Reverse Documentation

This skill analyzes existing implementation (code, prototypes, systems) and generates appropriate design or architecture documentation. Use this when:

• You built a feature without writing a design doc first
• You inherited a codebase without documentation
• You prototyped a mechanic and need to formalize it
• You need to document "why" behind existing code

Workflow

Phase 1: Parse Arguments

Format: /reverse-document <type> <path>

Type options:

• design → Generate a game design document (GDD section)
• architecture → Generate an Architecture Decision Record (ADR)
• concept → Generate a concept document from prototype

Path: Directory or file to analyze

• src/gameplay/combat/ → All combat-related code
• src/core/event-system.cpp → Specific file
• prototypes/stealth-mech/ → Prototype directory

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys workflow,system_overrides,automation

Automation mode: Resolve modes.automation (project.local.yaml → project.yaml → default collaborative). Every AskUserQuestion call and every file write follows .claude/docs/automation-modes.md (collaborative asks always · guided major-only · autonomous logs and proceeds; automation_always_ask categories always prompt).

Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

Resolve the workflow tier for the target system: map <path> to a system name, then use the system_overrides row for that system if the block above lists one, else the project workflow value. It sets how much document is generated — see Phase 5. Semantics of each tier are in .claude/docs/workflow-modes.md.

Resolve the tier — do not assume it. "Resolve the tier per workflow-modes.md" with no bootstrap names a resolution it gives no way to perform: that document defines what each tier means, but it cannot say what this project is set to. The consequence is large here — at full this skill writes an 8-section GDD and at minimal a one-page brief, so a wrong tier produces the wrong artifact entirely.

Examples:

/reverse-document design src/gameplay/magic-system
/reverse-document architecture src/core/entity-component
/reverse-document concept prototypes/vehicle-combat

Phase 2: Analyze Implementation

Read and understand the code/prototype:

For design docs (GDD):

• Identify mechanics, rules, formulas
• Extract gameplay values (damage, cooldowns, ranges)
• Find state machines, ability systems, progression
• Detect edge cases handled in code
• Map dependencies (what systems interact?)

For architecture docs (ADR):

• Identify patterns (ECS, singleton, observer, etc.)
• Understand technical decisions (threading, serialization, etc.)
• Map dependencies and coupling
• Assess performance characteristics
• Find constraints and trade-offs

For concept docs (prototype analysis):

• Identify core mechanic
• Extract emergent gameplay patterns
• Note what worked vs what didn't
• Find technical feasibility insights
• Document player fantasy / feel

Phase 3: Ask Clarifying Questions

DO NOT just describe the code. ASK about intent:

Design questions:

• "I see a [resource] system that depletes during [activity]. Was this for:
  • Pacing (prevent spam)?
  • Resource management (strategic depth)?
  • Or something else?"
• "The [mechanic] seems central. Is this a core pillar, or supporting feature?"
• "[Value] scales exponentially with [factor]. Intentional design, or needs rebalancing?"

Architecture questions:

• "You're using a service locator pattern. Was this chosen for:
  • Testability (mock dependencies)?
  • Decoupling (reduce hard references)?
  • Or inherited from existing code?"
• "I see manual memory management instead of smart pointers. Performance requirement, or legacy?"

Concept questions:

• "The prototype emphasizes stealth over combat. Is that the intended pillar?"
• "Players seem to exploit the grappling hook for speed. Feature or bug?"

Phase 3b: Sufficiency Check — is there enough here to document?

Run this before Phase 4, and stop here if it fails. This skill infers a design from an implementation, so when the implementation is thin there is nothing to infer from — and the template below will happily accept invented content, because every section of it is mandatory.

Count what Phase 2 actually found:

If all three counts are zero, or the target path holds fewer than ~20 lines of non-boilerplate code, stop and say so:

"[path] does not contain enough implementation to reverse-document. Found: [N] mechanics, [N] formulas, [N] tuning values. Reverse-documentation infers design from behaviour; with no behaviour to read, anything I produce would be invention wearing the format of a design document. If the design exists only in your head, /design-system [name] is the skill that captures it — it asks rather than infers."

