Skip to main content

Project Analysis: free-party-promoter

Project Type: Mobile Game (Flutter/Flame)
Analysis Date: 2025-12-16
ADK Version: [Partial Adoption - KB structure only, no ADK frameworks as packages]
Implementation Method: Partial adoption (KB structure only)
Implementation Date: [Pre-ADK or early adopter, 2024-12-19+]

Note: This report focuses on Epic/Story-level analysis. For detailed task-level analysis (task naming conventions, organization patterns, structure details, checklist patterns), see ../task-level-kanban-structure-analysis.md. For detailed knowledge/documentation structure analysis (KB naming conventions, directory organization, document structure, lifecycle metadata, navigation patterns), see ../knowledge-documentation-structure-analysis.md. For detailed workflow structure analysis (workflow naming, YAML structure, step patterns, configuration, execution patterns), see ../workflow-structure-analysis.md. For detailed cursorrules structure analysis (cursorrules naming, structure patterns, trigger patterns, rule patterns), see ../cursorrules-structure-analysis.md.

Executive Summary​

ADK Implementation Status: Partial Adoption (KB Structure Only)
Overall Assessment: Good (partial ADK adoption, NO Epic mashup, different versioning schema)
Key Findings:

  • ✅ NO Epic Mashup - Epics 1-6 are all project-specific, NO Epic 9 "Book Related Work"
  • ⚠️ Different versioning schema (RC.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH+BUILD vs ADK's RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD)
  • ⚠️ Different KB structure (similar to confidentia - very comprehensive, 15+ pillars)
  • ⚠️ No ADK frameworks as packages (no packages/frameworks/ directory)
  • ⚠️ No RW workflow (no .cursorrules, no rw-config.yaml)
  • ⚠️ No version.py file (uses pubspec.yaml for Flutter versioning)
  • ✅ Comprehensive KB structure (similar to confidentia)
  • ✅ Proper Epic/Story/Task structure

1. Kanban Structure Analysis​

1.1 Structure Overview​

  • Epic Count: 6 epics (Epics 1-6)
  • Story Count: ~20+ stories across epics
  • Task Count: Multiple tasks per story
  • Directory Structure: docs/project-management/epics/overview/Epic X/ (with space, not hyphen)
  • File Organization: Nested (Epic → Story documents)

Epic Inventory:

  • Epic 1: Research & Discovery ✅ (project-specific)
  • Epic 2: Planning & Design ✅ (project-specific)
  • Epic 3: Polish, Enhancement & Production Readiness ✅ (project-specific)
  • Epic 4: Art Style Guide ✅ (project-specific)
  • Epic 5: [Not detailed] ✅ (project-specific)
  • Epic 6: [Not detailed] ✅ (project-specific)
  • NO Epic 9 ✅ NO MASHUP

1.2 Distance from ADK Canonical Structure​

Comparison to ADK Canonical:

Epic Structure: ✅ NO MASHUP - ALL PROJECT-SPECIFIC

  • Epics 1-6: All project-specific epics (no framework epics from ai-dev-kit)
  • NO Epic 9: No "Book Related Work" epic
  • No Framework Epics: No Epics 1-9 from ai-dev-kit's own Kanban structure
  • Good: Project has its own epic structure, no confusion

Epic Naming: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Uses "Epic 1" (with space) instead of "Epic-1" (with hyphen)
  • Directory structure: Epic 1/ instead of Epic-1/
  • Difference: Space vs hyphen in naming
  • Impact: Minor - different naming convention, but functional

Story Structure: ✅ MATCHES (mostly)

  • Stories organized under Epic directories
  • Story naming follows pattern: E2S1-Active-Collection-Mechanic.md (Epic-Story format)
  • Story documents include proper structure

Task Structure: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Tasks appear to be embedded in Story documents (not separate files)
  • Task naming: S01:T001, E03:S01:T001, etc. (embedded in stories)
  • Difference: Tasks not in separate files/directories
  • Impact: Minor - different organization pattern

Naming Conventions: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Epic naming: Epic 1/Epic-1.md (space in directory, hyphen in file)
  • Story naming: E2S1-Description.md (Epic-Story format)
  • Task naming: Embedded in stories vs separate files

