diff --git a/LICENSE b/LICENSE
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..41ed7d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2026 ShipSpec
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
index 4ab0039..9bab439 100644
--- a/README.md
+++ b/README.md
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# ShipSpec Planning Plugin
+# ShipSpec Claude Code Plugin
 
 **Spec-driven development for Claude Code.** Plan features systematically before writing code—transform ideas into well-structured PRDs, technical designs, and implementation tasks. Analyze codebases for security vulnerabilities, compliance gaps, and production blockers.
 
@@ -17,16 +17,6 @@ Spec-driven development ensures you think through requirements and architecture
 
 ### From Local Directory
 
-```bash
-# Add as a local marketplace
-/plugin marketplace add /path/to/shipspec
-
-# Install the plugin
-/plugin install shipspec@local
-```
-
-### From GitHub (when published)
-
 ```bash
 /plugin marketplace add shipspec/planning-plugin
 /plugin install shipspec@shipspec
diff --git a/agents/production-reporter.md b/agents/production-reporter.md
index f207384..139c7b1 100644
--- a/agents/production-reporter.md
+++ b/agents/production-reporter.md
@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Generate these files in the output directory:
 
 ### 1. production-report.md
 
-The main report for stakeholders.
+The main report for stakeholders. This file documents findings but does NOT include implementation tasks.
 
 ```markdown
 # Production Readiness Report
@@ -165,136 +165,120 @@ The main report for stakeholders.
 *Report generated by ShipSpec Production Analysis*
 ```
 
-### 2. fix-prompts.md
+### 2. TASKS.md
 
-Agent-ready prompts for each finding.
+Structured remediation tasks in the same format as feature-planning tasks. This enables using `/implement-next-task` to work through fixes systematically.
 
 ```markdown
-# Fix Prompts for Production Readiness
+# Remediation Tasks: [Context Name]
 
-Use these prompts with Claude Code to fix identified issues.
-
-## How to Use
-
-1. Copy the prompt for the finding you want to fix
-2. Paste into Claude Code
-3. Review and apply the suggested changes
-4. Re-run analysis to verify the fix
+**Generated:** [Date]
+**Total Tasks:** X
+**Total Story Points:** Y
+**Estimated Sessions:** Z (assuming 20 pts/session)
 
 ---
 
-## Critical Fixes
+## Summary
 
-### FINDING-001: [Title]
+### Finding Coverage Matrix
+| Category | Findings | Tasks |
+|----------|----------|-------|
+| Security | FINDING-001 to FINDING-003 | 3 |
+| Compliance | FINDING-004 to FINDING-006 | 3 |
+| Code Quality | FINDING-007 to FINDING-009 | 3 |
 
-**Context:**
-[Brief description of what was found and why it matters]
+### Critical Path
+FINDING-001 → FINDING-004 → FINDING-007
 
-**Files Affected:**
-- `path/to/file.ts:42`
+### Execution Phases
+| Phase | Focus | Tasks | Points |
+|-------|-------|-------|--------|
+| Phase 1 | Critical Fixes | 3 | 8 |
+| Phase 2 | High Priority | 5 | 12 |
+| Phase 3 | Medium Priority | 4 | 8 |
 
-**Prompt:**
-```
-Fix the [issue type] in [file path].
+---
 
-The current code [description of problem]:
-[code snippet]
+## Phase 1: Critical Fixes (X points)
 
-This is a security risk because [explanation].
+### - [ ] FINDING-001: [Title from finding]
 
-Please:
-1. [Specific fix instruction]
-2. [Additional instruction if needed]
-3. Ensure [verification criteria]
+## Context
+[2-3 sentences explaining the security/compliance issue, where it occurs, and its business impact. Reference the production-report.md for full details.]
 
