mirror of
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official.git
synced 2026-05-13 16:02:41 +00:00
Compare commits
1 Commits
main
...
require-sc
| Author | SHA1 | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2b7ecffd4f |
@@ -81,22 +81,6 @@
|
||||
},
|
||||
"homepage": "https://github.com/AikidoSec/aikido-claude-plugin"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "airtable",
|
||||
"description": "Airtable is the database and operations layer for your agents — whether running product, marketing, sales, ops, HR, or a custom business app. It combines structured data with multiplayer visual surfaces (grid, kanban, calendar, gallery, timeline) humans and agents share — plus sync integrations to Jira, Salesforce, Zendesk, Google Drive, Databricks, and the rest of your stack, all backed by enterprise governance. This plugin makes Claude fluent in Airtable: creating bases and schema, working with records, and sharing UI for collaboration. Bundles the official Airtable MCP server.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Airtable"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"category": "productivity",
|
||||
"source": {
|
||||
"source": "git-subdir",
|
||||
"url": "https://github.com/Airtable/skills.git",
|
||||
"path": "plugins/airtable",
|
||||
"ref": "main",
|
||||
"sha": "aaeb4f3ec8d462d694a13fe5c3d249c291bf8899"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"homepage": "https://www.airtable.com"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "alloydb",
|
||||
"description": "Create, connect, and interact with an AlloyDB for PostgreSQL database and data.",
|
||||
@@ -673,7 +657,7 @@
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "data-agent-kit-starter-pack",
|
||||
"description": "This plugin provides a specialized suite of skills for data engineers and database practitioners working on Google Cloud. It acts as an expert assistant, allowing you to use natural language prompts in your preferred coding agent to architect complex data pipelines, transform data with dbt, write Spark and BigQuery SQL notebooks, and orchestrate end-to-end workflows across GCP's data ecosystem.",
|
||||
"description": "Specialized suite of skills for data engineers on Google Cloud — architect data pipelines, transform data with dbt, write Spark and BigQuery SQL notebooks, and orchestrate end-to-end workflows across BigQuery, Spanner, BigLake, and Dataproc.",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Google LLC"
|
||||
},
|
||||
@@ -681,9 +665,9 @@
|
||||
"source": {
|
||||
"source": "url",
|
||||
"url": "https://github.com/gemini-cli-extensions/data-agent-kit-starter-pack.git",
|
||||
"sha": "04c4354242c1192191c76fca2d4b03d94401d9fa"
|
||||
"sha": "7bcfcb77435ec6d544b1131333f2297ca09c3930"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"homepage": "https://github.com/gemini-cli-extensions/data-agent-kit-starter-pack"
|
||||
"homepage": "https://cloud.google.com/bigquery"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "data-engineering",
|
||||
@@ -1819,7 +1803,7 @@
|
||||
"source": "git-subdir",
|
||||
"url": "https://github.com/ServiceNow/sdk.git",
|
||||
"path": "providers/claude/plugin",
|
||||
"ref": "master",
|
||||
"ref": "main",
|
||||
"sha": "06adf37ca78c270a57f93e7b9dfbb7bf16e24611"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"homepage": "https://servicenow.github.io/sdk/"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "code-modernization",
|
||||
"description": "Modernize legacy codebases (COBOL, legacy Java/C++, monolith web apps) with a structured assess → map → extract-rules → brief → reimagine/transform → harden workflow and specialist review agents",
|
||||
"description": "Modernize legacy codebases (COBOL, legacy Java/C++, monolith web apps) with a structured assess → map → extract-rules → reimagine → transform → harden workflow and specialist review agents",
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"name": "Anthropic",
|
||||
"email": "support@anthropic.com"
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -7,55 +7,43 @@ A structured workflow and set of specialist agents for modernizing legacy codeba
|
||||
Legacy modernization fails most often not because the target technology is wrong, but because teams skip steps: they transform code before understanding it, reimagine architecture before extracting business rules, or ship without a harness that would catch behavior drift. This plugin enforces a sequence:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
assess → map → extract-rules → brief → reimagine | transform → harden
|
||||
assess → map → extract-rules → reimagine → transform → harden
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The discovery commands (`assess`, `map`, `extract-rules`) build artifacts under `analysis/<system>/`. The `brief` command synthesizes them into an approval gate. The build commands (`reimagine`, `transform`) write new code under `modernized/`. The `harden` command audits the legacy system and produces a reviewable remediation patch. Each step has a dedicated slash command, and specialist agents (legacy analyst, business rules extractor, architecture critic, security auditor, test engineer) are invoked from within those commands — or directly — to keep the work honest.