File Organization: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Structure: docs/project-management/epics/overview/Epic X/E2S1-Description.md
  • Difference: Uses epics/overview/ instead of kanban/epics/
  • Impact: Minor - different path, but functional

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: MINOR (naming/path differences, but no mashup)
  • Root Cause: Pre-ADK project or early adopter, evolved its own structure before ADK existed
  • Impact: Minor - different naming conventions and paths, but functional

1.3 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. NO Epic Mashup

    • All epics are project-specific
    • No Epic 9 "Book Related Work"
    • Clear project boundaries

  2. Comprehensive Epic Coverage

    • 6 epics covering full project lifecycle
    • Good epic organization
    • Clear epic status tracking

  3. Good Story Organization

    • Stories well-organized under epics
    • Clear story naming (E2S1 format)
    • Good story documentation

  4. Game Project Specifics

    • Epic 4 focuses on Art Style Guide (appropriate for game)
    • Epic 3 focuses on Polish & Production Readiness (appropriate)
    • Good separation of concerns

1.4 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. Epic Naming Convention

    • Issue: Uses "Epic 1" (with space) instead of "Epic-1" (with hyphen)
    • Problem: Inconsistent with ADK canonical
    • Impact: Minor - works but inconsistent
    • Root Cause: Pre-ADK structure, evolved before ADK existed

  2. Task Organization

    • Issue: Tasks embedded in Story documents instead of separate files
    • Problem: Less granular tracking, harder to reference individual tasks
    • Impact: Minor - works but less flexible than ADK canonical

  3. KB Path Difference

    • Issue: Uses docs/project-management/epics/overview/ instead of docs/project-management/kanban/epics/
    • Problem: Inconsistent with ADK canonical path
    • Impact: Minor - works but inconsistent

1.5 Mashup Issues​

🔀 Mixing ADK Components:

None Identified - No mashup issues found. All epics are project-specific.

1.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Consider Epic Naming Migration - Evaluate migrating to "Epic-1" format for consistency
  2. Task Organization - Consider separating tasks into individual files for better granularity
  3. Consider KB Path Migration - Evaluate migrating to kanban/epics/ path for consistency
  4. None Otherwise - Epic structure is correct, no mashup

For ADK:

  1. Support Legacy Naming

    • ADK should support projects with different Epic naming conventions
    • Support both "Epic 1" and "Epic-1" formats
    • Make tools flexible for naming conventions

  2. Support Different KB Paths

    • ADK should support projects with different KB paths
    • Support both epics/overview/ and kanban/epics/ paths
    • Make tools path-configurable

  3. Document Partial Adoption Patterns

    • Document projects that adopt KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • Provide migration guidance
    • Support gradual adoption

2. Knowledge Base (KB) Analysis​

2.1 Structure Overview​

  • Directory Structure: docs/ with very comprehensive structure (similar to confidentia)
  • Document Count: ~500+ documents
  • Document Types: Architecture, Changelog, Design, Documentation, Governance, Operations, Product, Security, Testing, Tooling, etc.
  • Organization Pattern: Much more complex than ADK canonical

KB Structure:

docs/
├── Architecture/ (C4 model views, specs, ADRs)
├── Bugs/ (Bug reports)
├── changelog-and-release-notes/
├── Contribution_Guide/
├── Customer_Enablement/
├── Data_and_Insights/
├── Documentation/
├── engineering-and-platform/
├── Governance_and_Process/
├── Monitoring_and_Observability/
├── Onboarding_and_Enablement/
├── Operations_and_Runbooks/
├── Operations_and_SRE/
├── Playtesting/ (Game-specific)
├── project-management/ (Epics here)
├── Product_and_Experience/
├── Research/ (Game-specific)
├── Security_and_Compliance/
├── Testing/
└── Tooling_and_Integrations/

Comparison to ADK Canonical:

  • ADK Canonical: 5 pillars (Architecture, Changelog, Documentation, Guides, project-management)
  • free-party-promoter: 20+ pillars (much more comprehensive)

2.2 Distance from ADK Canonical KB Structure​

Comparison to ADK KB:

Directory Organization: ⚠️ MAJOR DIVERGENCE

  • Root Path: docs/ ✅ Matches
  • Structure: Much more complex (20+ pillars vs 5 pillars)
  • Additional Pillars: Bugs, Customer_Enablement, Data_and_Insights, engineering-and-platform, Governance_and_Process, Monitoring_and_Observability, Onboarding_and_Enablement, Operations_and_Runbooks, Operations_and_SRE, Playtesting, Product_and_Experience, Research, Security_and_Compliance, Testing, Tooling_and_Integrations
  • Game-Specific: Playtesting, Research sections appropriate for game project
  • Impact: Major - much more comprehensive structure, but different from ADK canonical

Document Lifecycle: ❓ UNKNOWN

  • Documents may not have lifecycle metadata
  • Need to check frontmatter

Naming Conventions: ✅ GOOD

  • Self-documenting names
  • Consistent patterns

Cross-Referencing: ✅ GOOD

  • Good use of markdown links
  • Proper linking patterns

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: MAJOR (much more complex structure)
  • Root Cause: Pre-ADK project, evolved comprehensive KB structure before ADK existed
  • Impact: Major - incompatible with ADK tools expecting canonical structure, but more comprehensive

2.3 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. Comprehensive KB Structure

    • Much more comprehensive than ADK canonical
    • Good separation of concerns
    • Well-organized pillars

  2. Game-Specific Sections

    • Playtesting section appropriate for game project
    • Research section valuable
    • Good domain-specific organization

  3. Good Documentation Organization

    • Clear pillar ownership
    • Good placement heuristics
    • Proper navigation

  4. Bugs Section

    • Dedicated Bugs/ directory for bug reports
    • Good pattern for bug tracking
    • Clear organization

2.4 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. Incompatible KB Structure

    • Issue: Much more complex structure than ADK canonical
    • Problem: Incompatible with ADK tools expecting canonical structure
    • Impact: Major - can't use ADK KB tools without modification
    • Note: But structure is more comprehensive and well-designed

  2. Missing ADK Sections

    • Issue: No direct match to ADK canonical structure
    • Problem: Missing ADK canonical sections
    • Impact: Major - can't adopt ADK KB patterns directly

2.5 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Keep Current Structure - Current KB structure is comprehensive and well-designed
  2. Consider ADK Integration - Could adopt ADK patterns where appropriate
  3. Document Differences - Document differences from ADK canonical for reference

For ADK:

  1. Support Complex KB Structures

    • ADK should support projects with more complex KB structures
    • Make tools flexible for different structures
    • Don't assume canonical structure

  2. Learn from Game Projects

    • Game projects may need Playtesting, Research sections
    • Consider documenting as domain-specific patterns
    • Support domain-specific structures

3. Cursor Rules (.cursorrules) Analysis​

3.1 Structure Overview​

  • File Location: None found
  • File Size: N/A
  • Sections: N/A
  • Organization: N/A

3.2 ADK Integration​

Workflow Integration:

  • Release Workflow (RW): ❌ NOT PRESENT
    • No RW trigger section
    • No workflow definitions
    • No RW integration

Kanban Integration:

  • Epic/Story/Task References: ❓ UNKNOWN
    • No .cursorrules file to check

KB Integration:

  • Document References: ❓ UNKNOWN
    • No .cursorrules file to check

3.3 Distance from ADK Canonical Cursor Rules​

Comparison:

Structure: ❌ NOT PRESENT

  • No .cursorrules file found
  • No RW trigger section
  • No workflow definitions

Workflow Definitions: ❌ NOT PRESENT

  • No RW workflow
  • No workflow integration

Agent Instructions: ❌ NOT PRESENT

  • No cursor rules file

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: MAJOR (no RW workflow)
  • Root Cause: Partial ADK adoption - only KB structure, not workflows
  • Impact: Major - no RW workflow, manual versioning

3.4 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

None identified - no .cursorrules file present.