-Reference: [OWASP/SOC 2 control]
-```
+## Requirements
+- [ ] [Specific, verifiable fix requirement 1]
+- [ ] [Specific, verifiable fix requirement 2]
+- [ ] [Specific, verifiable fix requirement 3]
 
-**Verification:**
-After applying the fix, verify by:
-- [ ] [Check 1]
-- [ ] [Check 2]
+## Technical Approach
 
----
+### Files to Modify
+- `path/to/file.ts:42` - [What needs to change]
+- `path/to/another.ts` - [Related change]
 
-### FINDING-002: [Title]
+### Implementation
+[Step-by-step fix guidance based on codebase patterns]
 
-[Same format]
+1. [First step]
+2. [Second step]
+3. [Verification step]
 
----
+## Constraints
+- Follow existing patterns in `[reference file]`
+- Maintain backward compatibility with `[existing API]`
+- Do not modify `[protected area]`
 
-## High Priority Fixes
+## Testing Requirements
+- Verify fix with: [specific test or verification method]
+- Confirm no regression in: [affected functionality]
+- Edge cases: [specific edge cases to verify]
 
-[Same format for high findings]
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] [Verifiable criterion matching the finding's remediation]
+- [ ] [Security/compliance requirement is met]
+- [ ] All tests pass
+- [ ] No TypeScript errors
+- [ ] Linting passes
 
----
+## Dependencies
+- Depends on: None (or FINDING-XXX if this fix requires another first)
+- Blocks: FINDING-YYY (if other fixes depend on this one)
 
-## Medium Priority Fixes
+## References
+- Compliance: [SOC 2 CC6.1 / OWASP A01 / etc.]
+- Report: See production-report.md, FINDING-001
+- Similar pattern: `path/to/similar/code.ts`
 
-[Same format for medium findings]
+## Estimated Effort
+- Story Points: [1/2/3/5/8]
 
 ---
 
-## Batch Fix Prompts
+### - [ ] FINDING-002: [Title]
 
-### Fix All Hardcoded Secrets
+[Same structure as above]
 
-```
-Search the codebase for hardcoded credentials and secrets.
-
-Patterns to find:
-- password = "..."
-- api_key = "..."
-- secret = "..."
-- Connection strings with embedded credentials
-
-For each occurrence:
-1. Replace with environment variable reference
-2. Add the variable to .env.example with a placeholder
-3. Ensure .env is in .gitignore
-
-Do not commit actual secrets. Use descriptive placeholder values.
-```
+---
 
-### Fix All Empty Error Handlers
+## Phase 2: High Priority (Y points)
 
-```
-Find all empty catch blocks and exception handlers in the codebase.
+### - [ ] FINDING-003: [Title]
 
-Patterns:
-- catch (e) { }
-- except: pass
-- if err != nil { }
+[Same structure as above]
 
-For each:
-1. Add appropriate error logging
-2. Re-throw or handle the error appropriately
-3. Consider if the error should trigger an alert
+---
 
-Use the project's existing logging pattern.
-```
+## Phase 3: Medium Priority (Z points)
 
-### Add Missing Input Validation
+### - [ ] FINDING-004: [Title]
 
-```
-Review all API endpoints and user input handlers.
-
-For each endpoint that accepts user input:
-1. Add input validation using [project's validation library]
-2. Sanitize string inputs to prevent injection
-3. Validate types and ranges
-4. Return appropriate error messages
-
-Focus on:
-- Query parameters
-- Request body fields
-- Path parameters
-- Headers used in logic
-```
+[Same structure as above]
 
