wicked-garden 12.27.0

package/skills/product/requirements-navigate/refs/meta-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+---
+phase_relevance: ["clarify", "design", "review"]
+archetype_relevance: ["*"]
+---
+# meta.md Templates
+
+Copy-paste templates for each level of the requirements graph.
+
+## Root meta.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+type: requirements-root
+project: {project-name}
+created: {YYYY-MM-DD}
+status: draft
+---
+
+# Requirements: {Project Name}
+
+{1-2 sentence summary of what is being built and why.}
+
+## Areas
+
+| Area | Stories | ACs | P0 ACs | Coverage |
+|------|---------|-----|--------|----------|
+
+## Scope
+See: [_scope.md](_scope.md)
+
+## Risks
+See: [_risks.md](_risks.md)
+
+## Open Questions
+See: [_questions.md](_questions.md)
+```
+
+## Area meta.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+id: {area-slug}
+type: area
+status: draft
+tags: [{relevant}, {keywords}]
+---
+
+# {Area Name}
+
+{1-2 sentence description of this feature area.}
+
+## Stories
+
+| Story | Title | Priority | ACs | Status |
+|-------|-------|----------|-----|--------|
+
+## Non-Functional Requirements
+
+| NFR | Description | Target |
+|-----|-------------|--------|
+
+## Coverage
+- **Total ACs**: 0
+- **With IMPLEMENTED_BY**: 0
+- **With TESTED_BY**: 0
+```
+
+## Story meta.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+id: {area}/{US-NNN}
+type: user-story
+priority: {P0/P1/P2}
+complexity: {S/M/L/XL}
+persona: {persona-name}
+status: draft
+tags: [{relevant}, {keywords}]
+---
+
+# {US-NNN}: {Story Title}
+
+**As a** {persona}
+**I want** {capability}
+**So that** {benefit}
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+
+| AC | Description | Priority | Category |
+|----|-------------|----------|----------|
+
+## Dependencies
+- {dependency}
+
+## Open Questions
+- {question}
+```
+
+## _scope.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+type: scope
+---
+
+# Scope
+
+## In Scope
+- {item}
+
+## Out of Scope
+- {item}
+
+## Future Considerations
+- {item}
+```
+
+## _risks.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+type: risks
+---
+
+# Risks
+
+| Risk | Impact | Probability | Mitigation |
+|------|--------|-------------|------------|
+```
+
+## _questions.md
+
+```yaml
+---
+type: questions
+---
+
+# Open Questions
+
+- [ ] {question needing stakeholder input}
+```

package/skills/product/screenshot/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+---
+name: screenshot
+description: |
+  Screenshot-based UI review using Claude's multimodal capabilities.
+  Analyzes visual design from image files — layout, spacing, color, typography,
+  responsiveness — and compares against design system rules.
+
+  Use when: reviewing a UI screenshot for visual design, comparing rendered
+  output against design system rules, or auditing layout from an image file.
+portability: portable
+phase_relevance: ["clarify", "design", "review"]
+archetype_relevance: ["*"]
+---
+
+# Screenshot Skill
+
+Analyze UI design directly from screenshot images using Claude's multimodal
+vision capabilities. No code needed — review what users actually see.
+
+## How to Use Read on Images
+
+Claude can read PNG, JPG, WEBP, and GIF files directly with the Read tool:
+
+```
+Read(file_path="/path/to/screenshot.png")
+```
+
+The image is presented visually. Analyze it for design quality, consistency,
+and usability issues without requiring access to source code.
+
+## What to Analyze
+
+### Layout and Spacing
+
+- Is whitespace consistent and intentional?
+- Do elements align to a visible grid?
+- Are margins/padding proportional and balanced?
+- Is content grouped logically (proximity principle)?
+- Does the layout breathe, or feel cramped?
+
+### Color and Contrast
+
+- Is the color palette cohesive (limited, intentional palette)?
+- Do text and background combinations have sufficient contrast?
+- Are colors used semantically (red for errors, green for success)?
+- Is there visual hierarchy through color weight?
+
+### Typography
+
+- Is there a clear heading hierarchy (H1 > H2 > body)?
+- Are font sizes proportional and readable?
+- Is line spacing comfortable (not too tight or loose)?
