Lean Canvas

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. After install, tell Codex users to start a fresh Codex CLI session if the $ skill list remains stale. 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.

Lean Canvas — One-Page Business Model Synthesis

Invoke as $lean-canvas.

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 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.

Prerequisites

• Hard: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run $customer-discovery first and stop.
• Soft: Read these if they exist:
  • research/competitive-analysis.md — competitor landscape, channel insights, business model patterns
  • research/journey-map.md — lifecycle moments where value, conversion, and retention occur
  • research/positioning.md — unique value proposition, market category, competitive alternatives
  • research/value-prop.md — value propositions mapped to customer segments
  • research/idea-brief.md — product concept, solution approach, feature set

Process

0. Product-Path Scope Resolution

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

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

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

1. Load Context

• Read research/icp.md — ICP segments, pain points, jobs to be done, trigger events
• Read research/competitive-analysis.md if it exists — competitor landscape, channel strategies, business model patterns
• Read research/positioning.md if it exists — unique attributes, value mapping, market category, competitive alternatives
• Read research/value-prop.md if it exists — value propositions per segment
• Read research/idea-brief.md if it exists — product concept, solution approach, features
• Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context

2. Research Lean Canvas Methodology

Use WebSearch with 4-6 targeted queries:

1. Domain-specific canvases — "lean canvas [domain]", "lean canvas examples [category]"
2. Methodology — "Ash Maurya lean canvas best practices", "lean canvas vs business model canvas differences"
3. Business models — "one page business model [industry]", "[category] business model patterns"
4. Revenue patterns — "[category] revenue models", "[domain] pricing strategies"
5. Channel strategies — "[category] customer acquisition channels", "[domain] distribution strategies"

3. Synthesize Canvas Sections

Map each Lean Canvas section from upstream research:

• Problem — Top 3 problems from ICP pain points. Source: research/icp.md
• Customer Segments — Primary and secondary segments from ICP. Source: research/icp.md
• Unique Value Proposition — From positioning UVP statement, or research/value-prop.md if positioning doesn't exist. This is the single clear compelling message that states why you are different and worth buying.
• Solution — Top 3 features or capabilities that address the top 3 problems. Source: research/idea-brief.md or product codebase.
• Channels — Path to customers. Source: research/competitive-analysis.md channel insights, ICP "where they hang out."
• Revenue Streams — HYPOTHESIS — mark "to be validated by $monetization". Infer from competitive analysis pricing patterns and positioning (premium vs. value).
• Cost Structure — HYPOTHESIS — mark "to be validated by $monetization". Infer from solution complexity, channel costs, and competitive analysis.
• Key Metrics — From research/metrics.md if it exists, otherwise hypothesize key pirate metrics (AARRR) relevant to the business model.
• Unfair Advantage — From positioning unique attributes or competitive moat. Something that cannot be easily copied or bought.

If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text:

• "Here's the Lean Canvas synthesized from research. Which sections need correction, stronger grounding, or are missing critical context?"

4. Validate Hypotheses

For sections marked as hypotheses (Revenue Streams, Cost Structure, and any others with low evidence), note:

• Confidence level: High / Medium / Low
• What would validate each hypothesis
• What would invalidate each hypothesis
• Riskiest assumption within each section

If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text:

• "These are the unvalidated hypotheses. Which are highest risk and should be tested first?"

5. Populate Next Steps

Include a Recommended item (the single highest-impact next step given current project state) with a one-line reason, followed by Other options (2-4 alternatives). Use this format in the output:

Next Steps

Recommended: $user-flow-map [business-model-informed product direction] — return to the default AFPS prototype path by mapping screen flow before UI requirements and layout variants

Other options:

• IF Revenue/Cost hypotheses need validation: $monetization — Validate revenue model and cost structure hypotheses
• IF riskiest hypothesis identified: $experiment [riskiest hypothesis] — Test the riskiest assumption with a structured experiment
• IF no research/positioning.md: $positioning — Establish strategic positioning to strengthen UVP and Unfair Advantage sections
• IF no research/journey-map.md: $journey-map — Map the customer journey before continuing UX, growth, or spec work

6. Write Output

Only after the user confirms, write the output files.

7. Downstream Impact Check

After writing, check for downstream research documents that may be affected.

Downstream documents to check (use {slug}/ prefix when product-path scope is active):

• research/journey-map.md
• research/monetization.md

For each existing downstream document:

1. Read it — focus on sections that reference business model, revenue, channels, or customer segments
2. Identify conflicts where the downstream document's assumptions don't align with the canvas
3. Note each conflict: file, section, stale claim, what it should now say

Classify the impact:

• None: No downstream docs exist, or no conflicts. Skip display.
• Minor (1-2 small conflicts): Display inline.
• Major (3+ conflicts OR customer segments changed, revenue model shifted, channel strategy changed): Display and recommend $reconcile-research.

