What would be more useful next: another port, or small SkoolKit-adjacent tools?

[alepoydes]

One practical question for this project is where additional effort would create the most value.

There are at least two plausible directions:

Option A: another preservation port

This would mean applying the same general approach again:

• fidelity-first behaviour recovery
• explicit runtime structure
• reproducibility tools
• documentation of recovered logic
• modern execution environment without turning the work into a remake

This direction is attractive if the main value of the repository is the porting methodology itself.

Option B: small SkoolKit-adjacent tools

This would mean building narrower utilities that sit next to reverse-engineering and preservation workflows, for example:

• helpers for extracting structured data from annotated listings
• analysis utilities for comparing recovered runtime behaviour
• small visualization or inspection tools
• export/import helpers for preservation-oriented data paths
• tooling that reduces repetitive work around SkoolKit-based study

This direction is attractive if the highest leverage is in reusable tooling rather than in another full-game port.

Current bias

My current view is that small, sharp tools may produce more reusable value per unit of effort than immediately starting another full port.

That said, a second port would be useful if it helps validate the method on a different game structure and exposes where the current workflow generalizes badly.

Useful replies

If you vote one way or the other, it would help to say:

• which direction you would actually use
• what concrete output would make it worthwhile
• whether you care more about preservation research, reusable tooling, or playable artifacts
• what the smallest useful next step would be

Specific examples are more useful than general encouragement.