---
title: Team Adoption and Governance
description: Establish governance practices, naming conventions, onboarding patterns, and change management for team-wide HVE Core adoption
author: Microsoft
ms.date: 2026-02-24
ms.topic: how-to
keywords:
  - governance
  - adoption
  - onboarding
  - naming conventions
  - change management
estimated_reading_time: 7
---

## Adoption Strategy

Adopt HVE Core incrementally. A phased approach lets your team build confidence
with simpler artifacts before advancing to complex ones.

### Phase 1: Instructions

Start with instructions files. They require the least effort and deliver
immediate value by shaping Copilot's behavior for every conversation. Write
two or three instructions covering your team's coding standards, commit message
format, or PR conventions.

### Phase 2: Agents and Prompts

Once the team is comfortable with instructions, introduce custom agents for
repeatable workflows (code reviews, research tasks, implementation patterns)
and prompts for one-shot operations (generating boilerplate, formatting
outputs).

### Phase 3: Skills and Collections

Package domain knowledge into skills for complex, multi-step workflows. Bundle
related artifacts into collections for distribution and reuse across teams.

### Measuring Adoption Progress

Track adoption through observable indicators:

* Number of team members using custom agents in daily work
* Frequency of instructions and prompt invocations
* Reduction in repetitive manual tasks
* Quality improvements in generated code and documentation

## Naming Conventions

Consistent naming makes artifacts discoverable and their purpose clear at a
glance. Follow kebab-case patterns throughout.

### File Naming Patterns

| Artifact Type | Pattern                                               | Example                         |
|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|
| Instructions  | `{topic}.instructions.md`                             | `python-script.instructions.md` |
| Agents        | `{workflow}.agent.md`                                 | `code-review.agent.md`          |
| Prompts       | `{action}.prompt.md`                                  | `generate-tests.prompt.md`      |
| Skills        | `{skill-name}/SKILL.md`                               | `pr-reference/SKILL.md`         |
| Collections   | `{collection-id}.collection.yml` and `.collection.md` | `ado.collection.yml`            |

### Collection IDs

Collection IDs serve as directory names throughout `.github/` and must be
unique, lowercase, and kebab-cased. Choose IDs that reflect the domain or team
the collection serves:

* `ado` for Azure DevOps integration
* `coding-standards` for language-specific conventions
* `security-planning` for security architecture workflows

### Directory Organization

Place artifacts under their collection ID in the appropriate `.github/`
subdirectory:

```text
.github/
  agents/{collection-id}/
  instructions/{collection-id}/
  prompts/{collection-id}/
  skills/{collection-id}/
```

Artifacts at the root of `.github/agents/`, `.github/instructions/`,
`.github/prompts/`, or `.github/skills/` (without a subdirectory) are treated
as repo-specific and excluded from collection manifests, plugin generation, and
extension packaging.

## Governance Model

### Ownership

Assign clear ownership for each artifact category:

* A designated maintainer or team owns each collection
* Individual instructions files can have separate owners when they span
  multiple domains
* The `copilot-instructions.md` file at the repository root reflects
  cross-cutting concerns and requires broader review

### Review and Approval

Treat Copilot customization files with the same rigor as production code:

* Require pull request review for changes to instructions, agents, and skills
* Use CODEOWNERS to route reviews to artifact owners
* Validate changes with `npm run lint:all` before merging
* Run `npm run plugin:generate` after modifying collection manifests

### Handling Conflicting Instructions

When multiple instructions files provide contradictory guidance, resolution
follows priority order:

1. `copilot-instructions.md` highest-priority rules override everything
2. More specific `applyTo` patterns take precedence over broader ones
3. When two instructions at the same specificity conflict, the artifact owner
   resolves the conflict through a pull request

## Onboarding New Team Members

### Step-by-Step Onboarding

1. Point new members to the [Getting Started](../getting-started/README.md)
   guide for installation.
2. Walk through a first interaction using an existing agent (the RPI workflow
   is a good starting point).
3. Show how instructions files shape Copilot behavior by editing one together.
4. Introduce the team's custom agents and explain when to use each.
5. Share the team's naming conventions and governance expectations.

### First Customization Walkthrough

Have new team members create their first instructions file as an onboarding
exercise. A simple coding-style instruction works well:

1. Create a file at `.github/instructions/{collection-id}/my-style.instructions.md`
   with minimal frontmatter (`description` and `applyTo` fields)
2. Run `/prompt-build` and reference an existing instructions file the team
   uses, so Prompt Builder generates the body following established patterns
3. Run `/prompt-analyze` against the generated file to check for quality gaps
4. Iterate with `/prompt-build` to address any issues the analysis found
5. Test by opening a Copilot chat and verifying the instructions influence
   responses
6. Submit the file for review following the team's PR process

> [!TIP]
> Pair the new member with someone experienced during their first
> customization. Seeing how Prompt Builder generates and refines an artifact
> builds intuition for the full authoring workflow.

