mirror of
https://github.com/anthropics/claude-plugins-official.git
synced 2026-04-30 23:12:41 +00:00
bdca23e8e4
Structured workflow (assess → map → extract-rules → reimagine → transform → harden) and specialist agents (legacy-analyst, business-rules-extractor, architecture-critic, security-auditor, test-engineer) for modernizing legacy codebases into current stacks.
79 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
79 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Transform one legacy module to the target stack — idiomatic rewrite with behavior-equivalence tests
|
|
argument-hint: <system-dir> <module> <target-stack>
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Transform `legacy/$1` module **`$2`** into **$3**, with proof of behavioral
|
|
equivalence.
|
|
|
|
This is a surgical, single-module transformation — one vertical slice of the
|
|
strangler fig. Output goes to `modernized/$1/$2/`.
|
|
|
|
## Step 0 — Plan (HITL gate)
|
|
|
|
Read the source module and any business rules in `analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md`
|
|
that reference it. Then **enter plan mode** and present:
|
|
- Which source files are in scope
|
|
- The target module structure (packages/classes/files you'll create)
|
|
- Which business rules / behaviors this module implements
|
|
- How you'll prove equivalence (test strategy)
|
|
- Anything ambiguous that needs a human decision NOW
|
|
|
|
Wait for approval before writing any code.
|
|
|
|
## Step 1 — Characterization tests FIRST
|
|
|
|
Before writing target code, spawn the **test-engineer** subagent:
|
|
|
|
"Write characterization tests for legacy/$1 module $2. Read the source,
|
|
identify every observable behavior, and encode each as a test case with
|
|
concrete input → expected output pairs derived from the legacy logic.
|
|
Target framework: <appropriate for $3>. Write to
|
|
`modernized/$1/$2/src/test/`. These tests define 'done' — the new code
|
|
must pass all of them."
|
|
|
|
Show the user the test file. Get a 👍 before proceeding.
|
|
|
|
## Step 2 — Idiomatic transformation
|
|
|
|
Write the target implementation in `modernized/$1/$2/src/main/`.
|
|
|
|
**Critical:** Write code a senior $3 engineer would write from the
|
|
*specification*, not from the legacy structure. Do NOT mirror COBOL paragraphs
|
|
as methods, do NOT preserve legacy variable names like `WS-TEMP-AMT-X`.
|
|
Use the target language's idioms: records/dataclasses, streams, dependency
|
|
injection, proper error types, etc.
|
|
|
|
Include: domain model, service logic, API surface (REST controller or
|
|
equivalent), and configuration. Add concise Javadoc/docstrings linking each
|
|
class back to the rule IDs it implements.
|
|
|
|
## Step 3 — Prove it
|
|
|
|
Run the characterization tests:
|
|
```bash
|
|
cd modernized/$1/$2 && <appropriate test command for $3>
|
|
```
|
|
Show the output. If anything fails, fix and re-run until green.
|
|
|
|
## Step 4 — Side-by-side review
|
|
|
|
Generate `modernized/$1/$2/TRANSFORMATION_NOTES.md`:
|
|
- Mapping table: legacy file:lines → target file:lines, per behavior
|
|
- Deliberate deviations from legacy behavior (with rationale)
|
|
- What was NOT migrated (dead code, unreachable branches) and why
|
|
- Follow-ups for the next module that depends on this one
|
|
|
|
Then show a visual diff of one representative behavior, legacy vs modern:
|
|
```bash
|
|
delta --side-by-side <(sed -n '<lines>p' legacy/$1/<file>) modernized/$1/$2/src/main/<file>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Step 5 — Architecture review
|
|
|
|
Spawn the **architecture-critic** subagent to review the transformed code
|
|
against $3 best practices. Apply any HIGH-severity feedback; list the rest
|
|
in TRANSFORMATION_NOTES.md.
|
|
|
|
Report: tests passing, lines of legacy retired, location of artifacts.
|