read real-user evidence: `research/customer-feedback.md`, survey results, interview notes, support tickets, sales notes, churn notes, retention/cohort reports, product analytics, usage logs, or user-provided datasets.
+- Read idea brief, competitive analysis, specs, README, CLAUDE.md, and codebase context when available.
+- Classify evidence by source type, recency, sample size, segment coverage, and bias risk.
+- Separate actual observed user/customer data from founder hypotheses, analyst inference, and marketing claims.
+
+### 2. Data Readiness And PMF Survey Coverage
+
+Assess whether the evidence can support the Vohra/Superhuman PMF Engine and HXC synthesis:
+
+**PMF survey availability**
+- Whether the Sean Ellis question is present: "How would you feel if you could no longer use this product?"
+- Response distribution across Very disappointed, Somewhat disappointed, Not disappointed, and N/A.
+- Sample size, response bias, segment coverage, and whether respondents are active users.
+- Whether supporting questions exist: who would benefit most, main benefit received, alternatives used, and desired improvements.
+
+**Behavioral evidence availability**
+- Retention, activation, frequency, depth of use, expansion, repeat purchase, or renewal data.
+- Qualitative evidence from interviews, support, churn reasons, sales calls, and onboarding notes.
+- Segment-level differences between high-love users and lukewarm or churned users.
+
+**Data-readiness verdict**
+- Classify as Strong / Partial / Insufficient.
+- If insufficient, identify the minimum evidence needed before PMF Engine can produce a reliable verdict.
+
+### 3. Sean Ellis PMF Signal
+
+When survey data exists, calculate and interpret PMF signal:
+
+**Very-disappointed threshold**
+- Calculate the percentage of respondents who would be Very disappointed.
+- Treat 40%+ as a positive PMF signal, but do not treat it as sufficient by itself.
+- Segment the signal by ICP candidate, role, company type, use case, acquisition source, tenure, and engagement where evidence allows.
+
+**Signal quality**
+- Check whether respondents are representative of the target user base.
+- Identify inflated signal risks: tiny sample size, only enthusiasts responding, founder-picked respondents, inactive-user exclusion, or ambiguous product definition.
+- Identify hidden weak spots: users love one workflow but reject the broader product, decision-makers differ from daily users, or retention contradicts survey love.
+
+### 4. Very-Disappointed Segment Analysis
+
+Analyze the "very disappointed" cohort to identify who gets irreplaceable value:
+
+**Segment attributes**
+- Role, company type, size, maturity, workflow, urgency, technical readiness, buying context, and product use case.
+- Acquisition path and activation path.
+- Retention, expansion, support burden, and engagement patterns.
+
+**Loved benefit**
+- The specific outcome, workflow, or emotional relief that makes the product hard to lose.
+- User language for the benefit, not only agent summaries.
+- Differences between what users say they value and what their behavior indicates.
+
+**Alternatives and switching**
+- What users would do without the product.
+- Which alternatives are inadequate and why.
+- Whether users are switching from nothing, manual workarounds, an incumbent tool, or another team member's labor.
+
+### 5. High-Expectation Customer Synthesis
+
+Synthesize the High-Expectation Customer (HXC): the most discerning customer within the target market who still gets exceptional value.
+
+**HXC profile**
+- Who they are, what they are trying to accomplish, and why their expectations are high.
+- What makes them hard to satisfy and why the product still works for them.
+- What they refuse to tolerate: workflow friction, missing integrations, quality gaps, risk, pricing friction, or trust issues.
+
+**HXC value wedge**
+- The narrow product promise that this customer would miss most.
+- Why the promise is meaningfully better than alternatives for this segment.
+- Which product qualities must remain non-negotiable to keep the HXC.
+
+**Exclusion logic**
+- Adjacent users or buyers who look attractive but do not fit the HXC.
+- Segments with high willingness but poor retention, high usage but no budget, or strong pain but no realistic success path.
+
+### 6. Target Segment And Product Focus
+
+Use PMF signal and HXC synthesis to narrow ICP recommendations:
+
+**Primary segment**
+- Recommend the segment with the strongest combination of PMF signal, behavioral evidence, HXC fit, and business viability.
+- Explain whether the segment is ready for positioning, requires more validation, or should remain provisional.
+
+**Product focus**
+- Identify the features, workflows, or promises to double down on for the target segment.
+- Identify requests to ignore, defer, or treat as segment-specific because they dilute the loved benefit.
+- Identify onboarding, activation, or messaging changes that could increase very-disappointed share.
+
+**Risks**
+- Retention contradiction, buyer/user mismatch, sample-size weakness, insufficient product maturity, low willingness to pay, or overfitting to a small enthusiastic group.