|
||||
|
||||
## Expected layout
|
||||
|
||||
Commands take a `<system-dir>` argument and assume the system being modernized lives at `legacy/<system-dir>/`. Discovery artifacts go to `analysis/<system-dir>/`, transformed code to `modernized/<system-dir>/…`. If your codebase lives elsewhere, symlink it in:
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
mkdir -p legacy && ln -s /path/to/your/legacy/codebase legacy/billing
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Optional tooling
|
||||
|
||||
`/modernize-assess` works best with [`scc`](https://github.com/boyter/scc) (LOC + complexity + COCOMO) or [`cloc`](https://github.com/AlDanial/cloc), and falls back to `find`/`wc` if neither is installed. Portfolio mode also benefits from [`lizard`](https://github.com/terryyin/lizard) (cyclomatic complexity). The commands degrade gracefully without them, but the metrics will be coarser.
|
||||
Each step has a dedicated slash command. Specialist agents (legacy analyst, business rules extractor, architecture critic, security auditor, test engineer) are invoked from within those commands — or directly — to keep the work honest.
|
||||
|
||||
## Commands
|
||||
|
||||
The commands are designed to be run in order, but each produces a standalone artifact so you can stop, review, and resume.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-assess <system-dir>` — or — `/modernize-assess --portfolio <parent-dir>`
|
||||
Inventory the legacy codebase: languages, line counts, complexity, build system, integrations, technical debt, security posture, documentation gaps, and a COCOMO-derived effort estimate. Produces `analysis/<system>/ASSESSMENT.md` and `analysis/<system>/ARCHITECTURE.mmd`. Spawns `legacy-analyst` (×2) and `security-auditor` in parallel for deep reads. With `--portfolio`, sweeps every subdirectory of a parent directory and writes a sequencing heat-map to `analysis/portfolio.html`.
|
||||
### `/modernize-brief`
|
||||
Capture the modernization brief: what's being modernized, why now, constraints (regulatory, data, runtime), non-goals, and success criteria. Produces `analysis/brief.md`. Run this first.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-map <system-dir>`
|
||||
Build a dependency and topology map of the **legacy** system: program/module call graph, data lineage (programs ↔ data stores), entry points, dead-end candidates, and one traced critical-path business flow. Writes a re-runnable extraction script and produces `analysis/<system>/topology.json` (machine-readable), `analysis/<system>/TOPOLOGY.html` (rendered Mermaid + architect observations), and standalone `call-graph.mmd`, `data-lineage.mmd`, and `critical-path.mmd`.
|
||||
### `/modernize-assess`
|
||||
Inventory the legacy codebase: languages, line counts, module boundaries, external integrations, build system, test coverage, known pain points. Produces `analysis/assessment.md`. Uses the `legacy-analyst` agent for deep reads on unfamiliar dialects.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-extract-rules <system-dir> [module-pattern]`
|
||||
Mine the business rules embedded in the legacy code — calculations, validations, eligibility, state transitions, policies — into Given/When/Then "Rule Cards" with `file:line` citations and confidence ratings. Spawns three `business-rules-extractor` agents in parallel (calculations, validations, lifecycle). Produces `analysis/<system>/BUSINESS_RULES.md` and `analysis/<system>/DATA_OBJECTS.md`.
|
||||
### `/modernize-map`
|
||||
Map the legacy structure onto a target architecture: which legacy modules become which target services/packages, data-flow diagrams, migration sequencing. Produces `analysis/map.md`. Uses the `architecture-critic` agent to pressure-test the design.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-brief <system-dir> [target-stack]`
|
||||
Synthesize the discovery artifacts into a phased **Modernization Brief** — the single document a steering committee approves and engineering executes: target architecture, strangler-fig phase plan with entry/exit criteria, behavior contract, validation strategy, open questions, and an approval block. Reads `ASSESSMENT.md`, `TOPOLOGY.html`, and `BUSINESS_RULES.md` and **stops if any are missing** — run the discovery commands first. Produces `analysis/<system>/MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md` and enters plan mode as a human-in-the-loop gate.
|
||||
### `/modernize-extract-rules`
|
||||
Extract business rules from the legacy code — the rules that are encoded in procedural logic, COBOL copybooks, stored procedures, or config files — into human-readable form with citations back to source. Produces `analysis/rules.md`. Uses the `business-rules-extractor` agent.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-reimagine <system-dir> <target-vision>`
|
||||
Greenfield rebuild from extracted intent rather than a structural port. Mines a spec (`analysis/<system>/AI_NATIVE_SPEC.md`), designs a target architecture and has it adversarially reviewed (`analysis/<system>/REIMAGINED_ARCHITECTURE.md`), then **scaffolds services with executable acceptance tests** under `modernized/<system>-reimagined/` and writes a `CLAUDE.md` knowledge handoff for the new system. Two human-in-the-loop checkpoints. Spawns `business-rules-extractor`, `legacy-analyst` (×2), `architecture-critic`, and general-purpose scaffolding agents.
