project-to-spec

name	project-to-spec
description	Use this skill when a user names a specific existing Itential project and wants it documented — reverse-engineered into a requirements spec and solution design. Trigger it for phrases like "document the DNS_Management project", "create a spec from the Firewall_Rule_Lifecycle project", "reverse-engineer project X into a spec", "I have a project with no docs — produce a customer-spec and solution design for it", or "use this project as a baseline for a rebuild". Reads the project's workflows, templates, and MOP components, infers business purpose and design decisions, and produces customer-spec.md + solution-design.md. For documenting global/unprojectized assets across the whole platform, use /documentation instead.
argument-hint	[project-name or project-id]

Project to Spec

Purpose: Read an existing project → produce documentation Output: customer-spec.md (inferred HLD) + solution-design.md (as-built LLD) Feeds into: Can be handed directly to /solution-arch-agent (design-only mode) or /spec-agent for refinement

---

What This Does

Takes an undocumented or partially-documented project and produces the spec and design documents that should have existed before it was built. The engineer reviews and corrects the inferred documents — then they can feed into the standard delivery lifecycle for updates, rebuilds, or knowledge transfer.

Existing Project
      │
      ├── Pull all components (workflows, templates, MOP)
      ├── Read each workflow: tasks, adapters, transitions, data flows
      ├── Infer: business purpose, phases, inputs, outputs, integrations
      │
      ├── customer-spec.md   ← inferred HLD (engineer reviews + corrects)
      └── solution-design.md ← as-built LLD (actual component inventory)

---

Step 1: Identify the Project

Ask the engineer for a project name or ID. Then pull the project:

GET /automation-studio/projects/{projectId}

Or search by name:

GET /automation-studio/projects?contains=name:{projectName}

Response: {message, data: {_id, name, components: [...], members: [...]}}

Save the project ID and component list.

If the project is not returned

Project list/get responses are RBAC-filtered. A 404 or empty data array does NOT prove the project doesn't exist — it may be invisible to the calling client.

Important: Itential projects use per-project ACLs only. There is no platform-wide admin or "all-projects" role — every project explicitly grants access to specific users or groups via its own ACL. The calling client sees a project iff that project's ACL includes the client or one of its groups. (This applies to projects specifically; global Automation Studio assets that live outside any project are not access-restricted the same way.)

Before declaring the project missing, do all of:

1. Identify the calling client — GET /iam/clients/{client_id} (the client_id from .auth.json or the env file). Note its group memberships — these (together with the client itself) determine which project ACLs it might be on.
2. Try a broader query — GET /automation-studio/projects?limit=500 and inspect the result for partial-name matches; the contains filter is case-sensitive in some Platform versions.
3. Surface visibility, not absence — report: "No project named {name} is visible to this client ({client_id}). It may not exist, or it may be access-restricted. To confirm, ask the project's owner (or someone with manage rights on that project) to add {client_id} to its ACL via the Automation Studio UI."
4. Do not auto-grant access. Adding the calling client to a project ACL is a privileged write to a shared resource — always ask the engineer to handle it via the UI, or via a different client that is already on that project's ACL with manage rights. If the engineer authorizes a DB-level read-only confirmation (e.g. local dev Mongo), that is acceptable, but the granting itself stays a human action.

Stop and wait for engineer direction before proceeding to Step 2.

---

Step 2: Pull All Components

For each component in the project, fetch the full document.

Workflows:

GET /automation-studio/workflows/detailed/{urlEncodedName}

Templates:

GET /automation-studio/templates/{id}

MOP Command Templates:

GET /mop/listATemplate/{name}

For each workflow, extract and save locally:

• tasks — every task with name, app, adapter, incoming/outgoing variables
• transitions — the flow between tasks
• inputSchema / outputSchema — what the workflow accepts and returns
• Task summaries and descriptions (these often contain intent)

Save to {use-case}/project-components.json.

---

Step 3: Analyze the Components

Work through the components to reconstruct intent and structure.

Identify the orchestrator

Find the parent workflow — usually the one that:

• Has no childJob references pointing to it from other workflows
• References other workflows via childJob tasks
• Has the most complex transition graph

Map the data flow

For the orchestrator and each child:

1. What are the inputs? (inputSchema properties)
2. What adapters are called? (location: "Adapter" tasks)
3. What utility tasks are used? (merge, query, evaluation, childJob, makeData)
4. What are the outputs? (outputSchema properties, $var.job.x assignments)
5. What external systems are touched? (adapter names → infer ServiceNow, Route53, etc.)

Infer the phases

Each major section of the orchestrator maps to a phase:

• A childJob to a child workflow = one phase
• An evaluation branch = a decision point
• An adapter call cluster = an integration phase
• A ViewData = an approval gate
• Error handling branches = rollback/recovery phases

Reconstruct acceptance criteria

From the workflow structure, infer what "done" looks like:

• What does the final outgoing variable represent?
• What adapters were called? → "ServiceNow ticket created and updated"
• What verifications exist? → evaluation tasks checking status
• What is the outputSchema? → these are the observable outcomes

---

Step 4: Produce customer-spec.md

Write the inferred HLD. Use the standard spec structure but mark inferred sections clearly.

