backfill-feature

name	backfill-feature
description	Use when the user says "/backfill-feature", "backfill the ADR", "this feature has no ADR", "I need to document what's already there before I change it", or wants to capture an existing feature's architectural rationale and behaviour *before* modifying it. Reads the relevant code, drafts a reverse-engineered ADR (what is, why it probably looks like this) + Gherkin spec (current behaviour) + characterization tests that lock the current behaviour green. Hands off to /plan-change so the actual change can be layered on top of a documented, tested baseline.
allowed-tools	Bash(gh:*), Bash(git:*), Bash(rg:*), Bash(fd:*), Bash(npm:*), Bash(yarn:*), Bash(pnpm:*), Bash(bun:*), Bash(go:*), Bash(cargo:*), Bash(pytest:*), Bash(just:*), Bash(make:*), Read, Edit, Write, Grep, Glob, Skill

backfill-feature - characterize existing code before changing it

When you reach to modify code that has no ADR or spec, you're working blind: you don't know what the original author intended, what constraints were considered, or what behaviour the rest of the system depends on. /backfill-feature builds that picture before the change, so the change lands on solid ground.

It writes three things in order:

1. A reverse-engineered ADR ("here's what's true today, here's why I think it ended up this way, here's what's load-bearing").
2. A Gherkin spec capturing current behaviour.
3. Characterization tests that lock current behaviour green.

After backfill, /plan-change runs to layer the actual change on top of the (now-documented, now-tested) baseline.

When to use

• Modifying code that has no ADR for its area.
• Refactoring a non-trivial module that "just grew."
• Picking up a feature from someone who's left.
• Anywhere "I should write some tests for this first" would be the responsible move.

Skip for:

• Trivial changes (copy edits, one-line bug fixes in isolated helpers).
• Code that already has ADR + spec + tests covering the area.
• Brand-new features (use /plan-change directly - nothing to backfill).

Phase 0 - Discover the area

The user identifies the feature being touched. Find the code:

# User says "the orders cancellation flow"
rg -l 'cancelOrder|order_cancel|cancellation' --type ts --type tsx --type go

Then check what already exists:

# Any ADR mentioning the area?
rg -l '<keywords>' docs/adr/ 2>/dev/null

# Any spec?
rg -l '<keywords>' specs/ features/ tests/features/ 2>/dev/null

# Any tests?
fd --type f '<keywords>' tests/ __tests__/ spec/

If any of these already exist, read them - the backfill might be partial (an ADR but no spec, or tests but no documentation). Don't re-write something that's already there.

Phase 1 - Read the code

Read the relevant files. For TS/JS, use tslsp outline first to see structure, then Read the interesting parts. For other languages, use the project's symbol-aware tooling if available.

Build a working picture of:

• What it does. User-visible behaviour and API surface.
• How it's structured. Layers, responsibilities, data flow.
• What it depends on. External services, libraries, configuration.
• Where it's load-bearing. Who calls it, what would break if it changed.
• What looks intentional vs accidental. Naming conventions, error handling patterns, retry logic - all hints.

Show this picture back to the user before drafting:

Here's what I think this feature does. Correct me where I'm wrong:

  - <one-line summary of behaviour>
  - <key architectural choice 1>
  - <key architectural choice 2>
  - <load-bearing dependency or invariant>

Anything missing, wrong, or unclear?

This is a hard gate. Do not proceed to Phase 2 until the user has confirmed the picture. If you write characterization tests against the wrong baseline, the upcoming change gets designed against the wrong baseline too - and the lock-in actively works against the user. Iterate the readback as many times as it takes. The user is the source of truth for "why."

Phase 2 - Draft the ADR

Write a "what is" ADR with frontmatter marked as retroactive:

---
status: Retroactive
title: Order cancellation flow
captured-on: 2026-06-08
captured-from: existing code in src/orders/, no prior ADR
---

Body sections:

• Context: what was true when this was first built, as best you can reconstruct. Note uncertainty explicitly ("unclear from git history whether X was a deliberate choice or accidental").
• Decision: what the code does today.
• Alternatives: any obvious alternatives that weren't chosen, with best-guess reasons. Mark these as inferences.
• Consequences: what the current shape makes easy and what it makes hard - relevant because the upcoming change will brush against one or the other.

The retroactive marker matters. Future readers should know this ADR documents observed reality, not a deliberation that happened in real time.

Phase 3 - Draft the spec

Write a Gherkin spec capturing current behaviour. Cover the golden path and the edge cases the code actually handles. Mark it as characterization:

# Characterization spec - captures current behaviour as observed in
# the code at <commit-sha>. See <adr-link> for the retroactive ADR.

Feature: Order cancellation
  ...

Cross-link both ways with the ADR, same as /plan-change does.

Phase 4 - Write characterization tests

This is the lock-in step. Without tests, the backfill is just documentation - the change you're about to make could still break behaviour silently.

Write tests that:

• Cover the golden path scenarios from the spec.
• Cover the edge cases the spec calls out.
• Pin exact outputs - numeric results, error messages, retry behaviour, whatever the current code produces.
• Run in the project's existing test setup (don't introduce a new framework for the backfill).

Run them. They should all pass green against the current code:

<test-runner> <new-test-files>

If anything fails, the test is wrong (or the spec is wrong) - characterization tests by definition pass against current behaviour. Fix the test, not the code.

If the test suite can't run in this environment (no node_modules, no test runner installed, no language toolchain), don't silently skip verification. Mark the test file with an @unverified annotation in its header comment ("characterization tests written by inspection, not yet executed against the code") and surface this clearly to the user:

WARNING: <N> characterization tests written but not executed.
The test runner (<expected-runner>) isn't available in this
environment. Run them before relying on the baseline:

    <how-to-run>

Until then, the lock-in is theoretical.

Treat this as a soft gate rather than a hard one: the ADR + spec are still useful, but the user has to know the tests haven't actually caught anything yet.

Phase 5 - Commit each artefact

Three commits, in order, so the history shows the baseline being established:

git add <adr-path>
git commit -m "ADR <id>: <feature> (retroactive)"

git add <spec-path>
git commit -m "spec: <feature> (characterization)"

git add <test-paths>
git commit -m "tests: characterize <feature> behaviour"

Match the repo's commit convention if it differs.

Phase 6 - Hand off

The baseline is locked. The change can now be designed on top with confidence. Invoke /plan-change with the new ADR + spec as context.

Backfill complete:
  ADR:   <path> (retroactive)
  Spec:  <path> (characterization)
  Tests: <N> tests, all green     | <N> tests written, @unverified

Calling /plan-change next to design the change.

If the tests are @unverified (Phase 4 soft-gate fired), call this out explicitly in the hand-off message - don't claim "all green" when the runner never ran. The downstream /plan-change discussion should know whether the baseline is actually locked or only documented.

Operating rules

• Be honest about inference. Distinguish "the code does X" from "we probably did X because Y" - the second is a guess and should be labelled.
• Don't fix bugs during backfill. If you spot a bug in the existing code, note it in the report but don't change behaviour here - the tests would diverge from current behaviour, defeating the lock-in. Fix bugs in the next step, where they're a deliberate change captured in /plan-change.
• Tests must lock current behaviour exactly. Even quirky behaviour ("returns null when input is empty string instead of throwing"). The point is to detect drift, not to polish the code.
• Skip if it's already documented. If the area has an ADR + spec + tests, there's nothing to backfill. Say so.

Composing with other skills

• Before: /start-feature usually routes here when existing code has no ADR.
• After: /plan-change to design the change on top of the baseline.