|
||||
### `/modernize-reimagine`
|
||||
Propose the target design: APIs, data model, runtime. Explicitly list what changes from legacy and what stays identical. Produces `analysis/design.md`. Uses the `architecture-critic` agent to challenge over-engineering.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-transform <system-dir> <module> <target-stack>`
|
||||
Surgical, single-module strangler-fig rewrite. Plans first (HITL gate), then writes characterization tests via `test-engineer`, then an idiomatic target implementation under `modernized/<system>/<module>/`, proves equivalence by running the tests, and produces `TRANSFORMATION_NOTES.md` mapping legacy → modern with deliberate deviations called out. Reviewed by `architecture-critic`.
|
||||
### `/modernize-transform`
|
||||
Do the actual code transformation — module by module. Writes to `modernized/`. Pairs each transformed module with a test suite that pins the pre-transform behavior.
|
||||
|
||||
### `/modernize-harden <system-dir>`
|
||||
Security hardening pass on the **legacy** system: OWASP/CWE scan, dependency CVEs, secrets, injection. Spawns `security-auditor`. Produces `analysis/<system>/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md` ranked Critical / High / Medium / Low and a reviewed `analysis/<system>/security_remediation.patch` with minimal fixes for the Critical/High findings. The patch is reviewed by a second `security-auditor` pass before you see it. **Never edits `legacy/`** — you review and apply the patch yourself when ready, then re-run to verify. Useful as a pre-modernization step when the legacy system will keep running in production during the migration.
|
||||
### `/modernize-harden`
|
||||
Post-transform review pass: security audit, test coverage, error handling, observability. Uses `security-auditor` and `test-engineer` agents. Produces a findings report ranked Blocker / High / Medium / Nit.
|
||||
|
||||
## Agents
|
||||
|
||||
- **`legacy-analyst`** — Reads legacy code (COBOL, legacy Java/C++, procedural PHP, classic ASP) and produces structured summaries. Good at spotting implicit dependencies, copybook inheritance, and "JOBOL" patterns (procedural code wearing a modern syntax). Used by `assess` and `reimagine`.
|
||||
- **`business-rules-extractor`** — Extracts business rules from procedural code with source citations. Each rule includes: what, where it's implemented, which conditions fire it, and any corner cases hidden in data. Used by `extract-rules` and `reimagine`.
|
||||
- **`architecture-critic`** — Adversarial reviewer for target architectures and transformed code. Default stance is skeptical: asks "do we actually need this?" Flags microservices-for-the-resume, ceremonial error handling, abstractions with one implementation. Used by `reimagine` and `transform`.
|
||||
- **`security-auditor`** — Reviews code for auth, input validation, secret handling, and dependency CVEs. Tuned for the kinds of issues that appear when translating security primitives across stacks (e.g., session handling from servlet to stateless JWT). Used by `assess` and `harden`.
|
||||
- **`test-engineer`** — Writes characterization, contract, and equivalence tests that pin legacy behavior so transformation can be proven correct. Flags tests that exercise code paths without asserting outcomes. Used by `transform`.
|
||||
- **`legacy-analyst`** — Reads legacy code (COBOL, legacy Java/C++, procedural PHP, classic ASP) and produces structured summaries. Good at spotting implicit dependencies, copybook inheritance, and "JOBOL" patterns (procedural code wearing a modern syntax).
|
||||
- **`business-rules-extractor`** — Extracts business rules from procedural code with source citations. Each rule includes: what, where it's implemented, which conditions fire it, and any corner cases hidden in data.
|
||||
- **`architecture-critic`** — Adversarial reviewer for target architectures and transformed code. Default stance is skeptical: asks "do we actually need this?" Flags microservices-for-the-resume, ceremonial error handling, abstractions with one implementation.
|
||||
- **`security-auditor`** — Reviews transformed code for auth, input validation, secret handling, and dependency CVEs. Tuned for the kinds of issues that appear when translating security primitives across stacks (e.g., session handling from servlet to stateless JWT).
|
||||
- **`test-engineer`** — Audits test suites for behavior-pinning vs. coverage-theater. Flags tests that exercise code paths without asserting outcomes.
|
||||
|
||||
## Installation
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -87,31 +75,31 @@ This plugin ships commands and agents, but modernization projects benefit from a
|
||||
}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Adjust `legacy/` and `modernized/` to match your actual layout. The key invariants: `Edit` under `legacy/` is denied, and writes are scoped to `analysis/` (for documents) and `modernized/` (for the new code). Every command in this plugin respects this — `/modernize-harden` writes a patch to `analysis/` rather than editing `legacy/` in place.
|
||||
Adjust `legacy/` and `modernized/` to match your actual layout. The key invariants: `Edit` under `legacy/` is denied, and writes are scoped to `analysis/` (for documents) and `modernized/` (for the new code).