Output

research/lean-canvas.md (or research/{slug}/lean-canvas.md)

# Lean Canvas

> Based on: research/icp.md[, research/competitive-analysis.md, research/positioning.md, research/value-prop.md, research/idea-brief.md]
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Lean Canvas (Ash Maurya)

## Summary

[2-3 sentence business model thesis — who the customer is, what problem you solve, how you make money, and what makes this defensible]

## Lean Canvas

### Problem

Top 3 problems:
1. [problem 1] — _Source: [reference]_
2. [problem 2] — _Source: [reference]_
3. [problem 3] — _Source: [reference]_

**Existing alternatives**: [how customers solve these problems today]

### Customer Segments

**Primary segment**: [segment description]
**Early adopters**: [most acute subset — who you target first]

_Source: research/icp.md_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Unique Value Proposition

**Single clear compelling message**:
> [UVP statement]

**High-level concept**: [X for Y analogy, if applicable]

_Source: [research/positioning.md or research/value-prop.md]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Solution

Top 3 features addressing top 3 problems:
1. [feature 1] → solves [problem 1]
2. [feature 2] → solves [problem 2]
3. [feature 3] → solves [problem 3]

_Source: [research/idea-brief.md or product codebase]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Channels

**Path to customers**:
- [channel 1] — [rationale]
- [channel 2] — [rationale]
- [channel 3] — [rationale]

_Source: [research/competitive-analysis.md, research/icp.md]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Revenue Streams

> **HYPOTHESIS** — to be validated by `$monetization`

- [revenue stream 1] — [pricing model]
- [revenue stream 2] — [pricing model]

**Price anchoring**: [what customers pay for alternatives today]

_Source: [inferred from competitive analysis and positioning]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Cost Structure

> **HYPOTHESIS** — to be validated by `$monetization`

**Fixed costs**:
- [cost 1]
- [cost 2]

**Variable costs**:
- [cost 1]
- [cost 2]

_Source: [inferred from solution complexity and channel costs]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Key Metrics

- [metric 1] — [what it measures and why it matters]
- [metric 2] — [what it measures and why it matters]
- [metric 3] — [what it measures and why it matters]

_Source: [research/metrics.md or hypothesized]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

### Unfair Advantage

[Something that cannot be easily copied or bought]

- [advantage 1] — [why it's defensible]
- [advantage 2] — [why it's defensible]

_Source: [research/positioning.md unique attributes or competitive moat]_
_Confidence: [High/Medium/Low]_

## Hypothesis Register

| Hypothesis | Section | Confidence | Validation Method | Status |
|-----------|---------|------------|-------------------|--------|
| [hypothesis 1] | Revenue Streams | [H/M/L] | [how to test] | Unvalidated |
| [hypothesis 2] | Cost Structure | [H/M/L] | [how to test] | Unvalidated |
| [hypothesis 3] | [section] | [H/M/L] | [how to test] | Unvalidated |

**Riskiest hypothesis**: [which hypothesis, if wrong, would most undermine the business model]

## Strategic Implications

### Business Model Type
[What type of business model this canvas describes — marketplace, SaaS, transactional, etc.]

### Key Dependencies
[What must be true for this business model to work]

### Biggest Risks
[Top 2-3 risks to the business model thesis]

<!-- Only include when downstream impact is Minor or Major -->
## Downstream Impact

> Checked: [list of downstream docs checked]
> Impact: Minor | Major

### Conflicts Found

1. **research/[file].md** — [Section Name]
   - **Stale**: "[exact quote]"
   - **Now**: [what the canvas says instead]

[For Major only:]
> **Recommended action**: Run `$reconcile-research` to audit and fix all affected downstream documents.

## Next Steps

**Recommended:** `$journey-map` — always the natural next step after synthesizing the business model

Other options:
- [conditional items from step 5]

research/lean-canvas-search-log.md (or research/{slug}/lean-canvas-search-log.md)

Raw research log — queries, findings, evidence for each canvas section decision.

Create the research/ directory if it doesn't exist.

Task Classification

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

• Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in tasks/todo.md.
• Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in tasks/manual-todo.md with _(blocks: Step N.X)_ or _(after: Step N.X)_; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in tasks/todo.md.
• One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in tasks/record-todo.md with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
• Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in tasks/recurring-todo.md with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
• Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in tasks/todo.md unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.

Constraints

• Requires ICP. A business model without customer understanding is fiction.
• Synthesis-first. Every canvas section should trace to upstream research, not invented from scratch. If a section cannot be grounded in existing research, mark it as a hypothesis with Low confidence.
• Mark hypotheses honestly. Revenue Streams and Cost Structure are hypotheses until $monetization validates them. Any other section without strong evidence should also be flagged.
• Present before writing. Never write output files until the canvas has been presented and validated by the user.
• Do not overwrite existing research/lean-canvas.md without asking the user first.
• Lean Canvas ≠ full business plan. This is a one-page hypothesis document. Do not expand it into a detailed business plan — that's a different deliverable.
• One canvas per product. Don't try to capture multiple business models in a single canvas. If the product has multiple revenue models, pick the primary one and note alternatives.

Alignment Page

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

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.