+- Consistent font family usage — not too many typefaces?
+
+### Component Consistency
+
+- Do similar elements look the same (all buttons styled identically)?
+- Are interactive elements visually distinguishable from static ones?
+- Are states (active, selected) visually distinct?
+
+### Responsiveness Clues
+
+- Does the layout look designed for this viewport size?
+- Are there elements that appear truncated or overflowing?
+- Would this layout adapt to mobile without breaking?
+
+## Comparison with Reference Designs
+
+When a reference image is provided:
+
+```
+Read(file_path="/path/to/reference.png")   # design spec or comp
+Read(file_path="/path/to/implementation.png")  # built UI
+```
+
+Compare:
+- Spacing fidelity (does built match spec proportions?)
+- Color accuracy (same palette?)
+- Typography match (weights, sizes, hierarchy)
+- Component faithfulness (icons, buttons, inputs)
+- Missing or added elements
+
+## Screenshot Capture
+
+Use the **Read** tool on a screenshot file, or capture via browser automation if available (e.g., Playwright, Puppeteer, or an MCP browser tool). Place captured images in a local path and then read them for analysis.
+
+## Multi-View Analysis
+
+Review the same page at multiple viewports:
+
+```
+1. Capture desktop (1440px)
+2. Capture tablet (768px)
+3. Capture mobile (375px)
+4. Compare: layout adapts correctly?
+5. Check: no content hidden or truncated?
+6. Check: touch targets large enough on mobile?
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+```markdown
+## Screenshot Review: {filename or URL}
+
+**Viewport**: {desktop/tablet/mobile/unknown}
+**Overall**: {Polished | Minor Issues | Needs Work | Major Problems}
+
+### Visual Design
+
+**Spacing**: {✓ Balanced | ⚠ Inconsistent | ✗ Cramped/Sparse}
+- {finding}
+
+**Color**: {✓ Cohesive | ⚠ Minor issues | ✗ Inconsistent}
+- {finding}
+
+**Typography**: {✓ Clear hierarchy | ⚠ Minor issues | ✗ Unclear}
+- {finding}
+
+**Components**: {✓ Consistent | ⚠ Variations | ✗ Inconsistent}
+- {finding}
+
+### Issues Found
+
+#### Critical
+- {issue visible in screenshot, with description of location}
+
+#### Minor
+- {polish item}
+
+### Comparison with Reference {if provided}
+- Spacing: {matches/off by approximately X}
+- Color: {matches/discrepancy}
+- Missing: {elements in spec not in implementation}
+- Added: {elements in implementation not in spec}
+
+### Recommendations
+1. {highest priority fix}
+2. {second fix}
+```
+
+## Integration
+
+- **visual-review skill**: Use for code-based analysis; screenshot for image-based
+- **accessibility skill**: Color contrast visible in screenshots
+- **mockup skill**: Screenshots of implementations vs mockup specs
+- **Browser automation**: Capture screenshots from live URLs via Playwright, Puppeteer, or an MCP browser tool if available
+- **imagery/review skill**: For AI-powered visual analysis of screenshots, see the `imagery/review` skill

package/skills/product/strategy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+---
+name: strategy
+description: |
+  Strategic business analysis for technical investments. Evaluates ROI, value proposition,
+  competitive positioning, and market alignment. Provides decision support with business justification.
+
+  Use when: building a business case for a technical investment, evaluating
+  ROI or value proposition, or doing competitive positioning analysis.
+phase_relevance: ["clarify", "design", "review"]
+archetype_relevance: ["*"]
+---
+
+# Strategy Skill
+
+Multi-perspective business analysis to guide technical investment decisions.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- User needs business justification for a project
+- Decision requires ROI or value assessment
+- Need competitive landscape analysis
+- Evaluating strategic alignment
+- User says "should we build this", "what's the ROI", "business value", "market research"
+
+## Analysis Modes
+
+### Full Strategic Analysis (`/wicked-garden:product:strategy`)
+
+- Business impact & ROI
+- Value proposition & differentiation
+- Competitive landscape
+- Market alignment
+- Decision recommendation with confidence
+
+Best for: Major investments, strategic decisions, go/no-go evaluations
+
+### ROI Analysis
+
+- Cost vs benefit analysis
+- Payback period
+- Break-even analysis
+- Quick financial assessment
+
+Best for: Budget justification, fast approvals, comparative costs
+
+### Value Scoring
+
+- Value proposition strength
+- Differentiation assessment
+- Customer benefit mapping
+- Pricing guidance
+
+Best for: Product positioning, feature prioritization, marketing alignment
+
+## Analysis Framework
+
+### 1. Business Impact Assessment
+
+**Questions to Answer**:
+- What problem does this solve?
