migrate

name	migrate
description	Guided rewrite of legacy-shaped ADRs into the canonical-seven-section template enforced by /adr-kit:lint. Promotes inline status / date lines to a
argument-hint	[file or directory; defaults to docs/adr/]
disable-model-invocation	true
allowed-tools	["Read","Edit","Glob","Grep"]

adr-kit migrate

You are running /adr-kit:migrate. The user wants to rewrite one or more legacy-shaped ADRs into the canonical template that /adr-kit:lint enforces. This is a write skill: you propose targeted structural edits, the user confirms, then you apply them.

Inputs

• No argument: migrate ADRs in docs/adr/ (the whole tree).
• A directory path: migrate ADRs under that directory.
• A file path: migrate that one file.

If the path does not exist or contains no ADR files, say so plainly and stop.

Cardinal rules

1. Read-then-confirm. Always read every target file before proposing edits. Always show the proposed restructure (file by file, summarised) and ask for explicit confirmation before calling Edit. Silent writes are forbidden.
2. No fabrication. If a canonical section is missing AND the source contains no inline content that maps to it, do NOT invent content. Leave a <!-- TODO: populate --> placeholder so a human author can fill it in later.
3. Preserve content. The migration restructures shape, not substance. Bullet points, prose, examples, and links from the source must appear in the target unchanged. Reorder; do not rewrite.
4. Idempotent. Running migrate on an already-canonical ADR is a no-op (the skill detects "no missing sections" and skips the file).
5. Skip files that opt out. A file with <!-- adr-kit-lint: skip --> is left untouched. A file with <!-- adr-kit-lint: advisory --> gets a warning ("this file is currently in advisory mode; migrating will make the marker meaningless") and a confirmation prompt.

Workflow

Step 1: read the policy

Look for docs/adr/.adr-kit.json (relative to project root, or the directory passed). If template.required_sections is set, target that list. Otherwise target the canonical seven:

• ## Status
• ## Context
• ## Decision
• ## Alternatives Considered
• ## Consequences
• ## Related Decisions
• ## References

Order matters. The migration must end with sections in the configured order.

Step 2: classify each input file

For each file, determine:

• Already canonical (no missing sections, sections in the right order) -> skip, report as "no changes needed".
• Marker says skip -> skip, report as "skipped per marker".
• Marker says advisory -> ask "advisory marker is on this file; migrate anyway?"
• Migratable -> identify which patterns apply (see next section).

Step 3: identify patterns

The skill body below documents the patterns observed in real-world legacy ADRs. Apply each pattern that fits, in this order. Do not invent new transformations.

Pattern A: inline status promotion

Source:

# ADR-NNN Title

**Status:** Accepted
**Date:** 2026-04-25
**Supersedes:** ADR-XXX (optional)

Target:

# ADR-NNN Title

## Status

Accepted, 2026-04-25. Supersedes ADR-XXX (optional).

If only **Status:** exists with no **Date:**, the Status section reads Accepted (without date).

Pattern B: alternatives inside Context

Source has a ### Alternatives considered: (or ### Alternatives considered and rejected) heading nested inside ## Context. Target: lift the entire block out, change ### to ## , and place the new top-level ## Alternatives Considered heading between ## Decision and ## Consequences. Preserve content verbatim; only the heading level and position change.

Pattern C: alternatives inside Consequences

Same as Pattern B but the source nests alternatives inside ## Consequences. Target: same restructure, place between Decision and Consequences.

Pattern D: Related to Related Decisions + References split

Source: a ## Related section that mixes ADR/TASK references with file paths, PR links, vendor doc URLs, internal docs.

Target: rename to ## Related Decisions. Move pure-external references (files, URLs, PRs that are not ADR or TASK identifiers) to a new ## References section that follows. Keep ADR-NNN and TASK-NNN entries in ## Related Decisions.

Heuristic for splitting:

• Lines starting with ADR-, TASK-, or referencing those identifiers -> ## Related Decisions.
• Lines starting with backticks (file path), URL, or PR /Issue references -> ## References.
• When ambiguous, leave in ## Related Decisions (safer default).

Pattern E: missing References with no inline content

If after Pattern D there are no external references to populate ## References, create the section with a placeholder:

## References

<!-- TODO: populate from inline citations or external sources cited in the body. -->

Never invent references. The placeholder makes it clear to a human reviewer that this is a known gap.

