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 $pack install <pack> 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.

Lean Canvas — One-Page Business Model Synthesis

Invoke as $lean-canvas.

Report-First Approval Gate

Default to report-only: present findings, evidence coverage, assumptions, recommended artifact path, and proposed file changes in a pre-approval alignment page plus a concise conversation summary for user approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.

Do not write or overwrite synthesized deliverables until the user explicitly approves, unless the user invoked an explicit write/update/fix mode or clearly asked to write files upfront. Raw evidence capture may be persisted before analysis when reproducibility requires it; report those raw paths separately and still gate synthesized research/report writes.

When stopping for approval, build and attempt to open the alignment preview page first, then ask the user to review it and approve, question, or request adjustments. 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.

Synthesizes all upstream research into a one-page Lean Canvas (Ash Maurya methodology). This is a business-model synthesis skill — it pulls from ICP, competitive analysis, positioning, and value proposition research to create a cohesive business model hypothesis. Revenue Streams and Cost Structure are marked as hypotheses to be validated by $monetization.

Default stance: assume the user has no insider knowledge of the market. The canvas must stand on research, customer evidence, and codebase reality before asking for user input. Ask for corrections, proprietary differentiators, and hard constraints, not intuition.

Prerequisites

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

Process

0. App Scope Resolution (Monorepo Support)

Before checking prerequisites, determine the app scope:

1. If $ARGUMENTS specifies an app name matching a subdirectory of research/, use it.
2. If research/ contains subdirectories (excluding files), list them and ask the user which app to target. If the session is already in Plan mode and there are 2-3 concrete choices, prefer request_user_input; otherwise ask in plain text. If only one subdirectory exists, use it automatically.
3. If no subdirectories exist, proceed with flat structure (single-product mode).

When app scope {app} is active:

• Read/write research from research/{app}/ instead of research/

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/concept-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/concept-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: $journey-map — always the natural next step after synthesizing the business model

Other options:

• IF Revenue/Cost hypotheses need validation: $monetization — Validate revenue model and cost structure hypotheses
• IF riskiest hypothesis identified: $spec-interview [riskiest hypothesis] — Spec out the riskiest assumption for testing
• IF no research/positioning.md: $positioning — Establish strategic positioning to strengthen UVP and Unfair Advantage sections

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 {app}/ prefix when app 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/{app}/lean-canvas.md)

# Lean Canvas

> Based on: research/icp.md[, research/competitive-analysis.md, research/positioning.md, research/value-prop.md, research/concept-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/concept-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/{app}/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

When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page at alignment/lean-canvas-{topic}.html. Use a normalized topic slug derived from the app, feature, research subject, report subject, or output filename.

Full content requirement. The alignment page must contain the complete content of every proposed markdown deliverable -- every section, every finding, every detail, every list item. It is a thorough interactive review document, not a summary. Render the full deliverable content in clean, readable HTML with appropriate hierarchy, styling, and navigation. If the skill writes multiple scoped deliverables in one run, build one alignment page that contains all deliverables with anchor-linked navigation. Durable tracker artifacts, such as research/assumption-tracker.md, remain canonical markdown outputs but must also be fully rendered into the alignment page before approval.

Dark-mode styling. Use a dark color scheme by default. Base CSS variables: --bg: #0d1117; --surface: #161b22; --border: #30363d; --text: #c9d1d9; --text-muted: #8b949e; --accent: #58a6ff; --green: #3fb950; --red: #f85149; --orange: #d29922; --purple: #bc8cff;. Apply background: var(--bg); color: var(--text); on body. Use --surface for cards, nav, and table headers. Use --border for all borders. Use --purple for question blocks and gate headings. Use --accent for links and section headings. Keep headings color: #fff or var(--accent) for hierarchy. Question block backgrounds should use #1c2333.