+
+### 7. Validate With User
+
+Present PMF signal, very-disappointed segment analysis, HXC synthesis, and target-segment recommendation. Ask for corrections on:
+- Evidence completeness: missing surveys, interviews, analytics, churn notes, or support records.
+- Segment accuracy: whether the high-love segment matches known users and buyers.
+- HXC realism: whether the proposed HXC is demanding enough and still reachable.
+- Product focus: whether the recommended double-downs and exclusions match known product strategy.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/customer-discovery-pmf-engine.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-discovery-pmf-engine.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# PMF Engine Analysis
+
+> Based on: [sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Vohra/Supan PMF Engine (Sean Ellis PMF signal, Very-Disappointed segmentation, High-Expectation Customer synthesis)
+
+## Data Readiness
+| Evidence Type | Available? | Sample / Coverage | Bias Risk | Notes |
+|---------------|------------|-------------------|-----------|-------|
+| PMF survey | Yes/No/Partial | [count/segments] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Behavioral usage | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Retention/churn | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Customer interviews/support | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+
+## PMF Signal
+| Segment | Very Disappointed % | Sample Size | Supportive Behavioral Evidence | Confidence |
+|---------|---------------------|-------------|--------------------------------|------------|
+| [segment] | [percent] | [n] | [retention/usage/renewal] | High/Medium/Low |
+
+## Very-Disappointed Segment
+### Segment Attributes
+- [role/company/use case/maturity/acquisition path]
+
+### Loved Benefit
+- [user-language description of the benefit users would miss]
+
+### Alternatives
+| Alternative | Why Users Would Switch There | Why It Falls Short | Evidence |
+|-------------|------------------------------|--------------------|----------|
+| [alternative] | [reason] | [gap] | [source] |
+
+## High-Expectation Customer
+### HXC Profile
+- **Customer**: [specific profile]
+- **High expectations**: [what makes them demanding]
+- **Why this product works**: [evidence-backed reason]
+- **Non-negotiables**: [quality/workflow/trust requirements]
+
+### HXC Value Wedge
+- [narrow promise and why it is better than alternatives]
+
+### Exclusions
+| Excluded Segment | Why It Looks Attractive | Why It Is Not HXC | Evidence |
+|------------------|-------------------------|-------------------|----------|
+| [segment] | [signal] | [fit issue] | [source] |
+
+## Target Segment Recommendation
+- **Primary target**: [segment]
+- **Verdict**: Strong PMF signal / partial signal / insufficient evidence
+- **Reasoning**: [evidence-backed rationale]
+- **Product focus**: [double-downs]
+- **Defer or ignore**: [requests/segments/features that dilute focus]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|-----------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+
+## Open Evidence Gaps
+- [gap and what would change the recommendation]
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Use PMF Engine only for product-exists contexts with real user/customer evidence. Do not fabricate PMF signal from market research or founder hypotheses.
+- Do not treat the 40% very-disappointed threshold as a standalone verdict; cross-check it against sample quality, retention, engagement, and segment viability.
+- Preserve the distinction between customer, buyer, user, and HXC.
+- Ground every segment recommendation, exclusion, and product-focus recommendation in evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture - describe PMF, segment focus, and customer evidence implications.
+- Present findings before writing.
+- Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
+- This is a sub-skill - do not emit next-step routing.
+
+## 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/pmf-engine-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/frameworks/pmf-engine/archive/v0.3/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+---
+name: pmf-engine
+description: Vohra/Supan PMF Engine - evaluate existing user data with Sean Ellis PMF signal, very-disappointed segmentation, retention/usage evidence, and High-Expectation Customer synthesis
+type: research
+version: v0.3
+invocation: sub-skill
+parent: customer-discovery
+---
+
+## 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.
+
+# PMF Engine - Vohra/Supan Product-Market Fit Analysis
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
+- For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If neither exists, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Hard**: Real user or customer evidence must exist. Acceptable evidence includes `research/customer-feedback.md`, survey/interview data, support tickets, churn/retention notes, product analytics, sales calls, usage logs, or a user-provided dataset. If no real-user evidence exists, explain that PMF Engine is unavailable for pre-product work and stop.
+- **Soft**: `research/competitive-analysis.md`, specs, product analytics exports, NPS/CSAT reports, cohort retention data, customer support records, sales notes, and codebase context when available.
+
+## 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.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`.
+
+### 1. Load Context And Evidence
+
+- Read ICP candidates from orchestrator working packet (`research/_working/preliminary-customer-discovery-research.md`) or `research/icp.md`.
+- Read real-user evidence: `research/customer-feedback.md`, survey results, interview notes, support tickets, sales notes, churn notes, retention/cohort reports, product analytics, usage logs, or user-provided datasets.
+- Read idea brief, competitive analysis, specs, README, CLAUDE.md, and codebase context when available.