 ---
 
-*Fix prompts generated by ShipSpec Production Analysis*
+*Remediation tasks generated by ShipSpec Production Analysis*
 ```
 
 ## Report Generation Guidelines
@@ -314,15 +298,17 @@ Write for non-technical leadership:
 - Be specific about location and scope
 - Make remediation actionable
 
-### Fix Prompts
+### Task Prompts
 
-Create prompts that:
-- Provide sufficient context
-- Reference specific files and lines
-- Include the problematic code snippet
-- Give clear, step-by-step instructions
-- Include verification criteria
-- Reference compliance standards
+Create tasks that:
+- Provide sufficient context (2-3 sentences explaining the issue and impact)
+- Reference specific files and lines in "Files to Modify"
+- Include clear requirements as verifiable checkboxes
+- Give step-by-step implementation guidance
+- Include testing requirements and acceptance criteria
+- Reference compliance standards (SOC 2, OWASP)
+- Include dependencies when fixes must be done in order
+- Use FINDING-XXX IDs to maintain traceability to the report
 
 ### Effort Estimation
 
@@ -341,10 +327,12 @@ Before completing report:
 - [ ] All findings are documented with evidence
 - [ ] Compliance matrix is accurate
 - [ ] Remediation roadmap is prioritized
-- [ ] Fix prompts are specific and actionable
+- [ ] TASKS.md uses correct `### - [ ] FINDING-XXX:` format
+- [ ] Each task has complete acceptance criteria
+- [ ] Dependencies form a valid DAG (no cycles)
 - [ ] Effort estimates are realistic
 - [ ] Report is readable by non-technical stakeholders
-- [ ] Fix prompts include verification steps
+- [ ] Tasks include verification steps
 
 ## Handoff
 
@@ -355,18 +343,19 @@ After generating reports, inform the user:
 
 **Files created:**
 - `[output-dir]/production-report.md` - Full analysis report
-- `[output-dir]/fix-prompts.md` - Agent-ready fix prompts
+- `[output-dir]/TASKS.md` - Structured remediation tasks
 
 **Summary:**
 - Overall Status: [Ready/Not Ready]
 - Critical Issues: [X]
 - Total Findings: [X]
+- Total Tasks: [X]
 - Estimated Effort: [X] story points
 
 **Next Steps:**
 1. Review the production-report.md with stakeholders
-2. Use fix-prompts.md to address findings
-3. Re-run `/productionalize` after fixes to verify
+2. Run `/implement-next-task [context-name]` to start fixing issues
+3. Re-run `/production-readiness-review [context-name]` after fixes to verify
 
-Would you like me to help fix any specific finding?
+Would you like me to start implementing the first task?
 ```
diff --git a/commands/implement-next-task.md b/commands/implement-next-task.md
index 6d5e90d..30ce988 100644
--- a/commands/implement-next-task.md
+++ b/commands/implement-next-task.md
@@ -1,23 +1,65 @@
 ---
 description: Start implementing the next available task from TASKS.md
-argument-hint: <feature-name>
+argument-hint: <directory-name>
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Edit, Bash(cat:*), Bash(ls:*), Bash(find:*), Bash(npm:*), Bash(git:*), Bash(head:*), Bash(wc:*)
 ---
 
 # Implement Next Task: $ARGUMENTS
 
-Find and display the next task ready for implementation, verifying any in-progress work first.
+Find and display the next task ready for implementation, verifying any in-progress work first. Supports both feature-planning (TASK-XXX) and production-readiness-review (FINDING-XXX) workflows.
 
-## Step 1: Validate Prerequisites
+## Step 0: Validate Argument
 
-Check that TASKS.md exists:
+**If $ARGUMENTS is empty or missing:**
+> "Error: Directory name is required.
+>
+> **Usage:** `/implement-next-task <directory-name>`
+>
+> The directory name should match your planning context:
+> - For features: the feature name used with `/feature-planning`
+> - For production readiness: the context name used with `/production-readiness-review`
+>
+> **To see available planning directories:**
+> ```bash
+> ls .shipspec/planning/
+> ```"
+
+**Stop here** - do not proceed without an argument.
+
+## Step 1: Validate Prerequisites and Detect Workflow
+
+Check that the planning directory exists:
+```bash
+echo "=== Checking planning directory ==="
+ls -la .shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/ 2>/dev/null || echo "DIRECTORY NOT FOUND"
+```
+
+**If directory not found:**
+> "No planning directory found for '$ARGUMENTS'. Please run either:
+> - `/feature-planning $ARGUMENTS` - for new feature development
+> - `/production-readiness-review $ARGUMENTS` - for production readiness analysis"
+
+**Detect workflow type:**
+```bash
+echo "=== Detecting workflow type ==="
+ls .shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/PRD.md .shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/SDD.md 2>/dev/null && echo "FEATURE_PLANNING"
+ls .shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/production-report.md 2>/dev/null && echo "PRODUCTION_READINESS"
+```
+
+- If `PRD.md` and `SDD.md` exist → **Feature Planning** workflow (uses TASK-XXX IDs)
+- If `production-report.md` exists → **Production Readiness** workflow (uses FINDING-XXX IDs)
+- If neither → Error: "Directory exists but contains no recognized planning artifacts. Expected either PRD.md/SDD.md (feature planning) or production-report.md (production readiness)."
+
+**Check for TASKS.md:**
 ```bash
-echo "=== Checking TASKS.md ==="
 ls -la .shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/TASKS.md 2>/dev/null || echo "TASKS.md NOT FOUND"
 ```
 
