Mvp Gap

Pack Availability Guard

When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via .agents/project.json enabled_packs. If it is not enabled, recommend $pack install <pack> inside Codex, or npx skillpacks install <pack> from the project shell. After install, tell Codex users to start a fresh Codex CLI session if the $ skill list remains stale. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.

MVP Gap — Startup Readiness Audit

Invoke as $mvp-gap.

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. 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

research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md) must exist. If not, tell the user to run $customer-discovery first.

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 & Evaluate

1. Read research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md), research/metrics.md (or research/{slug}/metrics.md) (if it exists — check if defined metrics can actually be measured), codebase, README, existing specs (from specs/ or specs/{slug}/), and any in-progress or advisory work from tasks/ (tasks/roadmap.md, tasks/todo.md, tasks/manual-todo.md, tasks/record-todo.md, tasks/recurring-todo.md if they exist).
2. Evaluate the codebase against the ICP across these dimensions:
   • User Journey Coverage — Can the product replace each step in the current-state journey? If research/journey-map.md exists, map each gap to its journey stage.
   • Customer Journey Coverage — Discovery, evaluation, trial, purchase, provisioning, onboarding
   • Table-Stakes Gaps — Auth, error handling, data export, accessibility, docs, notifications
   • Integration Gaps — Required integrations from the ICP's current workflow
   • Competitive Differentiation — Does it deliver the stated value drivers?
   • Spec Validation — For each gap, check specs/ for existing coverage: "Spec exists — ready to build", "Spec exists — needs expansion", or no spec (suggest $user-flow-map when flow/design shape is missing, then $ux-variations --layout-mode after flow and UI requirements exist).
   • Metrics Tie-In — If research/metrics.md exists, identify which metric(s) indicate each gap is closed. Flag gaps with no closure metric as instrumentation gaps.
3. Tag each gap: blocks-first-sale, blocks-retention, or nice-to-have. Estimate effort (S/M/L).
4. If research/gtm.md exists, cross-reference build sequence against GTM launch gates. Flag conflicts and gaps deferrable to post-launch.
5. Provide a prioritised build sequence.

Deliverables

• research/mvp-gap.md (or research/{slug}/mvp-gap.md) — Gap analysis with priority tags, evidence, effort estimates, journey stage, closure metric, and spec status for each gap

Each gap in the output should include:

• Journey stage: [stage from journey-map, or "N/A"]
• Closure metric: [metric from metrics.md, or "⚠ No metric defined"]
• Spec: [link to spec + status, or $user-flow-map [topic]]

The output file must include a ## Downstream Impact section (only if conflicts found) and end with a ## Next Steps section with a Recommended item and 2–4 other contextual options. Choose the recommendation by the first matching condition:

1. IF downstream impact is Major: $reconcile-research — audit and fix affected downstream research documents.
2. IF a blocks-first-sale gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: $user-flow-map [top gap] — map the highest-priority gap into concrete screen flow, decisions, branches, states, and recovery paths before UI/layout planning.
3. IF any other gap lacks flow/design shape or a full spec: $user-flow-map [top gap] — map the highest-priority unspecced gap from research/mvp-gap.md before UI/layout planning.
4. IF required context is missing: the corresponding research skill ($journey-map, $competitive-analysis, $metrics, or $brainstorm when creative alternatives could reduce high-effort gaps).
5. OTHERWISE: $roadmap — sequence the existing specs into implementation phases.

Only recommend $roadmap as the primary next step when the MVP gap analysis found no unspecced priority gaps. If downstream impact has not been classified yet, run the downstream impact check before finalizing ## Next Steps.

Downstream Impact Check

Before finalizing the output, scan existing downstream docs (research/journey-map.md, research/metrics.md, research/gtm.md, research/monetization.md, tasks/roadmap.md) for conflicts with what was just decided. Classify as None/Minor/Major. If Major (3+ conflicts or foundational gap changes build sequence), recommend $reconcile-research.

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

• Analysis only — do not make code changes.
• Every gap must cite specific evidence from the codebase.
• Prioritise by market impact, not technical interest.
• Include $user-flow-map <topic> prompts for gaps lacking flow/design shape or full specs. Use $ux-variations --layout-mode <topic> only when flow and UI requirements already exist but layout alternatives are missing.
• ## Next Steps must be the final section in the output file, with a recommended next step and 2–4 other contextual options.

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/mvp-gap-{topic}.html.

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.