3.5 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. No RW Workflow

    • Issue: No Release Workflow (RW) integration
    • Problem: Manual versioning and changelog management
    • Impact: Major - no automated workflow, manual process

  2. No Cursor Rules

    • Issue: No .cursorrules file
    • Problem: No agent-driven workflow integration
    • Impact: Major - no workflow automation

3.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Consider RW Adoption - Consider adopting ADK RW workflow
  2. Add .cursorrules - Add .cursorrules file with RW trigger section
  3. Add rw-config.yaml - Add RW configuration file

For ADK:

  1. Support Partial Adoption
    • Document projects that adopt KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • Provide migration guidance
    • Support gradual adoption

4. Versioning Analysis​

4.1 Versioning Schema​

Schema Used: RC.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH+BUILD

Comparison to ADK Canonical:

  • ADK Canonical: RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD
  • free-party-promoter: RC.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH+BUILD
  • Difference: Uses SemVer semantics (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH) with Epic/Story convention, vs ADK's explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping

Version File:

  • Location: pubspec.yaml (Flutter project)
  • Format: version: 3.2.25+0 (MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH+BUILD, RC tracked separately)
  • ADK Format: version.py with RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD

4.2 Distance from ADK Canonical Versioning​

Comparison:

Schema: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Uses SemVer with Epic/Story convention vs ADK's explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping
  • Difference: Semantic versioning vs explicit Kanban mapping
  • Impact: Major - different versioning philosophy

Version File: ⚠️ DIVERGES

  • Uses pubspec.yaml (Flutter) vs version.py (Python)
  • Difference: Flutter-specific vs language-agnostic
  • Impact: Major - different version file location/format

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: MAJOR (different versioning schema)
  • Root Cause: Flutter project, uses SemVer with convention vs explicit mapping
  • Impact: Major - incompatible versioning schema

4.3 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

  1. SemVer with Convention

    • Uses SemVer semantics with Epic/Story convention
    • Good flexibility (convention can be overridden by SemVer semantics)
    • Well-documented versioning policy

  2. Flutter Integration

    • Proper Flutter pubspec.yaml integration
    • RC tracked separately in documentation
    • Good Flutter-specific adaptation

4.4 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. Different Versioning Schema

    • Issue: Uses SemVer with convention vs ADK's explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping
    • Problem: Incompatible with ADK versioning tools
    • Impact: Major - can't use ADK versioning tools directly

  2. No version.py File

    • Issue: Uses pubspec.yaml instead of version.py
    • Problem: Incompatible with ADK version file expectations
    • Impact: Major - can't use ADK versioning tools

4.5 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Consider Versioning Migration - Evaluate migrating to ADK's RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD schema
  2. Or Keep Current Schema - Current schema works well for Flutter project
  3. Document Differences - Document versioning differences for reference

For ADK:

  1. Support Flutter Projects

    • ADK should support Flutter projects using pubspec.yaml
    • Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools
    • Support SemVer with convention pattern

  2. Flexible Versioning Support

    • Support both explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping and SemVer with convention
    • Make versioning tools flexible
    • Provide migration guidance

5. Workflow Definitions Analysis​

5.1 Workflow Overview​

  • Release Workflow (RW): ❌ NOT PRESENT
  • Intake Workflows: ❓ UNKNOWN (need to check)
  • Custom Workflows: None detected

5.2 Workflow Scripts​

Scripts Used:

  • None detected - no scripts/ directory found

Script Analysis:

ADK Framework Scripts:

  • None detected - project doesn't use ADK frameworks as packages

Custom Scripts:

  • None detected

5.3 Distance from ADK Canonical Workflows​

Comparison:

RW Implementation: ❌ NOT PRESENT

  • No RW workflow
  • No workflow integration

Intake Workflows: ❓ UNKNOWN

  • Need to check if FR/BR intake workflows exist

Workflow Patterns: ❌ NOT PRESENT

  • No workflow automation

Drift Assessment:

  • Severity: MAJOR (no workflows)
  • Root Cause: Partial ADK adoption - only KB structure, not workflows
  • Impact: Major - no workflow automation

5.4 Good Practices​

✅ What Works Well:

None identified - no workflows present.

5.5 Bad Practices​

❌ What Doesn't Work:

  1. No RW Workflow
    • Issue: No Release Workflow (RW) integration
    • Problem: Manual versioning and changelog management
    • Impact: Major - no automated workflow

5.6 Recommendations​

For This Project:

  1. Consider RW Adoption - Consider adopting ADK RW workflow
  2. Add Workflow Scripts - Add workflow automation scripts

For ADK:

  1. Support Partial Adoption
    • Document projects that adopt KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • Provide migration guidance
    • Support gradual adoption

6. Framework Drift Analysis​

6.1 Drift Summary​

Overall Drift Level: MAJOR (partial adoption, different versioning schema)