+- Who benefits and how much?
+- What's the cost of NOT doing this?
+- How does it align with strategic goals?
+
+**Output**: Impact score (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) with justification
+
+### 2. ROI Analysis
+
+**Financial Model**:
+```
+ROI = (Benefits - Costs) / Costs × 100%
+Payback Period = Investment / Annual Benefit
+```
+
+**Costs Include**:
+- Development time
+- Infrastructure
+- Maintenance
+- Opportunity cost
+
+**Benefits Include**:
+- Revenue gain
+- Cost savings
+- Risk reduction
+- Efficiency gains
+
+### 3. Value Proposition
+
+**Framework**: Jobs-to-be-Done
+- Functional jobs (what tasks)
+- Emotional jobs (how they feel)
+- Social jobs (how they're perceived)
+
+**Differentiation**:
+- What makes this unique?
+- Why choose this over alternatives?
+- What's the defensible advantage?
+
+### 4. Competitive Analysis
+
+**5 Forces Analysis**:
+- Competitive rivalry
+- Supplier power
+- Buyer power
+- Threat of substitutes
+- Threat of new entrants
+
+**SWOT**:
+- Strengths (internal, positive)
+- Weaknesses (internal, negative)
+- Opportunities (external, positive)
+- Threats (external, negative)
+
+### 5. Market Alignment
+
+**Market Assessment**:
+- Market size & growth
+- Target segments
+- Adoption barriers
+- Timing considerations
+
+## Decision Framework
+
+| Score | Confidence | Recommendation |
+|-------|-----------|----------------|
+| APPROVE | HIGH | Strong business case, proceed |
+| APPROVE | MEDIUM | Solid case with caveats, proceed with monitoring |
+| CONDITIONAL | MEDIUM | Viable if conditions met, address concerns first |
+| REJECT | HIGH | Weak case, recommend alternative |
+| REJECT | MEDIUM | Insufficient evidence, gather more data |
+
+## Integration
+
+### With wicked-brain:memory
+
+Store strategic insights:
+```
+Skill(skill="wicked-brain:memory", args="store \"ROI analysis: {project}\" --type decision")
+```
+
+Recall past analysis:
+```
+Skill(skill="wicked-brain:memory", args="recall \"strategic analysis {domain}\"")
+```
+
+### With wicked-crew
+
+Called during clarify phase for value assessment:
+- Validates project justification
+- Provides business perspective
+- Informs go/no-go decisions
+
+### With native tasks
+
+Attach analysis as evidence by appending to the task description:
+```
+TaskUpdate(taskId={task_id}, description="{previous}\n\n## Strategy Analysis\n{analysis_summary}")
+```
+
+## Output Structure
+
+```markdown
+## Strategic Analysis: {Project}
+
+### Decision: APPROVE | CONDITIONAL | REJECT
+**Confidence**: HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
+
+### Executive Summary
+{3-5 sentence business case}
+
+### ROI Analysis
+- **Investment**: ${cost}
+- **Annual Benefit**: ${benefit}
+- **ROI**: {percentage}
+- **Payback Period**: {months}
+
+### Value Proposition
+{Why this matters to customers/stakeholders}
+
+### Competitive Position
+{How this compares to alternatives}
+
+### Risks & Mitigation
+| Risk | Impact | Mitigation |
+|------|--------|------------|
+
+### Recommendation
+{Action items with priorities}
+```
+
+## Quality Checks
+
+- Quantify costs and benefits (no hand-waving)
+- Be honest about uncertainties
+- Consider alternatives
+- Provide clear recommendation with reasoning
+
+Discover available analytics/market integrations via capability detection. Fall back to qualitative analysis when no data sources available.