-If TASKS.md is not found, tell the user:
-> "No TASKS.md found for '$ARGUMENTS'. Please run `/feature-planning $ARGUMENTS` first to complete the planning workflow and generate tasks."
+**If TASKS.md not found:**
+> "No TASKS.md found in '.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/'.
+>
+> - For feature planning: Run `/feature-planning $ARGUMENTS` to complete the planning workflow.
+> - For production readiness: Run `/production-readiness-review $ARGUMENTS` to generate remediation tasks."
 
 ## Step 2: Load and Parse Tasks
 
@@ -25,20 +67,33 @@ Load the tasks document:
 @.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/TASKS.md
 
 Parse the document to extract:
-1. **All tasks** with their IDs, titles, and statuses
-2. **Status indicators**:
+1. **Workflow type** (from Step 1 detection)
+2. **Task ID pattern**:
+   - Feature Planning: `TASK-XXX`
+   - Production Readiness: `FINDING-XXX`
+3. **All tasks** with their IDs, titles, and statuses
+4. **Status indicators**:
    - `- [ ]` = Not started
    - `- [~]` = In progress
    - `- [x]` = Completed
-3. **Dependencies** from each task's `Depends on:` line
+5. **Dependencies** from each task's `Depends on:` line
 
-Build a task map:
+Build a task map (example for each workflow type):
+
+**Feature Planning:**
 ```
 TASK-001: status=[ ], depends_on=[], title="..."
 TASK-002: status=[ ], depends_on=[TASK-001], title="..."
 TASK-003: status=[x], depends_on=[], title="..."
 ```
 
+**Production Readiness:**
+```
+FINDING-001: status=[ ], depends_on=[], title="..."
+FINDING-002: status=[ ], depends_on=[FINDING-001], title="..."
+FINDING-003: status=[x], depends_on=[], title="..."
+```
+
 ## Step 3: Check for In-Progress Task
 
 Search for any task marked with `[~]` (in progress).
@@ -108,17 +163,19 @@ Otherwise, show the blocking situation:
 Once a ready task is found:
 
 1. **Update TASKS.md**: Change the task's status from `[ ]` to `[~]`
-   - Find the line with `### - [ ] TASK-XXX:`
-   - Replace with `### - [~] TASK-XXX:`
+   - For Feature Planning: Find `### - [ ] TASK-XXX:` → Replace with `### - [~] TASK-XXX:`
+   - For Production Readiness: Find `### - [ ] FINDING-XXX:` → Replace with `### - [~] FINDING-XXX:`
 
 2. **Extract the full task prompt**: Get all content from the task header until the next task header (or end of phase/document)
 
-3. **Display to user**:
+3. **Display to user** (workflow-aware):
 
-> "## Starting Task: [TASK-ID]
+> "## Starting Task: [TASK-ID or FINDING-ID]
 >
 > **[Task Title]**
 >
+> **Workflow:** [Feature Development | Production Remediation]
+>
 > Status updated to: In Progress
 >
 > ---
@@ -146,22 +203,30 @@ After displaying the task, show progress:
 
 ## Edge Cases
 
+### Missing Argument
+If no directory name is provided, show the error from Step 0 and stop.
+
 ### Multiple In-Progress Tasks
 If more than one task is marked `[~]`:
 > "Warning: Multiple tasks are marked as in-progress. This shouldn't happen.
 >
 > In-progress tasks:
-> - [TASK-XXX]: [Title]
-> - [TASK-YYY]: [Title]
+> - [TASK-XXX or FINDING-XXX]: [Title]
+> - [TASK-YYY or FINDING-YYY]: [Title]
 >
 > Please resolve this by marking all but one as either `[ ]` (not started) or `[x]` (completed), then run this command again."
 