Areas of Drift:

  • Kanban: MINOR (naming/path differences, but no mashup)
  • KB: MAJOR (much more complex structure)
  • Workflows: MAJOR (no workflows)
  • Versioning: MAJOR (different schema)

6.2 Root Causes​

Why Drift Occurred:

  1. Partial ADK Adoption

    • Project adopted KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • Different versioning schema (SemVer with convention)
    • No ADK framework installation

  2. Flutter Project Specifics

    • Flutter project needs pubspec.yaml for versioning
    • SemVer more appropriate for Flutter ecosystem
    • Different tooling requirements

  3. Pre-ADK Structure

    • Project existed before ADK or was early adopter
    • Evolved its own structure
    • Comprehensive KB structure developed independently

Common Patterns:

  • Partial ADK adoption (KB structure only)
  • Flutter projects need different versioning
  • Game projects need domain-specific KB sections

6.3 Impact Assessment​

Problems Caused:

  1. Incompatible with ADK Tools

    • Different KB structure incompatible with ADK tools
    • Different versioning schema incompatible with ADK tools
    • No RW workflow incompatible with ADK framework

  2. But Works Well

    • Current structure works well for Flutter game project
    • SemVer with convention is appropriate
    • Comprehensive KB structure is valuable

Maintenance Burden:

  • Low - current structure is well-maintained
  • No framework dependencies to manage
  • Self-contained

7. What ADK Can Learn​

7.1 What to Implement​

✅ Good Practices to Adopt:

  1. SemVer with Convention Pattern

    • Practice: Uses SemVer semantics with Epic/Story convention (flexible)
    • Why Valuable: Provides flexibility while maintaining traceability
    • How to Implement: Document as alternative versioning pattern, support both approaches

  2. Flutter Integration

    • Practice: Proper Flutter pubspec.yaml integration
    • Why Valuable: Supports Flutter projects
    • How to Implement: Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools

  3. Bugs Section

    • Practice: Dedicated Bugs/ directory for bug reports
    • Why Valuable: Good pattern for bug tracking
    • How to Implement: Consider adding to ADK KB structure

7.2 How to Harden​

🛡️ Hardening Opportunities:

  1. Support Flutter Projects

    • What to Harden: Support for Flutter projects using pubspec.yaml
    • How:
      • Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools
      • Support pubspec.yaml as version file
      • Document Flutter integration patterns

  2. Support Partial Adoption

    • What to Harden: Support for projects that adopt KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • How:
      • Document partial adoption patterns
      • Provide migration guidance
      • Support gradual adoption

  3. Flexible Versioning Support

    • What to Harden: Support for both explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping and SemVer with convention
    • How:
      • Make versioning tools flexible
      • Support both schemas
      • Provide migration guidance

7.3 What NOT to Do​

❌ Anti-Patterns to Prevent:

  1. Assuming Full Adoption

    • Anti-Pattern: Assuming all projects adopt full ADK (KB + RW + Versioning)
    • Why Bad: Many projects adopt partial ADK (KB structure only)
    • How to Prevent: Document partial adoption patterns, support gradual adoption

  2. Hardcoding Version Schema

    • Anti-Pattern: Hardcoding RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD schema
    • Why Bad: Flutter projects need SemVer with convention
    • How to Prevent: Make versioning tools flexible, support multiple schemas

Current ADK Issues:

  1. No Flutter Support

    • Issue: ADK tools may not support Flutter projects
    • How to Fix: Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools, support pubspec.yaml

  2. No Partial Adoption Support

    • Issue: ADK may assume full adoption
    • How to Fix: Document partial adoption patterns, support gradual adoption

7.4 What to Do Differently​

🔄 Improvements:

  1. Support Flutter Projects

    • Current Approach: May not support Flutter projects
    • Better Approach:
      • Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools
      • Support pubspec.yaml as version file
      • Document Flutter integration patterns

  2. Support Partial Adoption

    • Current Approach: May assume full ADK adoption
    • Better Approach:
      • Document partial adoption patterns
      • Provide migration guidance
      • Support gradual adoption

  3. Flexible Versioning

    • Current Approach: May hardcode RC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILD schema
    • Better Approach:
      • Support both explicit mapping and SemVer with convention
      • Make versioning tools flexible
      • Provide migration guidance