|
||||
|
||||
## Typical Workflow
|
||||
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# 1. Inventory the legacy system (or sweep a portfolio of them)
|
||||
/modernize-assess billing
|
||||
# 1. Write the brief — what are we modernizing and why?
|
||||
/modernize-brief
|
||||
|
||||
# 2. Map call graph, data lineage, and the critical path
|
||||
/modernize-map billing
|
||||
# 2. Inventory the legacy code
|
||||
/modernize-assess
|
||||
|
||||
# 3. Extract business rules into testable Rule Cards
|
||||
/modernize-extract-rules billing
|
||||
# 3. Extract business rules before touching the code
|
||||
/modernize-extract-rules
|
||||
|
||||
# 4. Synthesize the approved Modernization Brief (human-in-the-loop gate)
|
||||
/modernize-brief billing java-spring
|
||||
# 4. Map legacy structure to target
|
||||
/modernize-map
|
||||
|
||||
# 5a. Greenfield rebuild from the extracted spec…
|
||||
/modernize-reimagine billing "event-driven services on Java 21 / Spring Boot"
|
||||
# 5. Propose the target design and review it
|
||||
/modernize-reimagine
|
||||
|
||||
# 5b. …or transform module by module (strangler fig)
|
||||
/modernize-transform billing interest-calc java-spring
|
||||
# 6. Transform module by module
|
||||
/modernize-transform
|
||||
|
||||
# 6. Security-harden the legacy system that's still in production
|
||||
/modernize-harden billing
|
||||
# 7. Harden: security, tests, observability
|
||||
/modernize-harden
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## License
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -42,5 +42,5 @@ of the technology, skip it.
|
||||
|
||||
## Output format
|
||||
|
||||
One "Rule Card" per rule (see the format in the `/modernize-extract-rules`
|
||||
One "Rule Card" per rule (see the format in the modernize:extract-rules
|
||||
command). Group by category. Lead with a summary table.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -11,29 +11,20 @@ engineer can fix.
|
||||
|
||||
## Coverage checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Adapt to the target stack — web items don't apply to a batch system,
|
||||
terminal/screen items don't apply to a SPA. Work through what's relevant:
|
||||
|
||||
Work through systematically:
|
||||
- **Injection** (SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP, XPath, template) — trace every
|
||||
user-controlled input to every sink, including dynamic SQL and shell-outs
|
||||
user-controlled input to every sink
|
||||
- **Authentication / session** — hardcoded creds, weak session handling,
|
||||
missing auth checks on sensitive routes/transactions/jobs
|
||||
- **Sensitive data exposure** — secrets in source, weak crypto, PII in logs,
|
||||
cleartext sensitive data in record layouts, flat files, or temp datasets
|
||||
- **Access control** — IDOR, missing ownership checks, privilege escalation;
|
||||
missing/permissive resource ACLs (RACF profiles, IAM policies, file perms);
|
||||
unguarded admin functions
|
||||
- **XSS / CSRF** — unescaped output, missing tokens (web targets)
|
||||
- **Insecure deserialization** — untrusted data into pickle/yaml.load/
|
||||
`ObjectInputStream` or custom record parsers
|
||||
missing auth checks on sensitive routes
|
||||
- **Sensitive data exposure** — secrets in source, weak crypto, PII in logs
|
||||
- **Access control** — IDOR, missing ownership checks, privilege escalation paths
|
||||
- **XSS / CSRF** — unescaped output, missing tokens
|
||||
- **Insecure deserialization** — pickle/yaml.load/ObjectInputStream on
|
||||
untrusted data
|
||||
- **Vulnerable dependencies** — run `npm audit` / `pip-audit` /
|
||||
read manifests and flag versions with known CVEs
|
||||
- **SSRF / path traversal / open redirect** (web/network targets)
|
||||
- **Input validation** — missing length/range/format checks at trust
|
||||
boundaries (form/screen fields, API params, batch input records) before
|
||||
persistence or downstream calls
|
||||
- **Security misconfiguration** — debug mode, verbose errors, default creds,
|
||||
hardcoded credentials in deployment scripts, job definitions, or config
|
||||
- **SSRF / path traversal / open redirect**
|
||||
- **Security misconfiguration** — debug mode, verbose errors, default creds
|
||||
|
||||
## Tooling
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -23,10 +23,6 @@ cloc --quiet --csv <parent>/<sys> # LOC by language
|
||||
lizard -s cyclomatic_complexity <parent>/<sys> 2>/dev/null | tail -1
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If `cloc`/`lizard` are not installed, fall back to `scc <parent>/<sys>`
|
||||
(LOC + complexity) or `find` + `wc -l` grouped by extension, and estimate
|
||||
complexity by counting decision keywords per file. Note which tool you used.
