Files
claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/commands/modernize-assess.md
Morgan Lunt 22a1b25977 Harden code-modernization plugin from a real CardDemo dry run
Fixes found by running the discovery workflow against the AWS CardDemo
mainframe sample (~50 KLOC of COBOL/CICS/JCL/BMS/VSAM):

- modernize-assess: add scc -> cloc -> find/wc fallback chain with the
  COCOMO-II formula so Step 1 works when scc isn't installed; same for
  portfolio-mode cloc/lizard. Drop the reference to a specific
  agent-spawning tool name (just "in parallel"). Sharpen the structural-
  map subagent prompt: 5-12 domains, subgraph clustering, ~40-edge cap,
  repo-relative paths, dangling-reference check.
- modernize-map: expand the parse-target list with the things a
  literal-minded reader would miss on a real mainframe codebase — CICS
  CSD DEFINE TRANSACTION/FILE for entry points and online file I/O,
  EXEC CICS file ops, SELECT...ASSIGN TO joined with JCL DD,
  EXEC SQL table refs (not JCL DD), SEND/RECEIVE MAP, dynamic
  data-name XCTL resolution, COBOL fixed-format column slicing. Without
  these the dead-code list is wrong (most CICS programs look unreachable).
  Also write a machine-readable topology.json alongside the summary.
- modernize-extract-rules: add a Priority (P0/P1/P2) field with a
  heuristic, and an optional Suspected-defect field. modernize-brief
  reads P0 rules to build the behavior contract, but the Rule Card had
  no priority slot — the chain was broken.
- modernize-brief: read the new P0 tags; flag low-confidence P0 rules as
  SME blockers.
- modernize-reimagine: drop "for the demo" wording.
- security-auditor agent: add mainframe/COBOL coverage items (RACF,
  JCL/PROC creds, BMS field validation, DB2 dynamic SQL, copybook PII)
  and mark web-only items as such so it adapts to the target stack.
- README: add Optional Tooling section and a symlink example for the
  expected layout.
2026-05-11 16:28:27 -07:00

6.6 KiB
Raw Blame History

description, argument-hint
description argument-hint
Full discovery & portfolio analysis of a legacy system — inventory, complexity, debt, effort estimation <system-dir> | --portfolio <parent-dir>

Mode select. If $ARGUMENTS starts with --portfolio, run Portfolio mode against the directory that follows. Otherwise run Single-system mode against legacy/$1.


Portfolio mode (--portfolio <parent-dir>)

Sweep every immediate subdirectory of the parent dir and produce a heat-map a steering committee can use to sequence a multi-year program.

Step P1 — Per-system metrics

For each subdirectory <sys>:

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, copybook dir) and note its age / pinned-version count.

Step P2 — COCOMO-II effort

Compute person-months per system using COCOMO-II basic: PM = 2.94 × (KSLOC)^1.10 (nominal scale factors). Show the formula and inputs so the figure is defensible, not a guess.

Step P3 — Documentation coverage

For each system, count source files with vs without a header comment block, and list architecture docs present (README, docs/, ADRs). Report coverage % and the top undocumented subsystems.

Step P4 — Render the heat-map

Write analysis/portfolio.html (dark #1e1e1e bg, #d4d4d4 text, #cc785c accent, system-ui font, all CSS inline). One row per system; columns: System · Lang · KSLOC · Files · Mean CCN · Max CCN · Dep Freshness · Doc Coverage % · COCOMO PM · Risk. Color-grade the PM and Risk cells (green→amber→red). Below the table, a 2-3 sentence sequencing recommendation: which system first and why.

Then stop. Tell the user to open analysis/portfolio.html.


Single-system mode

Perform a complete modernization assessment of legacy/$1.

This is the discovery phase — the goal is a fact-grounded executive brief that a VP of Engineering could take into a budget meeting. Work in this order:

Step 1 — Quantitative inventory

Run and show the output of:

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:

  • Languages, frameworks, and runtime versions in use
  • Build system and dependency manifest locations
  • Data stores (schemas, copybooks, DDL, ORM configs)
  • Integration points (queues, APIs, batch interfaces, screen maps)
  • Test presence and approximate coverage signal

Step 3 — Parallel deep analysis

Spawn three subagents in parallel:

  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)."

  2. legacy-analyst — "Identify technical debt in legacy/$1: dead code, deprecated APIs, copy-paste duplication, god objects/programs, missing error handling, hardcoded config. Return the top 10 findings ranked by remediation value, each with file:line evidence."

  3. security-auditor — "Scan legacy/$1 for security vulnerabilities: injection, auth weaknesses, hardcoded secrets, vulnerable dependencies, missing input validation. Return findings in CWE-tagged table form with file:line evidence and severity."

Wait for all three. Synthesize their findings.

Step 4 — Production runtime overlay (optional)

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:

  • 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.

Step 5 — Documentation gap analysis

Compare what the code does against what README/docs/comments say. List the top 5 undocumented behaviors or subsystems that a new engineer would need explained.

Step 6 — Write the assessment

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")
  • Technical Debt (top 10, ranked)
  • Security Findings (CWE table)
  • Documentation Gaps (top 5)
  • Effort Estimation (COCOMO-derived person-months, ±range, key cost drivers)
  • Recommended Modernization Pattern (one of: Rehost / Replatform / Refactor / Rearchitect / Rebuild / Replace — with one-paragraph rationale)

Also create analysis/$1/ARCHITECTURE.mmd containing the Mermaid domain dependency diagram from the legacy-analyst.

Step 7 — Present

Tell the user the assessment is ready and suggest: glow -p analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md