Adopt

Port provenance: adapted from the pinned upstream source at 984023ddac0d5e27624f2baacde6105e45de375f under MIT; see the repository parity ledger for the exact path and blob.

Adopt — Brownfield Template Adoption

This skill audits an existing project's artifacts for format compliance with the template's skill pipeline, then produces a prioritised migration plan.

This is not $ai-game-studio:project-stage-detect. $ai-game-studio:project-stage-detect answers: what exists? $ai-game-studio:adopt answers: will what exists actually work with the template's skills?

A project can have GDDs, ADRs, and stories — and every format-sensitive skill will still fail silently or produce wrong results if those artifacts are in the wrong internal format.

Output: docs/adoption-plan-[date].md — a persistent, checkable migration plan.

Argument modes:

Audit mode: the first invocation argument (blank = full)

• No argument / full: Complete audit — all artifact types
• gdds: GDD format compliance only
• adrs: ADR format compliance only
• stories: Story format compliance only
• infra: Infrastructure artifact gaps only (registry, manifest, sprint-status, stage.txt)

Phase 1: Detect Project State

Emit one line before reading: "Scanning project artifacts..." — this confirms the skill is running during the silent read phase.

Then read silently before presenting anything else.

Existence check

• production/stage.txt — if present, read it (authoritative phase)
• design/gdd/game-concept.md — concept exists?
• design/gdd/systems-index.md — systems index exists?
• Count GDD files: design/gdd/*.md (excluding game-concept.md and systems-index.md)
• Count ADR files: docs/architecture/adr-*.md
• Count story files: production/epics/**/*.md (excluding EPIC.md)
• .ai-game-studio/project.json — engine configured?
• docs/engine-reference/ — engine reference docs present?
• file discovery docs/adoption-plan-*.md — note the filename of the most recent prior plan if any exist

Infer phase (if no stage.txt)

Use the same heuristic as $ai-game-studio:project-stage-detect:

• 10+ source files in src/ → Production
• Stories in production/epics/ → Pre-Production
• ADRs exist → Technical Setup
• systems-index.md exists → Systems Design
• game-concept.md exists → Concept
• Nothing → Fresh (not a brownfield project — suggest $ai-game-studio:start)

If the project appears fresh (no artifacts at all), use the available user-input mechanism:

• "This looks like a fresh project — no existing artifacts found. $ai-game-studio:adopt is for projects with work to migrate. What would you like to do?"
  • "Run $ai-game-studio:start — begin guided first-time onboarding"
  • "My artifacts are in a non-standard location — help me find them"
  • "Cancel"

Then stop — do not proceed with the audit regardless of which option the user picks (each option leads to a different skill or manual investigation).

Report: "Detected phase: [phase]. Found: [N] GDDs, [M] ADRs, [P] stories."

Phase 2: Format Audit

For each artifact type in scope (based on argument mode), check not just that the file exists but that it contains the internal structure the template requires.

2a: GDD Format Audit

For each GDD file found, check for the 8 required sections by scanning headings:

For each GDD, record:

• Which sections are present
• Which sections are missing
• Whether it has any content in present sections or just placeholder text ([To be designed] or equivalent)

Also check: does each GDD have a **Status**: field in its header block? Valid values: In Design, Designed, In Review, Approved, Needs Revision.

2b: ADR Format Audit

For each ADR file found, check for these critical sections:

For each ADR, record: which sections present, which missing, current Status value if the Status section exists.

2c: systems-index.md Format Audit

If design/gdd/systems-index.md exists:

1. Parenthetical status values — text search for any Status cell containing parentheses: "Needs Revision (", "In Progress (", etc. These break exact-string matching in $ai-game-studio:gate-check, $ai-game-studio:create-stories, and $ai-game-studio:architecture-review. BLOCKING.

2. Valid status values — check that Status column values are only from: Not Started, In Progress, In Review, Designed, Approved, Needs Revision Flag any unrecognised values.

3. Column structure — check that the table has at minimum: System name, Layer, Priority, Status columns. Missing columns degrade skill functionality.

2d: Story Format Audit

For each story file found:

• Manifest Version: field — present in story header? (LOW — auto-passes if absent)
• TR-ID reference — does story contain TR-[a-z]+-[0-9]+ pattern? (MEDIUM — no staleness tracking)
• ADR reference — does story reference at least one ADR? (check for ADR- pattern)
• Status field — present and readable?
• Acceptance criteria — does the story have a checkbox list (- [ ])?

2e: Infrastructure Audit

2f: Technical Preferences Audit

Read .ai-game-studio/project.json. Check each field for [TO BE CONFIGURED]:

• Engine, Language, Rendering, Physics → HIGH if unconfigured (ADR skills fail)
• Naming conventions → MEDIUM
• Performance budgets → MEDIUM
• Forbidden Patterns, Allowed Libraries → LOW (starts empty by design)

Phase 3: Classify and Prioritise Gaps

Organise every gap found across all audits into four severity tiers:

BLOCKING — Will cause template skills to silently produce wrong results right now. Examples: ADR missing Status field, systems-index parenthetical status values, engine not configured when ADRs exist.