|
||||
|
||||
Capture: total SLOC, dominant language, file count, mean & max
|
||||
cyclomatic complexity (CCN). For dependency freshness, locate the
|
||||
manifest (`package.json`, `pom.xml`, `*.csproj`, `requirements*.txt`,
|
||||
@@ -73,17 +69,6 @@ scc legacy/$1
|
||||
Then run `scc --by-file -s complexity legacy/$1 | head -25` to identify the
|
||||
highest-complexity files. Capture the COCOMO effort/cost estimate scc provides.
|
||||
|
||||
If `scc` is not installed, fall back in order:
|
||||
1. `cloc legacy/$1` for the LOC table, then compute COCOMO-II effort
|
||||
yourself: `PM = 2.94 × (KSLOC)^1.10` (nominal scale factors). Show the
|
||||
inputs.
|
||||
2. If `cloc` is also missing, use `find` + `wc -l` grouped by extension
|
||||
for LOC, and rank file complexity by counting decision keywords
|
||||
(`IF`/`EVALUATE`/`WHEN`/`PERFORM` for COBOL; `if`/`for`/`while`/`case`/
|
||||
`catch` for C-family). Compute COCOMO from KSLOC as above.
|
||||
|
||||
Note in the assessment which tool was used so the figures are reproducible.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 2 — Technology fingerprint
|
||||
|
||||
Identify, with file evidence:
|
||||
@@ -95,15 +80,12 @@ Identify, with file evidence:
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 3 — Parallel deep analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Spawn three subagents **in parallel**:
|
||||
Spawn three subagents **concurrently** using the Task tool:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **legacy-analyst** — "Build a structural map of legacy/$1: what are the
|
||||
5-12 major functional domains (group optional/feature-gated subsystems
|
||||
under one umbrella), which source files belong to each, and how do they
|
||||
depend on each other (control flow + shared data)? Return a markdown
|
||||
table + a Mermaid `graph TD` of domain-level dependencies — use
|
||||
`subgraph` to cluster and cap at ~40 edges. Cite repo-relative file
|
||||
paths. Flag dangling references (defined but no source, or unused)."
|
||||
5-10 major functional domains, which source files belong to each, and how
|
||||
do they depend on each other? Return a markdown table + a Mermaid
|
||||
`graph TD` of domain-level dependencies. Cite file paths."
|
||||
|
||||
2. **legacy-analyst** — "Identify technical debt in legacy/$1: dead code,
|
||||
deprecated APIs, copy-paste duplication, god objects/programs, missing
|
||||
@@ -117,21 +99,20 @@ Spawn three subagents **in parallel**:
|
||||
|
||||
Wait for all three. Synthesize their findings.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 4 — Production runtime overlay (optional)
|
||||
## Step 4 — Production runtime overlay (observability)
|
||||
|
||||
If production telemetry is available — an observability/APM MCP server, batch
|
||||
job logs, or runtime exports the user can supply — gather p50/p95/p99
|
||||
wall-clock for the system's key jobs/transactions (e.g. JCL members under
|
||||
`legacy/$1/jcl/`, scheduled batches, top API routes). Use it to:
|
||||
If the system has batch jobs (e.g. JCL members under `app/jcl/`), call the
|
||||
`observability` MCP tool `get_batch_runtimes` for each business-relevant
|
||||
job name (interest, posting, statement, reporting). Use the returned
|
||||
p50/p95/p99 and 90-day series to:
|
||||
|
||||
- Tag each functional domain from Step 3 with its production wall-clock
|
||||
cost and **p99 variance** (p99/p50 ratio).
|
||||
- Flag the highest-variance domain as the highest operational risk —
|
||||
this is telemetry-grounded, not a static-analysis opinion.
|
||||
|
||||
Include a small **Runtime Profile** table (Job/Route · Domain · p50 · p95 ·
|
||||
p99 · p99/p50) in the assessment. If no telemetry is available, skip this
|
||||
step and note the gap in the assessment.
|
||||
Include a small **Batch Runtime** table (Job · Domain · p50 · p95 · p99 ·
|
||||
p99/p50) in the assessment.
|
||||
|
||||
## Step 5 — Documentation gap analysis
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -145,7 +126,7 @@ Create `analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md` with these sections:
|
||||
- **Executive Summary** (3-4 sentences: what it is, how big, how risky, headline recommendation)
|
||||
- **System Inventory** (the scc table + tech fingerprint)
|
||||
- **Architecture-at-a-Glance** (the domain table; reference the diagram)
|
||||
- **Production Runtime Profile** (the runtime table from Step 4 with the highest-variance domain called out — or "no telemetry available")
|
||||
- **Production Runtime Profile** (the batch-runtime table from Step 4, with the highest-variance domain called out)
|
||||
- **Technical Debt** (top 10, ranked)
|
||||
- **Security Findings** (CWE table)
|
||||
- **Documentation Gaps** (top 5)
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -8,10 +8,8 @@ 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.html` (and the `.mmd`
|
||||
files alongside it), 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.
|
||||
Read `analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md`, `TOPOLOGY.md`, and `BUSINESS_RULES.md` first.
|
||||
If any are missing, say so and stop.
|
||||
|
||||
## The Brief
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -37,11 +35,8 @@ fewest-dependencies first. For each phase:
|
||||
Render the phases as a Mermaid `gantt` chart.
