Audit an existing project's design documents and supporting files to check whether their formats work with the template's skills. Get a numbered migration plan that prioritizes gaps and required changes, rather than simply listing what exists.
Brownfield audit — do existing artifacts actually work? Numbered migration plan. Unlike /project-stage-detect, checks compliance not existence.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys review_mode,automation,automation_always_ask,workflow
Resolved above — use as-is. /adopt also inspects project.yaml and the legacy
config files directly when reporting and writing migration state; that raw
inspection is deliberate and separate from the resolved values above.
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 /project-stage-detect.
/project-stage-detect answers: what exists?
/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: $ARGUMENTS (blank = full)
full: Complete audit — all artifact typesgdds: GDD format compliance onlyadrs: ADR format compliance onlystories: Story format compliance onlyinfra: Infrastructure artifact gaps only (registry, manifest, sprint-status, stage.txt)Automation mode: Resolve modes.automation (project.local.yaml →
project.yaml → default collaborative). Every AskUserQuestion call follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md
(collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds;
automation_always_ask categories always prompt).
workflow (per .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md). It scopes the Phase 2 audit and
Phase 3 severity: full audits all doc types at full structure; standard audits
only the required docs/sections (optional sections are informational, not gaps);
minimal is a design/game-brief.md format check — GDDs/ADRs/UX are not expected. See Phase 2.
Read references/1-detect.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/2-format-audit.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/3-classify.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/4-migration-plan.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/5-summary.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/6-write.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Read references/7-first-action.md now and follow it — this phase's steps are in that file, not here. Read it again if the conversation was compacted or resumed during this phase.
Applies in collaborative mode (the default). For guided and
autonomous modes, see .claude/docs/automation-modes.md — the rules below
describe what collaborative mode requires, not universal behavior.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Document a technical decision in an architecture decision record, or ADR. Capture its context, alternatives, and consequences, assign a record number, and distinguish a proposed decision from an accepted one so dependent work reflects its actual status.
Review whether game design requirements are covered by documented architecture decisions. Identify missing coverage, conflicting decisions, and engine compatibility concerns, with an optional matrix linking requirements to development stories and tests.
Create a game's art direction document, defining its visual rules, mood, shapes, colors, and production standards. Review and approve sections individually, with guidance that connects character, environment, and interface design to the game's concept and technical constraints.
Audit game asset files for naming rules, size limits, formats, and broken references. Receive a report of measured violations and suggested fixes, with clear explanations of checks that lack data or cannot be assessed for the engine.
Turn game design documents and character profiles into asset specifications and image generation prompts. Define appearance, dimensions, file formats, and naming rules, then maintain an asset list that tracks progress and identifies shared assets.
Review game data and formulas for combat, economy, progression, or loot. Compare values with documented targets, identify dominant strategies and broken resource loops, and produce prioritized adjustment recommendations while clearly marking areas that lack enough data.