HIGH — Will cause stories to be generated with missing safety checks, or infrastructure bootstrapping will fail. Examples: ADRs missing Engine Compatibility, GDDs missing Acceptance Criteria (stories can't be generated from them), tr-registry.yaml missing.

MEDIUM — Degrades quality and pipeline tracking but does not break functionality. Examples: GDDs missing Tuning Knobs or Formulas sections, stories missing TR-IDs, sprint-status.yaml missing.

LOW — Retroactive improvements that are nice-to-have but not urgent. Examples: Stories missing Manifest Version stamps, GDDs missing Open Questions section.

Count totals per tier. If zero BLOCKING and zero HIGH gaps: report that the project is template-compatible and only advisory improvements remain.

Phase 4: Build the Migration Plan

Compose a numbered, ordered action plan. Ordering rules:

1. BLOCKING gaps first (must fix before any pipeline skill runs reliably)
2. HIGH gaps next, infrastructure before GDD/ADR content (bootstrapping needs correct formats)
3. MEDIUM gaps ordered: GDD gaps before ADR gaps before story gaps (stories depend on GDDs and ADRs)
4. LOW gaps last

For each gap, produce a plan entry with:

• A clear problem statement (one sentence, no jargon)
• The exact command to fix it, if a skill handles it
• Manual steps if it requires direct editing
• A time estimate (rough: 5 min / 30 min / 1 session)
• A checkbox - [ ] for tracking

Special case — systems-index parenthetical status values: This is always the first item if present. Show the exact values that need changing and the exact replacement text. Offer to fix this immediately before writing the plan.

Special case — ADRs missing Status field: For each affected ADR, the fix is: $ai-game-studio:architecture-decision retrofit docs/architecture/adr-[NNNN]-[slug].md List each ADR as a separate checkable item.

Special case — GDDs missing sections: For each affected GDD, list which sections are missing and the fix: $ai-game-studio:design-system retrofit design/gdd/[filename].md

Infrastructure bootstrap ordering — always present in this sequence:

1. Fix ADR formats first (registry depends on reading ADR Status fields)
2. Run $ai-game-studio:architecture-review → bootstraps tr-registry.yaml
3. Run $ai-game-studio:create-control-manifest → creates manifest with version stamp
4. Run $ai-game-studio:sprint-plan update → creates sprint-status.yaml
5. Run $ai-game-studio:gate-check [phase] → writes stage.txt authoritatively

Existing stories — note explicitly:

"Existing stories continue to work with all template skills — all new format checks auto-pass when the fields are absent. They won't benefit from TR-ID staleness tracking or manifest version checks until they're regenerated. This is intentional: do not regenerate stories that are already in progress."

Phase 5: Present Summary and Ask to Write

Present a compact summary before writing:

## Adoption Audit Summary
Phase detected: [phase]
Engine: [configured / NOT CONFIGURED]
GDDs audited: [N] ([X] fully compliant, [Y] with gaps)
ADRs audited: [N] ([X] fully compliant, [Y] with gaps)
Stories audited: [N]

Gap counts:
  BLOCKING: [N] — template skills will malfunction without these fixes
  HIGH:     [N] — unsafe to run $ai-game-studio:create-stories or $ai-game-studio:story-readiness
  MEDIUM:   [N] — quality degradation
  LOW:      [N] — optional improvements

Estimated remediation: [X blocking items × ~Y min each = roughly Z hours]

Before asking to write, show a Gap Preview:

• List every BLOCKING gap as a one-line bullet describing the actual problem (e.g. systems-index.md: 3 rows have parenthetical status values, adr-0002.md: missing ## Status section). No counts — show the actual items.
• Show HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW as counts only (e.g. HIGH: 4, MEDIUM: 2, LOW: 1).

This gives the user enough context to judge scope before committing to writing the file.

If a prior adoption plan was detected in Phase 1, add a note:

"A previous plan exists at docs/adoption-plan-[prior-date].md. The new plan will reflect current project state — it does not diff against the prior run."

Use the available user-input mechanism:

• "Ready to write the migration plan?"
  • "Yes — write docs/adoption-plan-[date].md"
  • "Show me the full plan preview first (don't write yet)"
  • "Cancel — I'll handle migration manually"

If the user picks "Show me the full plan preview", output the complete plan as a fenced markdown block. Then ask again with the same three options.

Phase 6: Write the Adoption Plan

If approved, write docs/adoption-plan-[date].md with this structure:

# Adoption Plan

> **Generated**: [date]
> **Project phase**: [phase]
> **Engine**: [name + version, or "Not configured"]
> **Template version**: v1.0+

Work through these steps in order. Check off each item as you complete it.
Re-run `$ai-game-studio:adopt` anytime to check remaining gaps.