8. Synthesis & Recommendations​

8.1 Key Insights​

Top 3 Insights:

  1. NO Epic Mashup (Unique)

    • free-party-promoter is another project with NO Epic mashup
    • Epics 1-6 are all project-specific
    • Shows that partial ADK adoption can still have correct epic structure

  2. Partial ADK Adoption Pattern

    • Project adopted KB structure but not RW/workflows
    • Different versioning schema (SemVer with convention)
    • Shows common pattern of gradual adoption

  3. Flutter Project Specifics

    • Flutter project needs pubspec.yaml for versioning
    • SemVer more appropriate for Flutter ecosystem
    • Different tooling requirements

8.2 Critical Recommendations​

For ADK:

  1. Support Flutter Projects (Priority: High)

    • Provide Flutter-specific versioning tools
    • Support pubspec.yaml as version file
    • Document Flutter integration patterns

  2. Support Partial Adoption (Priority: High)

    • Document partial adoption patterns
    • Provide migration guidance
    • Support gradual adoption

  3. Flexible Versioning Support (Priority: Medium)

    • Support both explicit Epic.Story.Task mapping and SemVer with convention
    • Make versioning tools flexible
    • Provide migration guidance

For This Project:

  1. Keep Current Structure - Current structure works well for Flutter game project
  2. Consider RW Adoption - Could adopt ADK RW workflow if desired
  3. Document Differences - Document versioning differences for reference

8.3 Patterns Across Projects​

Common Patterns:

  • Partial ADK adoption (KB structure only) is common
  • Flutter projects need different versioning
  • Game projects need domain-specific KB sections

Unique to free-party-promoter:

  • NO Epic mashup (another project without it)
  • Partial ADK adoption (KB structure only)
  • Flutter project with SemVer versioning
  • Game-specific KB sections (Playtesting, Research)

9. Appendix​

9.1 File Inventory​

Kanban Files:

  • docs/project-management/epics/overview/Epic X/ (Epics 1-6, with space in directory name)
  • Multiple stories per epic
  • Tasks embedded in stories

KB Files:

  • docs/architecture/ (C4 model views, specs, ADRs)
  • docs/Bugs/ (Bug reports)
  • docs/changelog-and-release-notes/
  • docs/documentation/
  • docs/Governance_and_Process/
  • docs/Operations_and_SRE/
  • docs/Playtesting/ (Game-specific)
  • docs/Research/ (Game-specific)
  • docs/Security_and_Compliance/
  • docs/Testing/
  • docs/Tooling_and_Integrations/
  • Many other pillars

Workflow Files:

  • None found

Script Files:

  • None found

Version Files:

  • pubspec.yaml (Flutter version file)

9.2 Comparison Tables​

Kanban Structure Comparison:

AspectADK Canonicalfree-party-promoterMatch?
Epic StructureProject-specific epics onlyProject-specific epics (1-6)✅ YES (no mashup)
Epic NamingEpic-1 (hyphen)Epic 1 (space)⚠️ DIVERGES
Story StructureStories under Epic directories✅ Matches✅ YES
Task StructureTasks under Story directoriesTasks embedded in stories⚠️ DIVERGES
File Organizationdocs/project-management/kanban/epics/docs/project-management/epics/overview/⚠️ DIVERGES

KB Structure Comparison:

AspectADK Canonicalfree-party-promoterMatch?
Root Pathdocs/docs/✅ YES
Directory Organization5 pillars20+ pillars (different)⚠️ DIVERGES
Document LifecycleFrontmatter with lifecycle metadata❓ Unknown❓ UNKNOWN
Naming ConventionsSelf-documenting names✅ Matches✅ YES
Cross-ReferencingProper linking patterns✅ Matches✅ YES

Versioning Comparison:

AspectADK Canonicalfree-party-promoterMatch?
SchemaRC.EPIC.STORY.TASK+BUILDRC.MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH+BUILD⚠️ DIVERGES
Version Fileversion.pypubspec.yaml⚠️ DIVERGES
Epic MappingExplicit Epic.Story.TaskConvention (MAJOR=Epic, MINOR=Story)⚠️ DIVERGES

Analysis Completed: 2025-12-16
Next Review: After ADK hardening recommendations implemented