Morgan Westlee Lunt 4a8250babf
code-modernization: add /modernize-uplift for same-stack version migrations
Adds a third build method alongside transform (cross-stack rewrite) and
reimagine (greenfield): uplift, for same-stack version bumps (.NET Framework
4.8 -> .NET 8, Spring Boot 2->3, Python 2->3) where the right move is to
PRESERVE the code and fix only the version deltas, not extract intent and
rewrite.

- commands/modernize-uplift.md: delta-catalog-driven, dual-target test harness
  (one suite on both runtimes; baseline-on-old is the oracle), leaf-first build
  graph ordering, minimal-diff discipline (architecture-critic flags gratuitous
  divergence), and a 'this is a rewrite, use transform' escape hatch.
- agents/version-delta-analyst.md: finds the source->target breaking changes
  that THIS code hits; drives the ecosystem migration tool (upgrade-assistant /
  OpenRewrite / pyupgrade / ng update) and owns the residue; read-only.
- workflows/uplift-deltas.js: parallel finder per delta category, each verified
  against the cited code so deltas that don't apply here are dropped.
- Wired into assess (recommended-pattern routing), brief (per-phase command +
  leaf-first ordering), preflight (dual-run + tool readiness), status, README.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-06-09 23:12:16 +00:00

98 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

---
description: Generate a phased Modernization Brief — the approved plan that transformation agents will execute against
argument-hint: <system-dir> [target-stack]
---
Synthesize everything in `analysis/$1/` into a **Modernization Brief** — the
single document a steering committee approves and engineering executes.
Target stack: `$2` (if blank, recommend one based on the assessment findings).
Read `analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md`, `analysis/$1/topology.json` (plus the
`.mmd` files alongside it — do NOT read `TOPOLOGY.html`, it's an
interactive viewer with the data minified inside), and
`analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md` first. If any are missing, say so and
stop — they come from `/modernize-assess`, `/modernize-map`, and
`/modernize-extract-rules` respectively. Run those first.
**Staleness check:** compare modification times. If any input is newer
than an existing `MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md`, the brief is being justifiably
regenerated; but if an existing brief is newer than all inputs and the
user re-ran this command anyway, ask what changed. Either way, note the
input timestamps in the brief's header so reviewers can see what it was
built from.
## The Brief
Write `analysis/$1/MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md`:
### 1. Objective
One paragraph: from what, to what, why now.
### 2. Target Architecture
Mermaid C4 Container diagram of the *end state*. Name every service, data
store, and integration. Below it, a table mapping legacy component → target
component(s).
### 3. Phased Sequence
Break the work into 3-6 phases. Order by **strangler-fig** for a cross-stack
rewrite (lowest-risk, fewest-dependencies first), or **build-graph leaf-first**
for a same-stack uplift (libraries before the apps that depend on them). Name
the per-phase execution command: `/modernize-transform` (cross-stack module
rewrite), `/modernize-reimagine` (greenfield rebuild), or `/modernize-uplift`
(same-stack version bump — when the target is a newer version of the *same*
stack, this is the path, not transform). For each phase:
- Scope (which legacy modules, which target services)
- Entry criteria (what must be true to start)
- Exit criteria (what tests/metrics prove it's done)
- Relative scale (T-shirt size — S/M/L/XL — anchored to the phase's share
of the assessment's COCOMO complexity index. This ranks phases by size
against each other; it is **not** a duration. Do **not** state
person-months, weeks, calendar dates, or a delivery estimate — agentic
transformation does not follow the human-team productivity curves those
units assume, so any time figure here would be misleading.)
- Risk level + top 2 risks + mitigation
Render the phases as a Mermaid `flowchart LR` showing **sequence and
dependencies** (Phase 1 → Phase 2 → …, with branches where phases are
independent). Do **not** use a `gantt` chart — gantt encodes calendar
durations, and this plan deliberately makes no time claims.
### 4. Business Walkthroughs
For each persona flow in `analysis/$1/topology.json` (`flows` — produced
by `/modernize-map`), a short narrative table: persona, what happens in
business language, which legacy modules implement it today, and which
phase from §3 replaces each. This is the section non-technical approvers
actually read — it connects "Phase 2" to "what happens when a customer
files a claim". If topology.json has no flows, derive 23 walkthroughs
from the entry points and say they need SME confirmation.
### 5. Behavior Contract
List the **P0 rules** from BUSINESS_RULES.md (the ones tagged `Priority: P0`
money, regulatory, data integrity) that MUST be proven equivalent before any
phase ships. These become the regression suite. Flag any P0 rule with
Confidence < High as a blocker requiring SME confirmation before its phase
starts.
### 6. Validation Strategy
State which combination applies: characterization tests, contract tests,
parallel-run / dual-execution diff, property-based tests, manual UAT.
Justify per phase.
### 7. Open Questions
Anything requiring human/SME decision before Phase 1 starts. Each as a
checkbox the approver must tick.
### 8. Approval Block
```
Approved by: ________________ Date: __________
Approval covers: Phase 1 only | Full plan
```
## Present
Present a summary of the brief and **stop write nothing further until
the user explicitly approves** (use plan mode if the session supports
it). This gate is the human-in-the-loop control point; "no objection" is
not approval.