---

## Step 1: Fix Blocking Gaps

[One sub-section per blocking gap with problem, fix command, time estimate, checkbox]

---

## Step 2: Fix High-Priority Gaps

[One sub-section per high gap]

---

## Step 3: Bootstrap Infrastructure

### 3a. Register existing requirements (creates tr-registry.yaml)
Run `$ai-game-studio:architecture-review` — even if ADRs already exist, this run bootstraps
the TR registry from your existing GDDs and ADRs.
**Time**: 1 session (review can be long for large codebases)
- [ ] tr-registry.yaml created

### 3b. Create control manifest
Run `$ai-game-studio:create-control-manifest`
**Time**: 30 min
- [ ] docs/architecture/control-manifest.md created

### 3c. Create sprint tracking file
Run `$ai-game-studio:sprint-plan update`
**Time**: 5 min (if sprint plan already exists as markdown)
- [ ] production/sprint-status.yaml created

### 3d. Set authoritative project stage
Run `$ai-game-studio:gate-check [current-phase]`
**Time**: 5 min
- [ ] production/stage.txt written

---

## Step 4: Medium-Priority Gaps

[One sub-section per medium gap]

---

## Step 5: Optional Improvements

[One sub-section per low gap]

---

## What to Expect from Existing Stories

Existing stories continue to work with all template skills. New format checks
(TR-ID validation, manifest version staleness) auto-pass when the fields are
absent — so nothing breaks. They won't benefit from staleness tracking until
regenerated. Do not regenerate stories that are in progress or done.

---

## Re-run

Run `$ai-game-studio:adopt` again after completing Step 3 to verify all blocking and high gaps
are resolved. The new run will reflect the current state of the project.

Phase 6b: Set Review Mode

After writing the adoption plan (or if the user cancels writing), check whether production/review-mode.txt exists.

If it exists: Read it and note the current mode — "Review mode is already set to [current]." — skip the prompt.

If it does not exist: Use the available user-input mechanism:

• Prompt: "One more setup step: how much design review would you like as you work through the workflow?"
• Options:
  • Full — Director specialists review at each key workflow step. Best for teams, learning the workflow, or when you want thorough feedback on every decision.
  • Lean (recommended) — Directors only at phase gate transitions ($ai-game-studio:gate-check). Skips per-skill reviews. Balanced for solo devs and small teams.
  • Solo — No director reviews at all. Maximum speed. Best for game jams, prototypes, or if reviews feel like overhead.

Write the choice to production/review-mode.txt immediately after selection — no separate "May I write?" needed:

• Full → write full
• Lean (recommended) → write lean
• Solo → write solo

Create the production/ directory if it does not exist.

Phase 7: Offer First Action

After writing the plan, don't stop there. Pick the single highest-priority gap and offer to handle it immediately using the available user-input mechanism. Choose the first branch that applies:

If there are parenthetical status values in systems-index.md: Use the available user-input mechanism:

• "The most urgent fix is systems-index.md — [N] rows have parenthetical status values (e.g. Needs Revision (see notes)) that break $ai-game-studio:gate-check, $ai-game-studio:create-stories, and $ai-game-studio:architecture-review right now. I can fix these in-place."
  • "Fix it now — edit systems-index.md"
  • "I'll fix it myself"
  • "Done — leave me with the plan"

If ADRs are missing ## Status (and no parenthetical issue): Use the available user-input mechanism:

• "The most urgent fix is adding ## Status to [N] ADR(s): [list filenames]. Without it, $ai-game-studio:story-readiness silently passes all ADR checks. Start with [first affected filename]?"
  • "Yes — retrofit [first affected filename] now"
  • "Retrofit all [N] ADRs one by one"
  • "I'll handle ADRs myself"

If GDDs are missing Acceptance Criteria (and no blocking issues above): Use the available user-input mechanism:

• "The most urgent gap is missing Acceptance Criteria in [N] GDD(s): [list filenames]. Without them, $ai-game-studio:create-stories can't generate stories. Start with [highest-priority GDD filename]?"
  • "Yes — add Acceptance Criteria to [GDD filename] now"
  • "Do all [N] GDDs one by one"
  • "I'll handle GDDs myself"

If no BLOCKING or HIGH gaps exist: Use the available user-input mechanism:

• "No blocking gaps — this project is template-compatible. What next?"
  • "Walk me through the medium-priority improvements"
  • "Run $ai-game-studio:project-stage-detect for a broader health check"
  • "Done — I'll work through the plan at my own pace"

Adoption plan saved to docs/adoption-plan-[date].md. Re-run $ai-game-studio:adopt at any time to re-check remaining gaps as you complete them.

Collaborative Protocol

1. Read silently — complete the full audit before presenting anything
2. Show the summary first — let the user see scope before asking to write
3. Ask before writing — always confirm before creating the adoption plan file
4. Offer, don't force — the plan is advisory; the user decides what to fix and when
5. One action at a time — after handing off the plan, offer one specific next step, not a list of six things to do simultaneously
6. Never regenerate existing artifacts — only fill gaps in what exists; do not rewrite GDDs, ADRs, or stories that already have content

Codex portability

Use the search, file-editing, shell, user-input, and subagent capabilities available in the active Codex surface. Use PowerShell syntax on Windows and POSIX syntax on macOS/Linux; do not require a Unix compatibility layer on Windows. Inherit the active model and permission mode, and do not weaken approval or sandbox boundaries.