## Change Management

### Introducing New Artifacts

Follow a structured process when adding new instructions, agents, or skills:

1. Create the artifact file with minimal frontmatter in a feature branch
2. Run `/prompt-build` with reference files to generate the body
3. Run `/prompt-analyze` and iterate with `/prompt-build` until quality checks
   pass
4. Run `npm run lint:all` to validate formatting and frontmatter
5. Update affected collection manifests in `collections/`
6. Run `npm run plugin:generate` to regenerate plugin outputs
7. Submit a pull request with clear description of what the artifact does and
   why

### Communication Patterns

Announce changes that affect team workflows:

* New agents: share the agent name, purpose, and invocation example
* Modified instructions: explain what changed and why
* Deprecated artifacts: provide migration steps and a timeline

### Deprecation Workflow

HVE Core uses maturity levels to signal artifact lifecycle stage. Transition
artifacts through these stages:

| Level        | Meaning                                                      |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| experimental | Early-stage artifact; behavior may change without notice     |
| preview      | Functional but subject to refinement based on feedback       |
| stable       | Production-ready; changes follow semver-style considerations |
| deprecated   | Scheduled for removal; migration path documented             |

To deprecate an artifact:

1. Update the artifact's frontmatter to include `maturity: deprecated`
2. Run `/prompt-build` to add a deprecation notice pointing to the replacement
3. Announce the deprecation and provide a migration timeline
4. Remove the artifact after the agreed-upon transition period

## Role-Based Adoption Paths

Each role enters customization at a different level. These paths provide
starting points and progression for each of the nine roles.

### Engineer

1. Create an instructions file for your team's coding standards
2. Build a custom agent for your most common code review patterns
3. Package domain knowledge into a skill with scripts and references

### TPM (Technical Program Manager)

1. Use the RPI workflow to research and document project status
2. Create prompts for generating status reports and risk summaries
3. Build an agent that tracks cross-team dependencies

### Tech Lead

1. Write instructions for architecture decision conventions
2. Create a code review agent that enforces team standards
3. Establish a collection that bundles your team's full workflow

### Security Architect

1. Add security-focused instructions for threat modeling
2. Create a security review agent that checks for common
  vulnerabilities
3. Build a skill that integrates with security scanning tools

### Data Scientist

1. Create instructions for notebook conventions and data handling
2. Build prompts for exploratory data analysis patterns
3. Package statistical methodology into a skill with reference
  datasets

### SRE/Operations

1. Write instructions for runbook format and incident response
2. Create an agent for infrastructure review workflows
3. Build a collection integrating monitoring, alerting, and
  deployment tools

### Business PM (Product Manager)

1. Use prompts to generate user story drafts from requirements
2. Create an agent for requirements analysis
3. Build a Design Thinking workflow with custom agents

### New Contributor

1. Follow the [Getting Started](../getting-started/README.md)
  guide and complete your first interaction
2. Create your first instructions file with the onboarding
  walkthrough above
3. Propose a new agent or skill for a workflow gap you've
  identified

### Utility

1. Use existing prompts and agents without modification
2. Customize instructions for your specific workflow context
3. Contribute improvements to shared collections based on
  usage patterns

## Measuring Success

### Quantitative Indicators

* Artifact count: track the number of instructions, agents, skills, and
  collections over time
* Invocation frequency: monitor how often team members activate custom agents
  and prompts
* Error reduction: measure before-and-after rates for common mistakes the
  customizations target
* Onboarding velocity: compare time-to-productivity for members who use HVE
  Core versus those who do not

### Qualitative Indicators

* Team confidence: survey whether members feel more effective with AI-assisted
  workflows
* Consistency: review whether generated outputs (code, docs, PRs) follow team
  conventions more reliably
* Feedback quality: assess whether Copilot suggestions require fewer manual
  corrections

### Feedback Collection

Establish regular feedback cycles:

* Include Copilot customization effectiveness in sprint retrospectives
* Maintain a shared channel or document for reporting customization gaps
* Review and adjust artifacts quarterly based on accumulated feedback
* Track which artifacts are rarely used and consider deprecation

<!-- markdownlint-disable MD036 -->
*🤖 Crafted with precision by ✨Copilot following brilliant human instruction,
then carefully refined by our team of discerning human reviewers.*
<!-- markdownlint-enable MD036 -->
