mirror of
https://github.com/lucas-labs/claude-plugins.git
synced 2026-07-10 19:25:44 -03:00
e5939029ec
COCOMO's constants encode human-team productivity; presenting its person-months as how long an agentic modernization will take (or cost) is a claim we should not make. Reframe COCOMO everywhere as a RELATIVE complexity/scale index for ranking and sequencing systems only: - assess: capture COCOMO as a complexity index; explicitly ignore scc's 'Estimated Schedule Effort' and cost-in-dollars; ASSESSMENT 'Effort Estimation' section becomes 'Relative Scale' with a not-a-timeline note; portfolio heat-map column renamed Complexity (COCOMO index). - brief: phase plan uses relative T-shirt sizing, not person-months/weeks; phases render as a dependency flowchart, not a gantt (gantt = calendar). - portfolio-assess.js: field cocomoPm -> complexityIndex; return label carries the not-a-duration caveat. - README: 'A note on COCOMO' explains the index framing and points at better intrinsic-complexity proxies. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
93 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
93 lines
4.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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 using **strangler-fig ordering** — lowest-risk,
|
||
fewest-dependencies first. 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 2–3 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.
|