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. 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.
|
||||
List the **P0 behaviors** from BUSINESS_RULES.md that MUST be proven
|
||||
equivalent before any phase ships. These become the regression suite.
|
||||
|
||||
### 5. Validation Strategy
|
||||
State which combination applies: characterization tests, contract tests,
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -38,7 +38,6 @@ Merge the three result sets. Deduplicate. For each distinct rule, write a
|
||||
```
|
||||
### RULE-NNN: <plain-English name>
|
||||
**Category:** Calculation | Validation | Lifecycle | Policy
|
||||
**Priority:** P0 | P1 | P2
|
||||
**Source:** `path/to/file.ext:line-line`
|
||||
**Plain English:** One sentence a business analyst would recognize.
|
||||
**Specification:**
|
||||
@@ -48,18 +47,11 @@ Merge the three result sets. Deduplicate. For each distinct rule, write a
|
||||
[And <additional outcome>]
|
||||
**Parameters:** <constants, rates, thresholds with their current values>
|
||||
**Edge cases handled:** <list>
|
||||
**Suspected defect:** <optional — legacy behavior that looks wrong; decide preserve-vs-fix during transform>
|
||||
**Confidence:** High | Medium | Low — <why; if < High, state the exact SME question>
|
||||
**Confidence:** High | Medium | Low — <why>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Priority heuristic — default to **P1**. Assign **P0** if the rule moves money,
|
||||
enforces a regulatory/compliance requirement, or guards data integrity (and
|
||||
flag P0 rules at <High confidence as SME-required). Assign **P2** for
|
||||
display/formatting/convenience rules. The downstream `/modernize-brief`
|
||||
behavior contract is built from the P0 rules, so assign deliberately.
|
||||
|
||||
Write all rule cards to `analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md` with:
|
||||
- A summary table at top (ID, name, category, priority, source, confidence)
|
||||
- A summary table at top (ID, name, category, source, confidence)
|
||||
- Rule cards grouped by category
|
||||
- A final **"Rules requiring SME confirmation"** section listing every
|
||||
Medium/Low confidence rule with the specific question a human needs to answer
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -1,26 +1,23 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
description: Security vulnerability scan with a reviewable remediation patch — OWASP, CWE, CVE, secrets, injection
|
||||
description: Security vulnerability scan + remediation — OWASP, CVE, secrets, injection
|
||||
argument-hint: <system-dir>
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Run a **security hardening pass** on `legacy/$1`: find vulnerabilities, rank
|
||||
them, and produce a reviewable patch for the critical ones.
|
||||
|
||||
This command never edits `legacy/` — it writes findings and a proposed patch
|
||||
to `analysis/$1/`. The user reviews and applies (or not).
|
||||
them, and fix the critical ones.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scan
|
||||
|
||||
Spawn the **security-auditor** subagent:
|
||||
|
||||
"Adversarially audit legacy/$1 for security vulnerabilities. Cover what's
|
||||
relevant to the stack: injection (SQL/NoSQL/OS command/template), broken
|
||||
auth, sensitive data exposure, access control gaps, insecure deserialization,
|
||||
hardcoded secrets, vulnerable dependency versions, missing input validation,
|
||||
path traversal. For each finding return: CWE ID, severity
|
||||
(Critical/High/Med/Low), file:line, one-sentence exploit scenario, and
|
||||
recommended fix. Run any available SAST tooling (npm audit, pip-audit,
|
||||
OWASP dependency-check) and include its raw output."
|
||||
"Adversarially audit legacy/$1 for security vulnerabilities. Cover:
|
||||
OWASP Top 10 (injection, broken auth, XSS, SSRF, etc.), hardcoded secrets,
|
||||
vulnerable dependency versions (check package manifests against known CVEs),
|
||||
missing input validation, insecure deserialization, path traversal.
|
||||
For each finding return: CWE ID, severity (Critical/High/Med/Low), file:line,
|
||||
one-sentence exploit scenario, and recommended fix. Also run any available
|
||||
SAST tooling (npm audit, pip-audit, OWASP dependency-check) and include
|
||||
its raw output."
