Strategic 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. 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.

Strategic Canvas — Blue Ocean Value Curve Analysis

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 clear context 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, and paste it into a session invoking the parent skill. The parent will consume that YAML, write the approved intermediate, and recalculate whether another framework or synthesis is next.

## Invoke With YAML
/positioning

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: strategic-canvas
  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 the parent command shown under ## Invoke With YAML, 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.

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.
• Soft: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md) — recommended for understanding which factors matter most to the target customer. If this context is missing and customer value factors cannot be assessed, recommend /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

• Read research/competitive-analysis.md — competitor landscape, strengths/weaknesses, feature comparisons, market gaps
• Read research/icp.md if it exists — which factors matter most to the target customer
• Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context

2. Extract Competing Factors

Identify the dimensions on which the industry competes. These are the factors that competitors invest in, market on, and that buyers evaluate:

• Price / cost
• Feature breadth / depth
• Speed / performance
• Ease of use / simplicity
• Support / service quality
• Integrations / ecosystem
• Customization / flexibility
• Brand / trust / reputation
• Security / compliance
• Community / network effects

Extract 6-12 factors that are most relevant to this specific market. Factors must come from actual competitive evidence in research/competitive-analysis.md, not invented dimensions.

3. Score Competitors

For each competing factor, score each competitor (including the user's product) on a scale:

• High — industry-leading investment/performance on this factor
• Medium — at or near industry standard
• Low — below industry standard or deliberately de-emphasized

Build the value curve table showing where each player sits on each factor.

4. Build Value Curve

Construct the value curve visualization as a table showing the relative positioning of each competitor across all factors. Identify:

• Where the user's product diverges from the industry norm
• Where all competitors cluster (red ocean — competing on the same dimensions)
• Where gaps exist (potential blue ocean)

5. Apply Four Actions Framework

For the user's product, determine strategic moves:

• Eliminate: Which factors taken for granted by the industry can be eliminated entirely? These are factors the industry competes on out of habit, not because customers truly need them.
• Reduce: Which factors can be reduced well below the industry standard? These are over-served dimensions where the industry over-invests relative to customer value.
• Raise: Which factors can be raised well above the industry standard? These are under-served dimensions where customers want more than anyone provides.
• Create: Which factors can be created that the industry has never offered? These are entirely new dimensions of value that redefine competition.

For each move, provide:

• The specific factor
• The rationale (why this move creates value)
• The evidence (from competitive analysis or ICP)
• The risk (what could go wrong)

6. Validate with User

Use AskUserQuestion to present the canvas and four actions:

• "Are these competing factors accurate? Am I missing any dimensions that matter in your market?"
• "Are these moves accurate? Which feel wrong or need stronger evidence?"

Output

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

# Strategic Canvas — Blue Ocean Analysis

> Based on: research/competitive-analysis.md[, research/icp.md]
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Blue Ocean Strategy (Kim & Mauborgne)

## Competing Factors

| Factor | Description | Why It Matters |
|--------|-------------|----------------|
| [factor] | [what it means in this market] | [why buyers care] |

## Value Curve Table

| Factor | [Competitor 1] | [Competitor 2] | [Competitor N] | [Product] |
|--------|----------------|----------------|----------------|-----------|
| [factor] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low |

### Value Curve Observations
- **Cluster zones**: [where all competitors are similar — red ocean]
- **Divergence points**: [where the product breaks from the pack]
- **Gaps**: [factors where no one invests — potential blue ocean]

## Four Actions Framework

### Eliminate
| Factor | Rationale | Evidence | Risk |
|--------|-----------|----------|------|
| [factor] | [why eliminate] | [source] | [what could go wrong] |

### Reduce
| Factor | Current Industry Level | Proposed Level | Rationale | Evidence |
|--------|----------------------|----------------|-----------|----------|
| [factor] | High | Low/Med | [why reduce] | [source] |

### Raise
| Factor | Current Industry Level | Proposed Level | Rationale | Evidence |
|--------|----------------------|----------------|-----------|----------|
| [factor] | Low/Med | High | [why raise] | [source] |

### Create
| Factor | Description | Customer Value | Evidence | Risk |
|--------|-------------|----------------|----------|------|
| [new factor] | [what it is] | [why customers want it] | [source] | [what could go wrong] |

## Strategic Implications

### New Value Curve
[Description of the target value curve after applying the four actions]

### Category Impact
[Does this canvas suggest the product should be in an existing category, subcategory, or new category?]

### Positioning Direction
[What positioning angle does this canvas support?]

## Evidence Matrix

| Claim | Evidence Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
|-------|---------------|---------------|------------|
| [claim about a factor or move] | [source file/section] | Observed/Inferred/Hypothesized | High/Medium/Low |

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

• Factors must come from actual competitive evidence. Do not invent dimensions — extract them from the competitive analysis.
• Score honestly. If the user's product is Low on a factor, say so. The canvas is diagnostic, not aspirational.
• Eliminate means eliminate, not reduce. Only put factors in Eliminate if they can truly be dropped entirely without losing the target customer.
• Create requires novelty. A factor in Create must be something genuinely new to the industry, not just something the user does better.
• Present before writing. Never write output files until the canvas has been presented and validated.
• Do not overwrite existing research/positioning-strategic-canvas.md without asking the user first.

Alignment Page

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

Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.