Pattern F: missing Alternatives Considered with no source

If the source legitimately has no alternatives discussion anywhere, create the section with a placeholder:

## Alternatives Considered

<!-- TODO: document at least 2 alternatives that were considered and rejected, with reasoning. -->

This is a real gap a human should fill, but the skill must not fabricate.

Step 4: present the plan

Before applying any edit, show the user a per-file summary:

Proposed migration plan (3 files):

ADR-007-timer-based-task-scheduling.md
  Pattern A: inline `**Status:**` -> `## Status` heading
  Pattern D: `## Related` -> `## Related Decisions` + new `## References`

ADR-029-simple-xhr-ota-flash.md
  Pattern A: inline `**Status:**` -> `## Status` heading
  Pattern F: missing `## Alternatives Considered`, will create with TODO placeholder

ADR-058-nonblocking-pic-command-response.md
  Pattern A: inline `**Status:**` -> `## Status` heading
  Pattern F: missing `## Alternatives Considered`, will create with TODO placeholder
  Pattern E: missing `## References`, will create with TODO placeholder
  No `## Related Decisions` content found in source; will create with `- None.`

Confirm to apply (y/n)?

If the user declines, stop without writing.

Step 5: apply edits

After confirmation, apply each transformation via Edit. One Edit per logical change, so the diff is reviewable. Report what was changed per file.

Step 6: post-migration verification

After all edits, suggest the user run /adr-kit:lint <path> to confirm the migrated files now PASS strictly. Do NOT run lint yourself: that is a separate skill the user invokes.

What you do not do

• You do not modify the body content of sections. Headings move; prose stays.
• You do not auto-fabricate Alternatives Considered or References content. Use TODO placeholders.
• You do not rename ADR files (Consistency-gate filename FAILs). Out of scope.
• You do not edit ADRs that already PASS strict.
• You do not invoke /adr-kit:lint after migration. The user decides when to verify.

Reporting format

Single-file migration:

ADR-007-timer-based-task-scheduling.md migrated.
  Applied: Pattern A (Status promotion), Pattern D (Related split).
  Run /adr-kit:lint on this file to verify.

Directory migration:

Migrated 3 of 80 candidate files. 1 already canonical (skipped). 76 deferred (no patterns matched, manual review needed).

Applied:
  ADR-007 (A, D)
  ADR-029 (A, F)
  ADR-058 (A, F, E, no Related content)

Skipped:
  ADR-022 (already canonical)

Deferred (manual review): 76 files.
  Reason: complex shape that did not match any of patterns A through F. Inspect by hand.

Run /adr-kit:lint docs/adr/ to confirm overall result.

The aggregate's bottom line tells the user one concrete next step (run lint), never invents a status the migration did not actually achieve.

Edge cases

• Multiple inline metadata lines: source has **Status:**, **Date:**, **Supersedes:**, **Amended by:**, etc. Fold all into the new ## Status section as a comma-separated sentence. Order: Status, date, supersedes/amended.
• Empty Related section: source has ## Related with no body or only whitespace. Target: ## Related Decisions with - None. body.
• Anchor comments inline at top: source has a Renumbered from ADR-XXX ... line before **Date:**. Fold into the new ## Status section as a trailing sentence: "Renumbered from ADR-XXX on YYYY-MM-DD to resolve duplicate numbering. Content unchanged."
• Body has Markdown that confuses heading-detection: e.g. a ## inside a fenced code block. The skill treats only headings outside code fences as canonical sections. If unsure, ask the user.
• Source uses ## Pros and Cons or ## Decision drivers: do not rename these; they are project-specific. The migration concerns the canonical-required sections only. The user can address custom subsections in a follow-up pass.

Anti-patterns to refuse

If the migration would require any of these, refuse and explain:

• Renaming ADR files. Out of scope; surfaces commit / cross-ref breakage.
• Modifying body prose ("the Decision section reads better if reorganised..."). Restructure shape only.
• Fabricating Alternatives or References. TODO placeholder is the answer.
• Skipping the user confirmation. Read-then-confirm is non-negotiable.
• Running /adr-kit:lint automatically after migration. The user decides.