+- Classify evidence by source type, recency, sample size, segment coverage, and bias risk.
+- Separate actual observed user/customer data from founder hypotheses, analyst inference, and marketing claims.
+
+### 2. Data Readiness And PMF Survey Coverage
+
+Assess whether the evidence can support the Vohra/Superhuman PMF Engine and HXC synthesis:
+
+**PMF survey availability**
+- Whether the Sean Ellis question is present: "How would you feel if you could no longer use this product?"
+- Response distribution across Very disappointed, Somewhat disappointed, Not disappointed, and N/A.
+- Sample size, response bias, segment coverage, and whether respondents are active users.
+- Whether supporting questions exist: who would benefit most, main benefit received, alternatives used, and desired improvements.
+
+**Behavioral evidence availability**
+- Retention, activation, frequency, depth of use, expansion, repeat purchase, or renewal data.
+- Qualitative evidence from interviews, support, churn reasons, sales calls, and onboarding notes.
+- Segment-level differences between high-love users and lukewarm or churned users.
+
+**Data-readiness verdict**
+- Classify as Strong / Partial / Insufficient.
+- If insufficient, identify the minimum evidence needed before PMF Engine can produce a reliable verdict.
+
+### 3. Sean Ellis PMF Signal
+
+When survey data exists, calculate and interpret PMF signal:
+
+**Very-disappointed threshold**
+- Calculate the percentage of respondents who would be Very disappointed.
+- Treat 40%+ as a positive PMF signal, but do not treat it as sufficient by itself.
+- Segment the signal by ICP candidate, role, company type, use case, acquisition source, tenure, and engagement where evidence allows.
+
+**Signal quality**
+- Check whether respondents are representative of the target user base.
+- Identify inflated signal risks: tiny sample size, only enthusiasts responding, founder-picked respondents, inactive-user exclusion, or ambiguous product definition.
+- Identify hidden weak spots: users love one workflow but reject the broader product, decision-makers differ from daily users, or retention contradicts survey love.
+
+### 4. Very-Disappointed Segment Analysis
+
+Analyze the "very disappointed" cohort to identify who gets irreplaceable value:
+
+**Segment attributes**
+- Role, company type, size, maturity, workflow, urgency, technical readiness, buying context, and product use case.
+- Acquisition path and activation path.
+- Retention, expansion, support burden, and engagement patterns.
+
+**Loved benefit**
+- The specific outcome, workflow, or emotional relief that makes the product hard to lose.
+- User language for the benefit, not only agent summaries.
+- Differences between what users say they value and what their behavior indicates.
+
+**Alternatives and switching**
+- What users would do without the product.
+- Which alternatives are inadequate and why.
+- Whether users are switching from nothing, manual workarounds, an incumbent tool, or another team member's labor.
+
+### 5. High-Expectation Customer Synthesis
+
+Synthesize the High-Expectation Customer (HXC): the most discerning customer within the target market who still gets exceptional value.
+
+**HXC profile**
+- Who they are, what they are trying to accomplish, and why their expectations are high.
+- What makes them hard to satisfy and why the product still works for them.
+- What they refuse to tolerate: workflow friction, missing integrations, quality gaps, risk, pricing friction, or trust issues.
+
+**HXC value wedge**
+- The narrow product promise that this customer would miss most.
+- Why the promise is meaningfully better than alternatives for this segment.
+- Which product qualities must remain non-negotiable to keep the HXC.
+
+**Exclusion logic**
+- Adjacent users or buyers who look attractive but do not fit the HXC.
+- Segments with high willingness but poor retention, high usage but no budget, or strong pain but no realistic success path.
+
+### 6. Target Segment And Product Focus
+
+Use PMF signal and HXC synthesis to narrow ICP recommendations:
+
+**Primary segment**
+- Recommend the segment with the strongest combination of PMF signal, behavioral evidence, HXC fit, and business viability.
+- Explain whether the segment is ready for positioning, requires more validation, or should remain provisional.
+
+**Product focus**
+- Identify the features, workflows, or promises to double down on for the target segment.
+- Identify requests to ignore, defer, or treat as segment-specific because they dilute the loved benefit.
+- Identify onboarding, activation, or messaging changes that could increase very-disappointed share.
+
+**Risks**
+- Retention contradiction, buyer/user mismatch, sample-size weakness, insufficient product maturity, low willingness to pay, or overfitting to a small enthusiastic group.
+
+### 7. Validate With User
+
+Present PMF signal, very-disappointed segment analysis, HXC synthesis, and target-segment recommendation. Ask for corrections on:
+- Evidence completeness: missing surveys, interviews, analytics, churn notes, or support records.
+- Segment accuracy: whether the high-love segment matches known users and buyers.
+- HXC realism: whether the proposed HXC is demanding enough and still reachable.