Do not proceed on a partial count by filling the rest. A path with two mechanics and no formulas gets a document with two mechanics and an explicit FORMULAS DISCOVERED: none found in the source — see Phase 4.

Phase 4: Present Findings

Before drafting, show what you discovered:

I've analyzed [path]/. Here's what I found:

MECHANICS IMPLEMENTED:
- [mechanic-a] with [property] (e.g. timing windows, cooldowns)
- [mechanic-b] (e.g. interaction between two states)
- [resource] system (depletes on [action], regens on [condition])
- [state] system (builds up, triggers [effect])

FORMULAS DISCOVERED:
- [Output] = [formula using discovered variables]
- [Secondary output] = [formula]

UNCLEAR INTENT AREAS:
1. [Resource] system — pacing or resource management?
2. [Mechanic] — core pillar or supporting feature?
3. [Value] scaling — intentional design or needs tuning?

Before I draft the design doc, could you clarify these points?

Every section above may be empty, and an empty one must say so. Write none found in the source under the heading — never omit the heading (which reads as "not looked for") and never populate it from what a system like this usually has. The bracketed rows are shapes, not quotas: a source with one mechanic yields one row, not four.

This matters more here than in a report, because the output of this skill is not a report — it is a design document, and /design-review, /create-epics and /create-stories will read it as a statement of authored intent. A fabricated formula in a GDD does not stay a documentation error; it becomes a requirement, and then a story, and then code written to satisfy it.

Wait for user to clarify intent before drafting.

If the user does not answer the UNCLEAR INTENT AREAS questions, do not draft the resolved version anyway. Those questions exist because code cannot tell you why — it records what was built, never what was intended, and the gap between them is the entire content of a design document. Unanswered items are carried into the draft verbatim as open questions, in the document, marked INTENT UNKNOWN — inferred from implementation, not confirmed. An inferred intent presented as a settled one is the failure mode of this whole skill.

Phase 5: Draft Document Using Template

Based on type, use appropriate template:

The design output scales with the workflow tier (resolved in Phase 1):

• full — generate a full 8-section GDD.
• standard — generate a 5-section GDD (Overview, Detailed Design, Edge Cases, Dependencies, Acceptance Criteria; + Formulas when the recovered system defines numeric rules). Skip Player Fantasy and Tuning Knobs.
• minimal — generate a game brief in the one-page format (.claude/docs/templates/game-brief.md), not a GDD. For the whole game write design/game-brief.md; for a single reverse-engineered system write design/[system-name]-brief.md.

(architecture and concept outputs are tier-independent.)

Draft structure:

• Capture what exists (mechanics, patterns, implementation)
• Document why it exists (intent clarified with user)
• Identify what's missing (edge cases not handled, gaps in design)
• Flag follow-up work (balance tuning, missing features)

Stamp the provenance — required, at the top of every document this skill writes

A document produced here lands at the same path, in the same format, as one a designer wrote by hand, and every downstream consumer treats the two identically. /design-review checks it for completeness, /create-epics derives epics from it, /create-stories turns its lines into acceptance criteria. Nothing anywhere asks where it came from.

The difference is not cosmetic: an authored GDD states intent, and this one states observed behaviour plus inference. When they disagree, the code is what needs changing in the first case and the document in the second — and a reader cannot tell which they are holding unless the document says.

Emit this immediately under the title:

> **Reverse-documented from implementation** — generated by `/reverse-document`
> from `[path]` on `[date]`, at commit `[short-sha]`.
> This records what the code **does**; intent marked `INTENT UNKNOWN` below was
> inferred, not confirmed by the author. Where this document and the code
> disagree, do not assume the document is the requirement.

Keep the banner on revision. If a human later confirms the intent and adopts the document as authored design, removing it is their explicit act — not a side effect of the next edit.

