AdoptSAFE

Turn Claude Code into a full game dev studio — 49 AI agents, 72 workflow skills, and a complete coordination system mirroring real studio hierarchy.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: adopt
description: "Brownfield audit — do existing artifacts actually work? Numbered migration plan. Unlike /project-stage-detect, checks compliance not existence."
argument-hint: "[focus: full | gdds | adrs | stories | infra]"
user-invocable: true
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash, Write, AskUserQuestion, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/adopt/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
model: sonnet
---

!`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.


# 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 `/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`)

- **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)

---

**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.

## 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
- `project.stage` in `project.yaml` (fallback `production/stage.txt`) — if either is present, use that value (authoritative phase)
- `design/gdd/game-concept.md` (or, at the minimal tier, `design/game-brief.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)
- `project.yaml` (`engine.name`) / `.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md` — engine configured?
- `docs/engine-reference/` — engine reference docs present?
- Glob `docs/adoption-plan-*.md` — note the filename of the most recent prior plan if any exist

### Infer phase (if no project.stage / stage.txt)
Use the same heuristic as `/project-stage-detect`:
- 10+ source files in the code root → Production
- Stories in `production/epics/` → Pre-Production
- ADRs exist → Technical Setup
- systems-index.md exists → Systems Design
- game-concept.md (or `design/game-brief.md`) exists → Concept
- Nothing → Fresh (not a brownfield project — suggest `/start`)

If the project appears fresh (no artifacts at all), use `AskUserQuestion`:
- "This looks like a fresh project — no existing artifacts found. `/adopt` is for
  projects with work to migrate. What would you like to do?"
  - "Run `/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 **and the resolved
workflow tier**), check not just that the file exists but that it contains the
internal structure the template requires. At `minimal`, scope the audit to
`design/game-brief.md` — do not audit for GDDs, ADRs, or UX specs (they are not expected).
Steps 2e (the Engine reference row only), 2f (project config) and 2g (v1.0
migration check) run at every tier.

### 2a: GDD Format Audit

**Gather section presence deterministically — do not read the GDDs to count
headings.** For each GDD discovered in Phase 1, pass its path explicitly to the
structure-check script:

```
Bash: bash .claude/scripts/gdd-structure-check.sh [path-to-gdd]
```

**Pass paths one at a time; do not invoke it bare.** The no-argument form sweeps
`design/gdd/` only, and a brownfield project's GDDs are not guaranteed to live
there — pass whatever paths Phase 1 found. The script prints a `PRESENT:` list
and, when applicable, an `ABSENT:` list per file. It reports **presence only**
and makes no REQUIRED/ADVISORY judgment (that is the tier logic below), and it
already accepts `## Detailed Design` as satisfying the `Detailed Rules`
requirement, so do not flag that alias as missing.

If the script prints `Not found:` for a path or errors, that is a **discovery
failure, not a format gap** — report it as "could not audit [path]" and do not
count it as a missing-sections finding.

**Then apply the workflow tier** resolved above to each file's PRESENT/ABSENT
lists. Which sections are **required** (a miss 

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.