migrate
Skill276 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Adopt govctl in an existing project by discovering and confirming historical decisions, specifications, and active work before backfilling a governed baseline
63 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- tuist/agent-plugintheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dsifry/metaswarmtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- jwm-axoni/claude-workbenchtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AsiaOstrich/EngramGraphtheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- DawnEver/claude-code-configtheir own version, first seen Nov 6, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use incident, sdd and 9 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
JkudjoSkillincident
Production incident response — structured triage, hypothesis tree, safe remediation, incident record
Also in 4 projects that use this
liatrio-labsSkillsdd
Execute the Liatrio Spec-Driven Development (SDD) workflow when explicitly invoked by the user. NOTE: this skill is NOT intended to be dynamically loaded or automatically triggered; it should only ever be explicitly called by the user.
Also in 4 projects that use this
BerryKuipersSkillscaffold
Detect project stack, apply architecture patterns, wire quality gates, and scaffold features. Use when bootstrapping a project, adding a vertical slice, wiring CI/CD, adding Docker compose, or setting up quality gates.
Also in 4 projects that use this
agenticnotetakingSkillupgrade
Apply plugin knowledge base updates to an existing generated system. Consults the Ars Contexta research graph for methodology improvements, proposes skill upgrades with research justification. Never auto-implements. Triggers on "/upgrade", "upgrade skills", "check for improvements", "update methodology".
Also in 3 projects that use this
genomewalkerSkillcheckpoint
Save a checkpoint of task status, decisions, active files, and next steps
Also in 5 projects that use this
PydanticSkillcoverage
Fetch coverage diff from Codecov for the current branch or a specific PR. Shows uncovered lines, patch coverage, and overall coverage change.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions63 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 63
- garrytan/gbrain★ 32ksame name
- tuist/tuist★ 5.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v2★ 3.9ksame name
- parcadei/Continuous-Claude-v3★ 3.9ksame name
- codewithmukesh/dotnet-claude-kit★ 808same name
- dsifry/metaswarm★ 426same name
- pipecat-ai/gradient-bang★ 420same name
- AsiaOstrich/universal-dev-standards★ 84same name
- jackmusick/bifrost★ 75same name
53 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- adr-writerSkill
- commitSkill
- decision-analysisSkill
- detachSkill
- discussSkill
- govSkill
- guard-writerSkill
- initSkill
- quickSkill
- rfc-writerSkill
- specSkill
- wi-writerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
12 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 50 edited versions we read keep these.
8
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
4
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
If gov/config.toml is missing, use init when the request authorizes scaffolding.
- Distinctive: line 22
Read the smallest useful evidence: docs and changelogs, manifests, schemas, API contracts, deployment config, code comments that expose …
- Distinctive: line 32
Ask the user before any lifecycle or destructive artifact operation (accept, reject, finalize, advance, bump, deprecate, supersede, delete) …
- Distinctive: line 38
Never present inferred rationale, alternatives, requirements, implementation or test status, or active work as fact.
- Distinctive: line 40
Do not make an RFC normative or advance it just because related code exists.
- Distinctive: line 41
Do not create Work Items that track the migration itself.
- Distinctive: line 43
Stop when evidence conflicts, a backfill would misrepresent history, or a transition lacks approval or evidence.
- Distinctive: line 55
Prefer decisions that are hard to reverse, cross-cutting, or repeatedly questioned.
- Very specific: line 75
Run govctl check and render affected projections.
- Very specific: line 82
RFCs: keep traceability to the source.
- Very specific: line 88
Source references: follow the repository's comment conventions, use resolvable [[...]] links, and never claim more conformance than the …
- Distinctive: line 98
When a check, render, or review fails, keep the batch unpublished, fix the content, and rerun the failing check.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 50 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Brownfield Migration
Adopt govctl incrementally in an existing codebase per [[ADR-0032]], recovering
governance from real evidence without inventing history or changing behavior.
This differs from the govctl migrate command, which upgrades outdated
artifact formats in an already governed project.