|
||||
|
||||
## Triage
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -31,34 +28,19 @@ Write `analysis/$1/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md`:
|
||||
|
||||
## Remediate
|
||||
|
||||
For each **Critical** and **High** finding, draft a minimal, targeted fix.
|
||||
Do **not** edit `legacy/` — write all fixes as a single unified diff to
|
||||
`analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch`, with a comment line above each
|
||||
hunk citing the finding ID it addresses (`# SEC-001: parameterize the query`).
|
||||
For each **Critical** and **High** finding, fix it directly in the source.
|
||||
Make minimal, targeted changes. After each fix, add a one-line entry under
|
||||
"Remediation Log" in SECURITY_FINDINGS.md: finding ID → commit-style summary
|
||||
of what changed.
|
||||
|
||||
Add a **Remediation Log** section to SECURITY_FINDINGS.md mapping each
|
||||
finding ID → one-line summary of the proposed fix and the patch hunk that
|
||||
implements it.
|
||||
Show the cumulative diff:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
git -C legacy/$1 diff
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## Verify
|
||||
|
||||
Spawn the **security-auditor** again to **review the patch** against the
|
||||
original code:
|
||||
|
||||
"Review analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch against legacy/$1. For each
|
||||
hunk: does it fully remediate the cited finding? Does it introduce new
|
||||
vulnerabilities or change behavior beyond the fix? Return one verdict per
|
||||
hunk: RESOLVES / PARTIAL / INTRODUCES-RISK, with a one-line reason."
|
||||
|
||||
Add a **Patch Review** section to SECURITY_FINDINGS.md with the verdicts.
|
||||
If any hunk is PARTIAL or INTRODUCES-RISK, revise the patch and re-review.
|
||||
|
||||
## Present
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user the artifacts are ready:
|
||||
- `analysis/$1/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md` — findings, remediation log, patch review
|
||||
- `analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch` — review, then apply if appropriate
|
||||
with `git -C legacy/$1 apply ../../analysis/$1/security_remediation.patch`
|
||||
- Re-run `/modernize-harden $1` after applying to confirm resolution
|
||||
Re-run the security-auditor against the patched code to confirm the
|
||||
Critical/High findings are resolved. Update the scorecard with before/after.
|
||||
|
||||
Suggest: `glow -p analysis/$1/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md`
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -11,69 +11,31 @@ connect? This is the map an engineer needs before touching anything.
|
||||
## What to produce
|
||||
|
||||
Write a one-off analysis script (Python or shell — your choice) that parses
|
||||
the source under `legacy/$1` and extracts the four datasets below. Three
|
||||
principles apply across stacks; getting them wrong produces a misleading map:
|
||||
the source under `legacy/$1` and extracts:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Edges live in two places** — direct calls in source, *and* dispatcher/
|
||||
router calls whose targets are variables (config tables, route maps,
|
||||
dependency injection, dynamic dispatch). Resolve variables against config
|
||||
before declaring an edge unresolvable.
|
||||
2. **The code↔storage join is usually external configuration**, not source —
|
||||
job/deployment descriptors map logical names to physical stores.
|
||||
3. **Entry points usually live in deployment config**, not source — without
|
||||
parsing it, every top-level module looks unreachable.
|
||||
|
||||
Extract:
|
||||
|
||||
- **Program/module call graph** — direct calls (`CALL`, method invocations,
|
||||
`import`/`require`) *and* dispatcher calls (`EXEC CICS LINK/XCTL`, DI
|
||||
container wiring, framework routing, reflection/factory). Resolve variable
|
||||
call targets against route tables, copybooks, config, or constant pools.
|
||||
- **Data dependency graph** — which modules read/write which data stores,
|
||||
joined through the relevant config: `SELECT…ASSIGN TO` ↔ JCL `DD` (batch
|
||||
COBOL), `EXEC CICS READ/WRITE…FILE()` ↔ CSD `DEFINE FILE` (CICS online),
|
||||
`EXEC SQL` table refs (embedded SQL), ORM annotations/mappings (Java/.NET),
|
||||
model files (Node/Python/Ruby). Include UI/screen bindings (BMS maps, JSPs,
|
||||
templates) — they're dependencies too.
|
||||
- **Entry points** — whatever the stack's outermost invoker is, read from
|
||||
where it's defined: JCL `EXEC PGM=` and CICS CSD `DEFINE TRANSACTION`
|
||||
(mainframe), `web.xml`/route annotations/route files (web), `main()`/argv
|
||||
parsing (CLI), queue/scheduler subscriptions (event-driven).
|
||||
- **Dead-end candidates** — modules with no inbound edges. **Only meaningful
|
||||
once all the entry-point and call-edge types above are in the graph.**
|
||||
Suppress the dead claim for anything that could be the target of an
|
||||
unresolved dynamic call. A grep-only graph will mark most dispatcher-driven
|
||||
modules (CICS programs, Spring controllers, ORM-bound DAOs) dead when they
|
||||
aren't.