Alignment gates. Treat gates as explicit review sections inside the HTML page. A gate blocks finalization until its required inline questions are answered and compiled into YAML. Include every gate that applies to the skill output, and include these gate types whenever relevant: evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, scope/non-goals, candidate/verdict decisions, artifact destination, proposed file changes, coverage checkpoint, and post-approval route.

Report-only research gates. For report-only or pre-approval research skills, the alignment page must explicitly contain evidence coverage, assumptions/confidence, recommended path, proposed file changes, and approval gates before any canonical research, spec, or task file is created or updated.

Required inline questions. Each gate must contain at least one required inline question placed directly under the content it governs, inside a visually distinct question block. Each question must use radio-button inputs and include two standing options after the skill-generated choices: "Other / None of the above" backed by a multi-line text box for free-form input, and "Need clarification" backed by an optional notes box where the user can explain what is unclear. When any radio option other than "Other" or "Need clarification" is selected, show an optional "Additional notes" text box beneath it so the user can qualify their choice. Generate questions based on what genuinely needs user input -- do not add filler questions. Do not create a separate bottom "Decisions & Clarifications" section.

Gate YAML contract. At the bottom of the page, include a "Compile Answers" button that aggregates answers from all inline gate questions throughout the page, including free-text notes. The button remains disabled until every required question has a selection, shows a count of remaining unanswered questions, and scrolls to the first unanswered question if clicked early. When every question is answered, generate a structured YAML block with one item per gate answer using this stable shape: section, gate_type, status (answered, other, or needs-clarification), answer, optional notes, and optional target_artifact or target_path when the gate controls file output. After successful compilation, automatically attempt to copy the YAML to the clipboard with the Clipboard API, display copy status, and display the YAML in a read-only textarea with an explicit "Copy YAML" button. The copy button must retry clipboard copy when supported and fall back to selecting the textarea contents when clipboard access is unavailable or blocked.

Pre-approval stop. Before user approval, the next action is review of the HTML alignment page, not downstream routing. Ask the user to review the page and provide the compiled YAML answers. Do not include Recommended next skill, Recommended next command, or downstream routing language until after compiled YAML has been provided and the approved artifacts have been written or updated.

Diff highlighting on updates. When the agent updates an existing alignment page after receiving compiled answers, highlight what changed since the previous version. The agent chooses inline annotation or side-by-side layout per situation.

Archiving. Before replacing an existing alignment page, archive it to docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/alignment/lean-canvas-{topic}.html.

Browser open. Attempt to open the resulting HTML page in the browser and report whether the open succeeded or was blocked. A blocked browser-open attempt does not make the skill fail when the files were written correctly.

Archive-First Replacement Policy

• Before replacing or substantively rewriting an existing canonical research/spec document (research/**/*.md, specs/**/*.md, or docs/specifications/**/*.md), copy the current file to docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-relative-path>.
• Preserve the archived snapshot exactly as it existed before the change; do not edit the archived copy after creating it.
• After the archive snapshot exists, write the updated document to the original canonical path.
• Report both the archive path and the updated canonical path in the final output.
• New files do not need archive snapshots. Append-only updates do not need archive snapshots unless an existing section is regenerated or rewritten.
• Keep any existing user approval requirement before overwriting or replacing a document; archiving does not replace asking when the skill already requires approval.

Default Shipping Contract

• Default next-step routing: when reporting completion, include either Recommended next skill: <command> or the two-line pair **Next work:** <specific task or "none"> and **Recommended next command:** <one command or route> so the next operator has a concrete handoff.
• If this skill creates or modifies tracked repository files, finish by committing and pushing all intended changes to the repository primary branch (main when present, otherwise master) before stopping, even if the user did not explicitly ask for commit/push.
• Do not leave tracked changes or unpushed commits behind. If unrelated tracked work is already present, either include it in sensible commits too or stop and explain the blocker.
• This contract does not override stricter safety rules about secrets, destructive history changes, release publication/tag confirmation, or production deploy confirmation.