# Use Case: {Inferred Name}

> **Note:** This spec was produced by reading project `{projectName}` ({projectId}).
> Review and correct any inferences before using as a delivery baseline.

## 1. Problem Statement
{Inferred from workflow descriptions, adapter usage, and task summaries}

## 2. High-Level Flow
{Inferred from orchestrator transition graph}

## 3. Phases
{One section per major workflow / childJob cluster}

## 4. Key Design Decisions
{Inferred from adapter choices, error handling patterns, approval gates}

## 5. Scope
**In scope (as built):** {list components that exist}
**Not observed:** {common patterns not present — rollback, notifications, etc.}

## 6. Risks & Mitigations
{Inferred from error transitions, evaluation branches}

## 7. Requirements

### Capabilities
{Derived from apps and tasks used}

### Integrations
{Derived from adapter names and instance IDs}

## 8. Batch Strategy
{Inferred from childJob loopType usage}

## 9. Acceptance Criteria
{Inferred from outputSchema and evaluation checks}

---

Step 5: Produce solution-design.md

Write the as-built LLD — this is factual, not inferred.

# Solution Design: {Project Name}

> **As-Built** — produced by reading project `{projectId}`.

## A. Environment Summary
{Platform, adapters found, apps used}

## B. Component Inventory
| # | Component | Type | Workflow/Template Name | ID |
|---|-----------|------|----------------------|-----|
| 1 | {name} | {workflow/template/mop} | {actual name} | {id} |
...

## C. Adapter Mappings
| Adapter | app name | adapter_id | Tasks Used |
|---------|----------|-----------|------------|
| ServiceNow | Servicenow | ServiceNow | createChangeRequest, updateChangeRequest |
...

## D. Workflow Structure
For each workflow: inputs, task sequence, outputs, error handling pattern.

## E. Data Flow
Key variables and how they move between tasks and workflows.

## F. Known Gaps
Patterns not present that are typically expected:
- No rollback logic observed
- No notifications (email/Teams)
- No audit trail
etc.

---

Step 6: Write Memory File

Before presenting to the engineer, create {use-case}/use-case-memory.md from ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/helpers/use-case-memory.md and populate it with what you just read — don't leave this for later:

• Platform References — platform URL, project name, project _id, adapter instance names and type names, group memberships observed
• What Was Built — every component from the inventory table: name, type, ID, status=existing
• Architecture Decisions — any patterns you inferred (why childJob loop, why this adapter, why approval gate)
• Stage / Status — Stage: delivered, Status: active if the project is fully in production and this is pure documentation; Stage: requirements (or wherever the engineer decides to re-enter) if this is a baseline for a rebuild or refinement

This means any skill that picks up from here (spec-agent, solution-arch-agent, builder-agent, qa-agent) starts with the real IDs already recorded — no re-discovery.

---

Step 7: Present to Engineer

Show both documents and walk through:

1. Inferences to verify — "I inferred the purpose is X based on the adapter usage and task names. Is that correct?"
2. Gaps — "I don't see rollback logic or notifications. Were these intentional omissions or should they be added?"
3. Next steps — offer three options:
   • Use as-is — accept the documents as the baseline for this project
   • Refine the spec — hand to /spec-agent to refine the requirements with the engineer
   • Redesign — hand to /solution-arch-agent in design-only mode to produce an updated implementation plan

---

What to Watch For

Orphaned tasks: Tasks with no useful summary — check their adapter/app and incoming variables to infer purpose.

Non-hex task IDs: If you encounter task IDs like apush or myTask, note them — these are a known bug pattern ($var references silently fail on these).

Deep nesting: childJob → childJob → childJob patterns indicate a modular design — document each layer separately.

Static values as indicators: Hard-coded strings in merge tasks or newVariable tasks often reveal business rules (e.g., "value": "production" → production-only path).

Missing error transitions: Note any adapter tasks without error transitions — this is a quality gap in the existing implementation.

---

Gotchas

• Workflow names include @projectId: prefix — strip it when displaying to the engineer
• GET /automation-studio/workflows?exclude-project-members=false is needed to list project-owned workflows
• Template data field is a JSON string, not an object — parse it before analyzing
• childJob workflow field shows the child workflow name (with prefix) — this is the dependency graph
• Task descriptions and summaries are the best source of intent — use them heavily
• Project not returned ≠ project doesn't exist. Itential projects use per-project ACLs only — there is no platform-wide admin role that sees every project. List/get responses are filtered by the calling client's ACL membership per project. A named project the engineer expects but the API doesn't return is more likely access-restricted than missing. Follow the "If the project is not returned" path in Step 1 — never silently switch to a different project, never declare absence without surfacing the visibility caveat, and never grant the calling client access on its own initiative.