wm-atlas-plays

name: wm-atlas-plays description: > Generate one focused map per strategic play, showing only the components, dependencies, evolve arrows, and annotations relevant to that play's argument. Deepens play analysis from evolution assessments, supply chain, and decisions log. Produces atlas/play-{slug}/ for each play. compatibility: Requires Node.js (npx) for OWM rendering via cli-owm metadata: author: monkeypants version: "0.1" skillset: wardley-mapping stage: "atlas" freedom: medium

Atlas: Strategic Play Maps

You are generating focused Wardley Map views for each strategic play. Each play map isolates the components relevant to a single strategic argument, stripping away everything else so the play's logic is visible at a glance.

Prerequisites

Check that the project directory (clients/{org}/projects/{project-slug}/) contains:

• strategy/map.agreed.owm -- the comprehensive strategy map
• strategy/plays/*.md -- at least one play document
• evolve/assessments/*.md -- evolution reasoning
• chain/supply-chain.agreed.md -- structural context
• decisions.md

If strategy/map.agreed.owm is missing, tell the user to complete wm-strategy first. If no plays exist, the strategy skill did not produce actionable output -- tell the user to revisit wm-strategy.

Staleness check

For each play document strategy/plays/{slug}.md, check whether atlas/play-{slug}/map.owm already exists. If it does, compare the modification times of:

• strategy/map.agreed.owm
• strategy/plays/{slug}.md
• evolve/assessments/*.md

against atlas/play-{slug}/map.owm. If all source files are older than the output, report that the play atlas is up to date and skip it. If any source is newer, regenerate.

Step 1: Extract relevant components

For each play document in strategy/plays/:

1. Read the play's .md file to understand its argument (observation, proposal, impact, evidence).
2. Read strategy/map.agreed.owm and identify every component, dependency, evolve arrow, annotation, and note that the play references or depends on.
3. Include direct dependencies of referenced components (one level up and one level down the value chain) so the play has structural context.
4. Omit everything else. The play map should contain only what is needed to make the play's argument visually.

Step 2: Deepen the play's argument from analytical artifacts

Read the analytical work from earlier stages through this play's lens:

1. Evolution assessments (evolve/assessments/*.md): What evidence supports the evolution positions of components in this play? Were any positions debated or uncertain? This is richer than the play document's original evidence section.
2. Supply chain (chain/supply-chain.agreed.md): What structural dependencies exist for the play's components? Are there shared components or bottlenecks that constrain execution?
3. Decisions log (decisions.md): Were there client agreements during earlier stages that relate to this play? Constraints, preferences, or caveats the client expressed?
4. Other plays (strategy/plays/*.md): Does this play interact with, depend on, or conflict with other agreed plays?

Supplement from primary research (resources/) only for evidence not already distilled in the analytical artifacts -- such as specific market data, competitor moves, or timeline indicators that were gathered but not surfaced in assessments or plays.

Step 3: Generate play map

Read owm-dsl-reference.md for OWM syntax.

Write atlas/play-{slug}/map.owm containing:

• A title naming the play (e.g. title Play: Commoditise Fleet Tracking)
• Only the components identified in Step 1, at their original positions
• Only the dependencies between included components
• Evolve arrows relevant to this play
• Annotations explaining the play's logic (numbered, under 12 words each)
• Notes for risk callouts or execution prerequisites
• style wardley

Preserve original component positions from the strategy map so the play map is spatially consistent with the comprehensive map.

Step 4: Write analysis

Write atlas/play-{slug}/analysis.md:

# Play: {Play Name}

## The argument

{One-paragraph summary of the play's strategic logic, written as a
narrative connecting the map elements.}

## Visual reading guide

{Walk the reader through the map. Which components to look at first,
what the evolve arrows mean in context, how the dependencies create
the play's logic.}

## Evidence from research

{Specific findings from research that support (or complicate) this
play. Cite the research sub-reports by filename. This section should
be richer than the original play document because you have re-read
the research through this play's specific lens.}

## Risks

{What could prevent this play from succeeding? What are the
dependencies and assumptions?}

## Execution requirements

{What does the organisation need to do, acquire, or change to
execute this play? Be specific about capabilities and resources.}

## Relationship to other plays

{Does this play enable, conflict with, or depend on other plays
in the strategy?}

Step 5: Render

After writing each .owm file, render it to SVG:

bin/ensure-owm.sh clients/{org}/projects/{slug}/atlas/play-{slug}/map.owm

Then regenerate the deliverable site:

bin/render-site.sh clients/{org}/projects/{slug}/

Output

For each play in strategy/plays/:

• atlas/play-{slug}/map.owm -- focused play map
• atlas/play-{slug}/map.svg -- rendered visualisation
• atlas/play-{slug}/analysis.md -- deep analysis of the play

Guidelines

• One play, one map. Do not combine plays. Each map argues one thing.
• Omit aggressively. If a component is not part of the play's argument or its immediate structural context, leave it out.
• The analysis must exceed the play document. If analysis.md just restates strategy/plays/{slug}.md, it has no value. The re-read of research through the play's lens is what makes this skill worthwhile.
• Spatial consistency matters. Components should appear at the same coordinates as in the comprehensive map so the reader can mentally overlay play maps onto the full picture.