 ### Circular Dependencies
 If dependency resolution detects a cycle:
 > "Error: Circular dependency detected in tasks. Please review the dependency chain:
-> TASK-001 → TASK-002 → TASK-003 → TASK-001
+> [ID-001] → [ID-002] → [ID-003] → [ID-001]
 >
 > Fix the dependencies in TASKS.md and try again."
 
+(Use TASK-XXX for feature planning or FINDING-XXX for production readiness based on detected workflow)
+
 ### Empty Dependencies Field
 If a task has `Depends on: None` or no dependencies section, treat it as having no dependencies (ready if status is `[ ]`).
+
+### Mixed Workflow Artifacts
+If a directory contains both PRD.md/SDD.md AND production-report.md, prefer the production-report.md detection (production readiness workflow) since it's more likely to be the recent analysis overlaid on an existing feature.
diff --git a/commands/productionalize.md b/commands/production-readiness-review.md
similarity index 84%
rename from commands/productionalize.md
rename to commands/production-readiness-review.md
index ed325d9..f9e036d 100644
--- a/commands/productionalize.md
+++ b/commands/production-readiness-review.md
@@ -1,12 +1,12 @@
 ---
-description: Analyze codebase for production readiness and generate fix prompts
+description: Analyze codebase for production readiness and generate remediation tasks
 argument-hint: <context-name>
 allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Write, Bash(git status), Bash(ls:*), Bash(mkdir:*), Bash(find:*), Bash(head:*), Bash(cat:*), Bash(wc:*), WebSearch, WebFetch
 ---
 
-# Production Readiness Analysis: $ARGUMENTS
+# Production Readiness Review: $ARGUMENTS
 
-Analyze the codebase for production readiness, identifying security vulnerabilities, compliance gaps, and code quality issues.
+Analyze the codebase for production readiness, identifying security vulnerabilities, compliance gaps, and code quality issues. Generate structured remediation tasks that can be implemented using `/implement-next-task`.
 
 ## Step 1: Setup Output Directory
 
@@ -63,12 +63,12 @@ The analyzer will:
 - Filter false positives
 - Document findings with evidence and severity
 
-## Step 5: Generate Reports
+## Step 5: Generate Reports and Tasks
 
 Delegate to the `production-reporter` subagent to generate:
 
 1. **production-report.md** - Executive summary, findings by category, compliance matrix, remediation roadmap
-2. **fix-prompts.md** - Agent-ready prompts for each finding
+2. **TASKS.md** - Structured remediation tasks (same format as feature-planning tasks)
 
 Save to: `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/`
 
@@ -76,12 +76,12 @@ Save to: `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/`
 
 After report generation, present a summary:
 
-> **Production Readiness Analysis Complete**
+> **Production Readiness Review Complete**
 >
 > **Output files:**
 > - `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/production-signals.md` - Detected tech stack and infrastructure
 > - `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/production-report.md` - Full analysis report
-> - `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/fix-prompts.md` - Agent-ready fix prompts
+> - `.shipspec/planning/$ARGUMENTS/TASKS.md` - Structured remediation tasks
 >
 > **Summary:**
 > - Overall Status: [Ready/Ready with Reservations/Not Ready]
@@ -92,9 +92,8 @@ After report generation, present a summary:
 >
 > **Recommended Next Steps:**
 > 1. Review production-report.md with stakeholders
-> 2. Address critical findings immediately
-> 3. Use fix-prompts.md to fix issues with Claude Code
-> 4. Re-run `/productionalize $ARGUMENTS` after fixes to verify
+> 2. Run `/implement-next-task $ARGUMENTS` to start fixing issues
+> 3. Re-run `/production-readiness-review $ARGUMENTS` after fixes to verify
 
 ## Pre-loaded Context