Discovery
If gov/config.toml is missing, use init when the request authorizes
scaffolding; otherwise ask first. If it exists, find what earlier runs already
migrated with govctl status, govctl search <topic>, and the rfc, adr,
and work list commands. Use govctl <resource> --help for current syntax.
Read the smallest useful evidence: docs and changelogs, manifests, schemas, API contracts, deployment config, code comments that expose durable constraints, VCS history that shows why a choice was made, and issue trackers only for active work. Extend an existing artifact that already owns a subject instead of duplicating it.
Hard Stops
- Discovery is read-only. Create artifacts or annotate source only after the user selects the scope.
- Ask the user before any lifecycle or destructive artifact operation (accept, reject, finalize, advance, bump, deprecate, supersede, delete) unless the request already authorizes it. Source annotation also needs approval; one approval may cover a stated batch.
- Edit governed files only through govctl commands, using root
govctl clausefor Clauses. - Never present inferred rationale, alternatives, requirements, implementation or test status, or active work as fact.
- Do not make an RFC normative or advance it just because related code exists.
- Do not create Work Items that track the migration itself.
- Change product code only through approved, behavior-neutral annotations.
- Stop when evidence conflicts, a backfill would misrepresent history, or a transition lacks approval or evidence.
Choosing Candidates
| Candidate | Backfill when | Never as |
| ADR | Evidence shows a consequential choice and why it was made | A retroactive source of obligation |
| RFC | An existing specification or stable contract is identifiable | A dump of current behavior |
| Work Item | The user confirms unfinished active or queued work | A list of every TODO or cleanup |
| Source reference | A stable, high-signal code site relates to a recovered item | Blanket or generated-file markup |
Prefer decisions that are hard to reverse, cross-cutting, or repeatedly questioned; skip tool-enforced style, incidental dependencies, and behavior inferred only from code.
For each candidate record the evidence location, what it supports, what is
inferred, whether rationale and alternatives are recoverable, and the proposed
type and priority. Say plainly when evidence is missing: a historical ADR may
omit unrecoverable alternatives but never invents one, and RFC Clauses still
pass the rfc-writer contract test. Present this as a compact report and let
the user select, defer, or reject each group before any change.
Backfill Loop
Work in small batches so partial migration stays useful:
- Recheck governed state and the selected evidence.
- Draft with
adr-writer,rfc-writer, orwi-writer. - Review with
adr-reviewerorrfc-reviewer. - Show uncertainties and proposed lifecycle outcomes to the user.
- Perform only approved transitions.
- Run
govctl checkand render affected projections. - Optionally record the batch with
commit.
- ADRs: reconstruct context and alternatives where evidence allows and
separate observed consequences from predictions. Accept an adopted choice as
historical only after user confirmation; route an unresolved one to
discuss. - RFCs: keep traceability to the source. Each phase needs approval and
evidence: existing implementation for
impl, complete implementation fortest, and complete implementation and tests forstable. Otherwise stop at the last defensible phase. - Work Items: include scope, governing references, categorized testable criteria, and risk-matched guards.
- Source references: follow the repository's comment conventions, use
resolvable
[[...]]links, and never claim more conformance than the evidence supports.
Resuming And Failures
On resume, rediscover existing artifacts and references, match candidates by subject and evidence rather than title, skip completed work, keep user changes instead of overwriting them, and report the prior partial state.
When a check, render, or review fails, keep the batch unpublished, fix the content, and rerun the failing check. Never advance lifecycle state to make validation pass; escalate when no authoritative recovery path exists.
Done When
- each selected candidate is created, deferred, or rejected explicitly;
- artifacts separate recovered fact from inference, and every lifecycle state has evidence and approval;
- annotations resolve and no duplicates or product changes were introduced;
govctl checkpasses and projections are current; and- the report lists artifacts, states, annotated paths, uncertain history, remaining scope, and validation results.
Normal workflows (discuss, spec, gov, quick) can start after the first
coherent baseline; exhaustive backfill is not required.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

