Category Design

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. Only the currently running skill and skills verified available in the active session or project-local install state are directly recommendable. For unavailable pack skills, recommend npx skillpacks install <pack-or-skill>; for unavailable base skills, recommend npx skillpacks init before the skill.

Category Design — Play Bigger Category Creation

Parent Orchestrator Routing

Run only through the parent orchestrator $positioning as part of its Research Session Loop. If the user needs to continue pending framework work, tell them to start a fresh Codex session and re-invoke $positioning with the same product/research path argument when present, for example $positioning research/afps-tracker.

Do not ask users to invoke this framework directly or with a path-shaped child framework command. Do not emit downstream routing labels, child-framework commands, execution-loop commands, or downstream skill recommendations from this framework subskill.

Terminal Handoff Contract

When this framework is run inline and stops on its findings review page, the terminal response must end with:

## Next Work
Review the framework findings page, compile YAML, clear context, and paste the compiled YAML into a fresh session. The parent will consume that YAML, write the approved intermediate, and recalculate whether another framework or synthesis is next.

The compiled YAML must carry the parent command (for example, $positioning) in command and agent_routing.command.

Use the same product/research path argument when present. Do not decide from inside the framework whether the next parent run executes another framework or synthesis; the parent orchestrator recalculates that from the run manifest and canonical-intermediate files after approval.

The findings review page must also include agent_routing in bottom compiled YAML with this parent-owned shape:

agent_routing:
  workflow: pattern-a-research-loop
  parent_skill: positioning
  command: "$positioning research/{slug}"
  product_path: research/{slug}
  gate_owner: parent-orchestrator
  gate_type: framework-findings
  framework_slug: category-design
  framework_mode: inline-subskill
  run_manifest: research/{slug}/_working/positioning-run.yaml
  next_resolution: parent-resolves-from-yaml-and-filesystem

Omit product_path in flat mode, keep command identical to agent_routing.command, and never replace it with a child framework path command. The parent consumes this YAML, writes the approved intermediate, archives the working packet/page, and recalculates the next state.

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 downstream routing language. While the framework findings page is in review, use only the parent-owned terminal handoff sections above. Parent synthesis owns downstream routing only after approved synthesis artifacts are 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 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.

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. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
• For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
• When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
• When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.

Purpose

Applies the Play Bigger category design framework to determine whether the product should compete in an existing category, carve a subcategory, or create an entirely new category. When category creation is warranted, develops category naming, Point of View (POV), and ecosystem mapping. Produces an intermediate artifact for the parent $positioning synthesis.

Prerequisites

• Hard: research/competitive-analysis.md (or research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run $competitive-analysis first and stop.
• Hard: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run $customer-discovery first and stop.
• Hard: research/journey-map.md (or research/{slug}/journey-map.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run $journey-map first and stop.
• Soft: Read if they exist:
  • research/customer-feedback.md — language that signals category dissatisfaction
  • research/positioning-jtbd.md — job framing that may define a new category boundary
  • research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md — value curve divergence suggesting new space
  • research/positioning.md — existing positioning to build upon

Product-Path Scope Resolution

Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:

1. If $ARGUMENTS names a non-archived research/{slug}/ directory or a product-path ID whose scope_path points there, use that path. Treat {slug} as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
2. If $ARGUMENTS names only research/_archive/{slug}/ or a manifest entry with status: archived or legacy status: abandoned, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
3. Read research/.progress.yaml when present. Normalize legacy active_path to active_paths on read and write back active_paths on manifest updates. Treat legacy abandoned as archived; exclude archived, abandoned, deferred, revisit_candidate, promoted, and any scope_path under research/_archive/ from active target selection.
4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under research/, excluding research/_archive/ and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
6. If no product directories exist, use flat research/ single-product mode.
7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing research/{slug}/ product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using research/{slug}/.

When product path {slug} is active, read and write research under research/{slug}/, specs under specs/{slug}/, and treat top-level research/*.md files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.

Process

1. Load Context

• Read research/competitive-analysis.md — existing categories, how competitors position
• Read research/icp.md — customer language about the problem space
• Read research/journey-map.md — where category expectations break down
• Read prior framework outputs if available

2. Category Diagnosis

Determine which category strategy is appropriate by evaluating three options:

Existing category — Compete within a known category:

• When: the category is well-understood, you can win on a specific dimension, buyers already search for this category
• Risk: you inherit comparison criteria set by the category leader

Subcategory — Carve a niche within an existing category:

• When: you serve a specific segment much better than generic solutions, the parent category is recognized but you need differentiation
• Risk: the niche may be too small or the parent category absorbs it

New category — Create a category that doesn't exist yet:

• When: existing categories constrain your value, buyers are frustrated by current framing, a genuine market shift enables new thinking
• Risk: expensive, slow, requires sustained investment in education

Use WebSearch (3-5 queries) to validate category landscape:

• "[domain] market categories", "[domain] Gartner/Forrester category"
• "[problem space] new category", "[competitor] category creation"
• "is [category] a real category", "[domain] category evolution"

Present diagnosis. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text:

• "Based on evidence, I recommend [existing/subcategory/new] category strategy because [reasons]. The alternatives have these trade-offs: [trade-offs]. Does this match your ambition and resources?"

