← ClaudeAtlas

retrofit-existing-projectlisted

Use when documenting an existing codebase that already has code but no docs — retrofitting project_starter documentation onto it. Walks through reading the codebase, running the module inventory scan, a code quality check, filling in architecture/spec/business docs, module flow files, project status docs, and generating the PDF. Do NOT use for a brand-new project with no code yet — use the per-type init file instead (see AGENTS.md → Project Initialization).
uchetsai-creator/project_starter_v5 · ★ 0 · Data & Documents · score 68
Install: claude install-skill uchetsai-creator/project_starter_v5
# Retrofitting an Existing Project The goal is to describe what already exists — not to redesign it. Read the codebase first, then fill in the documents to reflect reality. Do not scan the entire repository at once. Work module by module. --- ## Step 1 — Understand the system (read before writing anything) 1. Read the entry point to understand the overall structure (e.g. main file, router, app bootstrap, CLI entry, index) 2. Read the data layer to understand the data model (e.g. Prisma schema, SQL DDL, ORM models, migration files) 3. Read one complete vertical slice to understand the layering pattern (e.g. controller → service → repository, view → serializer → model, handler → usecase → store) ## Step 1b — Run the module inventory scan ``` python3 docs/script/scanners/scan_codebase.py <src_dir> --project-type <type> --docs docs ``` Review the output with the user: - ✅ folders are confirmed as documented - ❌ folders → ask the user: "Is this a module that needs documentation, a shared utility, or something else?" - — folders → confirm they do not need a flow file If the output shows `Coverage: 0/0 (100%)` alongside a `[WARN]` about real files existing, do NOT treat that as "nothing to document" — it means the src layout defeated folder-based classification (flat files with no subfolders, `--depth` too shallow, or a naming collision with the Shared/Infrastructure patterns). Re-run with a higher `--depth`, or ask the user to confirm the actual module boundaries