|
||||
|
||||
If the source is fixed-column (COBOL columns 8–72, RPG, etc.), slice the
|
||||
code area and strip comment lines before regex matching, or you'll match
|
||||
sequence numbers and commented-out code.
|
||||
- **Program/module call graph** — who calls whom (for COBOL: `CALL` statements
|
||||
and CICS `LINK`/`XCTL`; for Java: class-level imports/invocations; for Node:
|
||||
`require`/`import`)
|
||||
- **Data dependency graph** — which programs read/write which data stores
|
||||
(COBOL: copybooks + VSAM/DB2 in JCL DD statements; Java: JPA entities/tables;
|
||||
Node: model files)
|
||||
- **Entry points** — batch jobs, transaction IDs, HTTP routes, CLI commands
|
||||
- **Dead-end candidates** — modules with no inbound edges (potential dead code)
|
||||
|
||||
Save the script as `analysis/$1/extract_topology.py` (or `.sh`) so it can be
|
||||
re-run and audited. Have it write a machine-readable
|
||||
`analysis/$1/topology.json` and print a human summary. Run it; show the
|
||||
summary (cap at ~200 lines for very large estates).
|
||||
re-run and audited. Run it. Show the raw output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Render
|
||||
|
||||
From the extracted data, generate **three Mermaid diagrams** and write them
|
||||
to `analysis/$1/TOPOLOGY.html` as a self-contained page that renders in any
|
||||
browser.
|
||||
to `analysis/$1/TOPOLOGY.html` so the artifact pane renders them live.
|
||||
|
||||
The HTML page must use: dark `#1e1e1e` background, `#d4d4d4` text,
|
||||
`#cc785c` for `<h2>`/accents, `system-ui` font, all CSS **inline** (no
|
||||
external stylesheets). Load Mermaid from a CDN in `<head>`:
|
||||
|
||||
```html
|
||||
<script type="module">
|
||||
import mermaid from 'https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/mermaid@11/dist/mermaid.esm.min.mjs';
|
||||
mermaid.initialize({ startOnLoad: true, theme: 'dark' });
|
||||
</script>
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Each diagram goes in a `<pre class="mermaid">...</pre>` block. Do **not**
|
||||
wrap diagrams in markdown ` ``` ` fences inside the HTML.
|
||||
external stylesheets). Each diagram goes in a
|
||||
`<pre class="mermaid">...</pre>` block — the artifact server loads
|
||||
mermaid.js and renders client-side. Do **not** wrap diagrams in
|
||||
markdown ` ``` ` fences inside the HTML.
|
||||
|
||||
1. **`graph TD` — Module call graph.** Cluster by domain (use `subgraph`).
|
||||
Highlight entry points in a distinct style. Cap at ~40 nodes — if larger,
|
||||
@@ -84,9 +46,9 @@ wrap diagrams in markdown ` ``` ` fences inside the HTML.
|
||||
|
||||
3. **`flowchart TD` — Critical path.** Trace ONE end-to-end business flow
|
||||
(e.g., "monthly billing run" or "process payment") through every program
|
||||
and data store it touches, in execution order. If production telemetry is
|
||||
available (see `/modernize-assess` Step 4), annotate each step with its
|
||||
p50/p99 wall-clock.
|
||||
and data store it touches, in execution order. If the `observability`
|
||||
MCP server is connected, annotate each batch step with its p50/p99
|
||||
wall-clock from `get_batch_runtimes`.
|
||||
|
||||
Also export the three diagrams as standalone `.mmd` files for re-use:
|
||||
`analysis/$1/call-graph.mmd`, `analysis/$1/data-lineage.mmd`,
|
||||
@@ -101,4 +63,4 @@ touched by too many writers.
|
||||
|
||||
## Present
|
||||
|
||||
Tell the user to open `analysis/$1/TOPOLOGY.html` in a browser.
|
||||
Tell the user to open `analysis/$1/TOPOLOGY.html` in the artifact pane.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -57,9 +57,8 @@ Enter plan mode. Present the architecture. Wait for approval.
|
||||
|
||||
## Phase E — Parallel scaffolding
|
||||
|
||||
For each service in the approved architecture (cap at 3 to keep the run
|
||||
tractable; tell the user which you deferred), spawn a **general-purpose agent
|
||||
in parallel**:
|
||||
For each service in the approved architecture (cap at 3 for the demo), spawn
|
||||
a **general-purpose agent in parallel**:
|
||||
|
||||
"Scaffold the <service-name> service per analysis/$1/REIMAGINED_ARCHITECTURE.md
|
||||
and AI_NATIVE_SPEC.md. Create: project skeleton, domain model, API stubs
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user