Service Blueprint

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.

Service Blueprint — Shostack Analysis

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.

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 - Research and clarify. Perform the research, run required source/code checks, and ask any needed clarification questions. Write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses research/_working/preliminary-service-blueprint-research.md; product-path mode uses research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-service-blueprint-research.md. Do not create or update canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
2. Stage 2 - Review alignment. Consume the working packet and build the review HTML alignment page. The page must render the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML.
3. Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts. Consume final compiled YAML only when it has no unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts, and convert the alignment page to confirmed.

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. Push back clearly and cite the evidence when the user appears to misunderstand.
• For taste, prioritization, or subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
• 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: research/competitive-analysis.md, research/customer-feedback.md, specs, and codebase context when available.

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.

When product path {slug} is active, read and write research under research/{slug}/, specs under specs/{slug}/.

1. Load Context

• Read research/icp.md — ICP segments, pain points, trigger events
• Read research/competitive-analysis.md if it exists
• Read research/customer-feedback.md if it exists
• Read codebase structure, API routes, database schema when a production codebase exists
• Read CLAUDE.md, README for product context

2. Identify Service Stages

For each key user journey from ICP evidence, identify the major service stages: awareness, consideration, onboarding, core usage, support, renewal/expansion, offboarding.

3. Map Front-Stage Actions

For each stage, document the customer-visible interactions:

• Customer actions (what the user does)
• Physical/digital evidence (what the user sees, receives, or interacts with)
• Touchpoints (channels, interfaces, communication points)

4. Map Backstage Actions

For each front-stage action, document what happens behind the scenes:

• Employee/system actions that directly support the front-stage experience
• Internal processes the customer never sees but depends on
• Data flows between systems

5. Map Support Processes

For each backstage action, identify the support infrastructure:

• Technology systems, databases, APIs
• Third-party services and integrations
• Internal tools and operational processes
• Policy and compliance requirements

6. Draw the Lines of Interaction

Identify the four key boundaries:

• Line of interaction: between customer and front-stage
• Line of visibility: between front-stage and backstage (what the customer can vs cannot see)
• Line of internal interaction: between backstage and support processes
• Line of implementation: between support processes and infrastructure

7. Identify Operational Gaps

Analyze the blueprint for:

• Fail points: where the service is most likely to break down
• Wait points: where the customer experiences delays
• Bottlenecks: where capacity constraints create queuing
• Handoff gaps: where information is lost between stages or systems
• Evidence gaps: where the customer lacks visibility into service status
• Redundancy: where duplicate processes exist

8. Validate with User

Present the blueprint and gap analysis. Ask for corrections, missing stages, and product-specific context.

Output

research/journey-map-service-blueprint.md (or research/{slug}/journey-map-service-blueprint.md)

# Service Blueprint

> Based on: research/icp.md[, other evidence]
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Shostack Service Blueprint

## Service Stages

| Stage | Customer Action | Evidence/Touchpoint | Backstage Action | Support Process |
|-------|----------------|---------------------|------------------|-----------------|
| [stage] | [action] | [evidence] | [backstage] | [support] |

## Lines of Interaction

### Line of Visibility
[What the customer can vs cannot see at each stage]

### Line of Internal Interaction
[Backstage to support process boundaries]

## Operational Gap Analysis

| Gap Type | Stage | Description | Severity | Evidence |
|----------|-------|-------------|----------|----------|
| Fail point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
| Wait point | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |
| Bottleneck | [stage] | [description] | High/Medium/Low | [source] |

## Evidence Matrix

| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
| [claim] | [source] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |

Constraints

• Ground every blueprint element in ICP, research, specs, feedback, or codebase evidence.
• Do not prescribe UI or architecture — describe the service, not the solution.
• Present findings before writing.
• Do not overwrite existing output without asking the user first.
• This is a sub-skill — do not emit next-step routing.

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/service-blueprint-{topic}.html.

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.