3. Category Naming (if subcategory or new)

If the diagnosis recommends subcategory or new category:

• Generate 5-7 candidate category names
• Evaluate each against criteria:
  • Descriptive: Does it explain what the category does?
  • Differentiated: Does it clearly separate from adjacent categories?
  • Memorable: Is it easy to say, search, and remember?
  • Expandable: Can it grow beyond the initial product?
  • Not already claimed: Is another company using this name?

Use WebSearch to validate name availability and adjacency.

Present candidates. If the session is already in Plan mode, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text:

• "Here are candidate category names with trade-offs. Which resonates? Any naming constraints I should know?"

4. Point of View (POV) Development

Develop the category POV — the worldview that makes this category inevitable:

• The old way: How things work today (and why it's broken)
• The shift: What's changing that makes the old way untenable
• The new way: How things should work (the category vision)
• The proof: Evidence that the shift is real and happening now

The POV should:

• Be bigger than the product (it's about the category, not features)
• Create urgency (why now, not later)
• Resonate emotionally (not just rationally)
• Be defensible (rooted in real trends, not manufactured urgency)

5. Ecosystem Mapping

Map the ecosystem that would surround this category:

• Adjacent categories: What categories does this border?
• Potential allies: Who benefits from this category existing?
• Potential partners: What complementary products would integrate?
• Analysts/influencers: Who would cover this category?
• Ecosystem maturity: How developed is the supporting infrastructure?

6. Assess Category Creation Feasibility

If recommending new category, honestly assess:

7. Write Output

Only after user approval.

Output

research/positioning-category-design.md (or research/{slug}/positioning-category-design.md)

# Category Design Analysis

> Based on: research/competitive-analysis.md, research/icp.md, research/journey-map.md
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Play Bigger Category Design

## Category Diagnosis

**Recommendation**: [Existing / Subcategory / New Category]
**Confidence**: [Strong / Moderate / Weak]
**Rationale**: [2-3 sentences]

### Options Evaluated

| Strategy | Fit | Pros | Cons | Evidence |
|----------|-----|------|------|----------|
| Existing: [name] | [H/M/L] | [pros] | [cons] | [source] |
| Subcategory: [name] | [H/M/L] | [pros] | [cons] | [source] |
| New: [name] | [H/M/L] | [pros] | [cons] | [source] |

## Category Name (if subcategory or new)

**Recommended name**: [name]
**Alternatives considered**: [list with reasons rejected]

### Name Evaluation

| Criterion | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Descriptive | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Differentiated | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Memorable | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Expandable | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Available | [Y/N] | [notes] |

## Point of View

### The Old Way
[How things work today — the broken status quo]

### The Shift
[What's changing — the trend that makes the old way untenable]

### The New Way
[The category vision — how things should work]

### The Proof
[Evidence the shift is real: market signals, customer behavior, technology trends]

## Ecosystem Map

### Adjacent Categories
- [category] — [relationship]

### Potential Allies
- [company/community] — [why they benefit]

### Integration Partners
- [product/platform] — [complementary value]

### Category Feasibility (new category only)

| Factor | Status | Evidence |
|--------|--------|----------|
| Market timing | [status] | [evidence] |
| Resources | [status] | [evidence] |
| Buyer readiness | [status] | [evidence] |
| Competition response | [status] | [evidence] |
| Education cost | [status] | [evidence] |

## Implications for Positioning Synthesis

[How this category design analysis should influence the final positioning — what market category to declare, how to frame the category in messaging, and what POV narrative to lead with]

Task Classification

When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:

• Immediately actionable work goes in tasks/todo.md.
• Human-only external actions go in tasks/manual-todo.md with blocking/dependency annotations.
• Condition-gated records go in tasks/record-todo.md.
• Cadence-based reviews go in tasks/recurring-todo.md.

Constraints

• Intermediate artifact only. This produces research/positioning-category-design.md, not the canonical research/positioning.md.
• Honest about category creation costs. New categories require years of investment. Don't recommend lightly.
• POV must be bigger than the product. If the POV is just "our product is better," it's not a category POV.
• Naming requires validation. Don't recommend names without checking they're not already claimed.
• Present before writing. Never write output files until findings are validated.
• Category strategy must match resources. A bootstrapped startup cannot create a new category the same way a funded company can.

Alignment Page

Follow the shared alignment-page convention via the packaged convention resolver; output path is alignment/category-design-{topic}.html.

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.