rescue

Rescue — from "this repo is a mess" to an approved plan

The second door into planning. plan is for greenfield or a clear next effort; rescue is for a project whose state, docs, or direction got away from its owner. The output is the same thing plan produces — a release-map docs/plan.md (and usually a PRD) — but it starts from evidence, not a blank page.

CRITICAL: Rescue assesses and plans. It does NOT fix. No source edits, no running the project's code or tests, no deleting anything, no "while I'm here" corrections. Stabilization work the project needs becomes tasks in the plan, not actions taken now. Files written: docs/plan.md, conditionally docs/prd.md (per-section confirmation, only when missing/skeletal), conditionally docs/[date]-update-prompt.md.

1. Archaeology — what's actually here (read-only)

Build the evidence before asking the user anything. In parallel batches:

• Shape: Glob the tree; read the manifest(s), top-level config, entry points.
• History: git log --oneline -30, git log -1 --format=%cI (last activity), git status --short (work left uncommitted mid-flight is a strong signal of where it stopped).
• Surviving docs: any README, docs/**/*.md, CLAUDE.md/AGENTS.md, TODO/FIXME scan (Grep for TODO|FIXME|HACK|XXX).
• Half-built signals: routes/components/exports that nothing references, test files with no implementation (or the reverse), config for services that never appear in code.

Compose the State of the project report — plain language, evidence-cited, honestly hedged (this is inference from reading, not tested truth — nothing was run):

State of the project:
What this appears to be:   <best inference of the goal, from code + docs>
Looks complete:            <pieces with implementation + tests/usage>
Half-built:                <pieces started but not wired up — say what's missing>
Ambiguous:                 <can't tell without running it — say so plainly>
Last activity:             <date, and what the final commits were doing>
Docs situation:            <missing / stale / contradictory — one line>

2. Intent interview — evidence-led grilling

Run the discovery interview (references/discovery-interview.md — load it), with the rescue twist: lead every question with the evidence. "The code suggests you were building X and got partway into login — is X still what you want? Is login still the approach?" beats asking a frustrated person to summarize their own mess from memory.

Add the rescue-specific area: keep / cut / unknown for each major piece found in archaeology. Salvage decisions belong to the user — never assume half-built work is worth finishing, and never assume it isn't. Capture cuts as deliberate exclusions.

Close with the same two gates as plan (speed fork; PRD gap check — in a rescue the PRD is almost always missing or stale, so expect to draft it from the answers, per-section confirmed).

3. Structure handoff — don't duplicate rad-repo-manager

If the repo lacks the doc model or its docs are a mess, pause and say so: /rad-repo-manager:repo-init (nothing there yet) or /rad-repo-manager:repo-align (docs exist but drifted) — then resume here. If the user prefers to skip that, proceed anyway; rescue only requires a docs/ folder to write into. Rescue never files, archives, or restructures docs itself — that's the repo-manager's job.

4. Plan from where the project actually is

Build the plan per plan's Phase 3 discipline (goal-backward, risk-first, six-field tasks, release map), with the rescue-specific anchor:

• "Now" starts from reality, not zero. The first milestone is typically stabilize and verify: tasks that get the project to a known-good state (e.g. "T1 — get the build running and record the command", "T2 — write the one smoke test that proves the core workflow"). Verification the rescue couldn't do read-only becomes the plan's first validated tasks.
• Half-built pieces the user kept become explicit tasks with honest Done-when; cut pieces land in Scope non-goals with the strike decision recorded.
• The Release map's "Later" is the end goal the interview established — the thing the user was trying to accomplish all along.

Then the standard close: lint (python3, or python on Windows) → plan-lint.py → fix CRITICAL/HIGH → risk pass per the chosen speed fork → present per plan's Phase 5 (plain summary, release map, decisions, then detail) → user approval → APPROVED, stamp, update-prompt if anything durable surfaced.

What this skill does NOT do

• Does not modify, run, build, test, delete, or "clean up" any code — assessment is read-only; fixes become plan tasks.
• Does not file, archive, or restructure docs — it recommends the repo-manager and resumes.
• Does not decide what to salvage — keep/cut is the user's call, asked explicitly.
• Does not present inference as fact — anything unverified is labeled ambiguous and becomes an early verification task.
• Does not edit an existing real PRD — only births one from the interview when missing/skeletal, per-section confirmed.

Key references

• references/discovery-interview.md — the interview protocol + both closing gates
• references/plan-template.md — output structure, release map, enforced rules
• references/subagent-prompts/risk-assessment.md — risk-pass dispatch
• scripts/plan-lint.py — mechanical validation