Phase 6: Show Draft and Request Approval

Collaborative protocol:

I've drafted the [system-name] design doc based on your code and clarifications.

[Show key sections: Overview, Mechanics, Formulas, Design Intent]

ADDITIONS I MADE:
- Documented [mechanic] as "[intent]" per your clarification
- Added edge cases not in code (e.g., what if [resource] hits 0 mid-[action]?)
- Flagged balance concern: [scaling type] scaling at [boundary condition]

SECTIONS MARKED AS INCOMPLETE:
- "[System] interaction with [other-system]" (not fully implemented yet)
- "[Variant or feature]" (only [subset] implemented so far)

May I write this to [output path]?

Use the tier-correct output path in the prompt: design/gdd/[system-name].md for a full/standard GDD, or design/[system-name]-brief.md for a minimal brief.

At collaborative — wait for approval; the user may request changes before writing. At guided — this is a new file, so automation-modes.md:81 still has it asked ("May I write?" is asked for new files only); if the target already exists, present the diff and proceed without waiting for an explicit "yes". At autonomous — write and log the decision.

Keep this line scoped to its mode. The skill header defers every file write to automation-modes.md, so an unconditional "wait for approval" here collides with it at both guided and autonomous. Same class as /map-systems Step 5b.

Phase 7: Write Document with Metadata

When approved, write the file with special markers:

---
status: reverse-documented
source: [path/]
date: [today]
verified-by: [User name]
---

# [System Name] Design

> **Note**: This document was reverse-engineered from the existing implementation.
> It captures current behavior and clarified design intent. Some sections may be
> incomplete where implementation is partial or intent was unclear.

[Rest of document...]

Phase 8: Flag Follow-Up Work

After writing, suggest next steps:

✅ Written to design/gdd/combat-system.md

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDED:
1. Run /balance-check on combat formulas (exponential scaling concern)
2. Create ADR for stamina system architecture decision
3. Implement missing edge cases:
   - Stamina depletion mid-combo behavior
   - Stagger state during dodge
4. Extend design doc when weapon variety is implemented

Would you like me to tackle any of these now?

Template Selection Logic

Example Session: Reverse-Document a System

User: /reverse-document design src/gameplay/[system]

Agent: I'll analyze your [system] implementation to create a design doc.
       [Reads code, discovers mechanics, formulas]

Agent: I've analyzed src/gameplay/[system]/. Here's what I found:
       [Shows mechanics, formulas, unclear areas]

       Before drafting, could you clarify:
       1. [Resource] system intent?
       2. Is [mechanic] a core pillar?
       3. [Value] scaling — intentional or needs tuning?

User: 1. [Resource] is for pacing, prevent [unwanted behavior]
      2. [Mechanic] is core — I want [design intent]
      3. Yeah, exponential is too much, should be linear

Agent: Perfect, that clarifies the vision. Let me draft the design doc.
       [Shows draft with clarified intent]

       May I write this to design/gdd/[system-name].md?

User: Yes, write it.

Agent: ✅ Written to design/gdd/[system-name].md
       ✅ Marked as [REVERSE-DOCUMENTED]
       ✅ Flagged [value] scaling for rebalancing

       Next steps:
       - Update [formula] to [corrected scaling]
       - Run /balance-check to validate [curve]
       - Document [mechanic] as core pillar in game-pillars.md

Collaborative Protocol

This skill follows the collaborative design principle:

1. Analyze First: Read code, understand implementation
2. Question Intent: Ask about "why", not just "what"
3. Present Findings: Show discoveries, highlight unclear areas
4. User Clarifies: Separate intent from accidents
5. Draft Document: Create doc based on reality + intent
6. Show Draft: Display key sections, explain additions
7. Get Approval: "May I write to [filepath]?" On approval: Verdict: COMPLETE — document generated. On decline: Verdict: BLOCKED — user declined write.
8. Flag Follow-Up: Suggest related work, don't auto-execute

Never assume intent. Always ask before documenting "why".