+- Product focus: whether the recommended double-downs and exclusions match known product strategy.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/customer-discovery-pmf-engine.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-discovery-pmf-engine.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# PMF Engine Analysis
+
+> Based on: [sources]
+> Date: [current date]
+> Methodology: Vohra/Supan PMF Engine (Sean Ellis PMF signal, Very-Disappointed segmentation, High-Expectation Customer synthesis)
+
+## Data Readiness
+| Evidence Type | Available? | Sample / Coverage | Bias Risk | Notes |
+|---------------|------------|-------------------|-----------|-------|
+| PMF survey | Yes/No/Partial | [count/segments] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Behavioral usage | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Retention/churn | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+| Customer interviews/support | Yes/No/Partial | [coverage] | Low/Medium/High | [notes] |
+
+## PMF Signal
+| Segment | Very Disappointed % | Sample Size | Supportive Behavioral Evidence | Confidence |
+|---------|---------------------|-------------|--------------------------------|------------|
+| [segment] | [percent] | [n] | [retention/usage/renewal] | High/Medium/Low |
+
+## Very-Disappointed Segment
+### Segment Attributes
+- [role/company/use case/maturity/acquisition path]
+
+### Loved Benefit
+- [user-language description of the benefit users would miss]
+
+### Alternatives
+| Alternative | Why Users Would Switch There | Why It Falls Short | Evidence |
+|-------------|------------------------------|--------------------|----------|
+| [alternative] | [reason] | [gap] | [source] |
+
+## High-Expectation Customer
+### HXC Profile
+- **Customer**: [specific profile]
+- **High expectations**: [what makes them demanding]
+- **Why this product works**: [evidence-backed reason]
+- **Non-negotiables**: [quality/workflow/trust requirements]
+
+### HXC Value Wedge
+- [narrow promise and why it is better than alternatives]
+
+### Exclusions
+| Excluded Segment | Why It Looks Attractive | Why It Is Not HXC | Evidence |
+|------------------|-------------------------|-------------------|----------|
+| [segment] | [signal] | [fit issue] | [source] |
+
+## Target Segment Recommendation
+- **Primary target**: [segment]
+- **Verdict**: Strong PMF signal / partial signal / insufficient evidence
+- **Reasoning**: [evidence-backed rationale]
+- **Product focus**: [double-downs]
+- **Defer or ignore**: [requests/segments/features that dilute focus]
+
+## Evidence Matrix
+| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
+|-------|-----------------|---------------|------------|
+| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |
+
+## Open Evidence Gaps
+- [gap and what would change the recommendation]
+```
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Use PMF Engine only for product-exists contexts with real user/customer evidence. Do not fabricate PMF signal from market research or founder hypotheses.
+- Do not treat the 40% very-disappointed threshold as a standalone verdict; cross-check it against sample quality, retention, engagement, and segment viability.
+- Preserve the distinction between customer, buyer, user, and HXC.
+- Ground every segment recommendation, exclusion, and product-focus recommendation in evidence.
+- Do not prescribe UI or architecture - describe PMF, segment focus, and customer evidence implications.
+- Present findings before writing.
+- Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
+- This is a sub-skill - do not emit next-step routing.
+
+## 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/pmf-engine-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.

package/packs/business-research/claude/customer-discovery/frameworks/seven-dimensions/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-seven-dimensions-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-seven-dimensions-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-seven-dimensions-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-seven-dimensions-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.
+
+**Seven dimensions translation.** Research focus: Gather per-candidate evidence for Readiness, Willingness, Ability, Success Potential, Acquisition Efficiency, Ascension Potential, and Advocacy Potential. Separate scored claims from evidence, inference, assumptions, confidence, and decision impact. Review/documentation format: Render a seven-dimension candidate scorecard, weighted composite table, confidence by dimension, evidence-strength badges, weakest-dimension callouts, and sensitivity notes. Suggested user feedback: Ask reviewers to confirm dimension scores, weighting, candidate definitions, weak-dimension interpretation, evidence strength, missing sources, and how the composite should influence ICP selection. 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 (`seven-dimensions`), 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/customer-discovery/frameworks/seven-dimensions/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # seven-dimensions changelog (claude)
 
+## 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/customer-discovery/frameworks/seven-dimensions/SKILL.md

@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 name: seven-dimensions
 description: Lincoln Murphy 7 Dimensions of ICP — score ICP candidates on Readiness, Willingness, Ability, Success Potential, Acquisition Efficiency, Ascension Potential, and Advocacy Potential for composite fitness scoring
 type: research
-version: v0.2
+version: v0.4
 invocation: sub-skill
 parent: customer-discovery
 ---
 
 ## 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.
 
 # 7 Dimensions of ICP — Lincoln Murphy Ideal Customer Profile Scoring
 
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ 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.