legacy-modernizer
Skill18 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Designs incremental migration strategies, identifies service boundaries, produces dependency maps and migration roadmaps, and generates API facade designs for aging codebases. Use when modernizing legacy systems, implementing strangler fig pattern or branch by abstraction, decomposing monoliths, upgrading frameworks or languages, or reducing technical debt without disrupting business operations.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 12 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 110
Create comprehensive test coverage before refactoring (target 80%+)
- Distinctive: line 111
Use feature flags for all incremental rollouts
- Distinctive: line 113
Document all migration decisions and rationale
- Distinctive: line 124
Remove legacy code before new code is proven
- Distinctive: line 128
When implementing modernization, provide:
- Distinctive: line 132
Test coverage (characterization, integration, e2e)
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 12 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Legacy Modernizer
Core Workflow
- Assess system — Analyze codebase, dependencies, risks, and business constraints. Produce a dependency map and risk register before proceeding.
- Validation checkpoint: Confirm all external integrations and data contracts are documented before moving to step 2.
- Plan migration — Design an incremental roadmap with explicit rollback strategies per phase. Reference
references/system-assessment.mdfor code analysis templates.- Validation checkpoint: Confirm each phase has a defined rollback trigger and owner.
- Build safety net — Create characterization tests and monitoring before touching production code. Target 80%+ coverage of existing behavior.
- Validation checkpoint: Run the characterization test suite and confirm it passes green on the unmodified legacy system before proceeding.
- Migrate incrementally — Apply strangler fig pattern with feature flags. Route traffic via a facade; shift load gradually.
- Validation checkpoint: Verify error rates and latency metrics remain within baseline thresholds after each traffic increment (e.g., 5% → 25% → 50% → 100%).
- Validate & iterate — Run full test suite, review monitoring dashboards, and confirm business behavior is preserved before retiring legacy code.
- Validation checkpoint: New code must be proven stable at 100% traffic for at least one release cycle before legacy path is removed.
Reference Guide
Load detailed guidance based on context:
| Topic | Reference | Load When |
| Strangler Fig | references/strangler-fig-pattern.md | Incremental replacement, facade layer, routing |
| Refactoring | references/refactoring-patterns.md | Extract service, branch by abstraction, adapters |
| Migration | references/migration-strategies.md | Database, UI, API, framework migrations |
| Testing | references/legacy-testing.md | Characterization tests, golden master, approval |
| Assessment | references/system-assessment.md | Code analysis, dependency mapping, risk evaluation |
Code Examples
Strangler Fig Facade (Python)
# facade.py — routes requests to legacy or new service based on a feature flag
import os
from legacy_service import LegacyOrderService
from new_service import NewOrderService
class OrderServiceFacade:
def __init__(self):
self._legacy = LegacyOrderService()
self._new = NewOrderService()
def get_order(self, order_id: str):
if os.getenv("USE_NEW_ORDER_SERVICE", "false").lower() == "true":
return self._new.fetch(order_id)
return self._legacy.get(order_id)Feature Flag Wrapper
# feature_flags.py — thin wrapper around an environment or config-based flag store
import os
def flag_enabled(flag_name: str, default: bool = False) -> bool:
"""Check whether a migration feature flag is active."""
return os.getenv(flag_name, str(default)).lower() == "true"
# Usage
if flag_enabled("USE_NEW_PAYMENT_GATEWAY"):
result = new_gateway.charge(order)
else:
result = legacy_gateway.charge(order)Characterization Test Template (pytest)
# test_characterization_orders.py
# Captures existing legacy behavior as a golden-master safety net.
import pytest
from legacy_service import LegacyOrderService
service = LegacyOrderService()
@pytest.mark.parametrize("order_id,expected_status", [
("ORD-001", "SHIPPED"),
("ORD-002", "PENDING"),
("ORD-003", "CANCELLED"),
])
def test_order_status_golden_master(order_id, expected_status):
"""Fail loudly if legacy behavior changes unexpectedly."""
result = service.get(order_id)
assert result["status"] == expected_status, (
f"Characterization broken for {order_id}: "
f"expected {expected_status}, got {result['status']}"
)Constraints
MUST DO
- Maintain zero production disruption during all migrations
- Create comprehensive test coverage before refactoring (target 80%+)
- Use feature flags for all incremental rollouts
- Implement monitoring and rollback procedures
- Document all migration decisions and rationale
- Preserve existing business logic and behavior
- Communicate progress and risks transparently
MUST NOT DO
- Big bang rewrites or replacements
- Skip testing legacy behavior before changes
- Deploy without rollback capability
- Break existing integrations or APIs
- Ignore technical debt in new code
- Rush migrations without proper validation
- Remove legacy code before new code is proven
Output Templates
When implementing modernization, provide:
- Assessment summary (risks, dependencies, approach)
- Migration plan (phases, rollback strategy, metrics)
- Implementation code (facades, adapters, new services)
- Test coverage (characterization, integration, e2e)
- Monitoring setup (metrics, alerts, dashboards)
Knowledge Reference
Strangler fig pattern, branch by abstraction, characterization testing, incremental migration, feature flags, canary deployments, API versioning, database refactoring, microservices extraction, technical debt reduction, zero-downtime deployment
Other versions14 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- PIXARTSeu/Synapse★ 9100% same
Edited · 6
- Jeffallan/claude-skills★ 12k95% same
- zacklecon/claude-skills★ 361% same
- rcdelfin/agentkit★ 299% same
- hu465/claude-skills-★ 095% same
- james-paul25/claude-skill★ 099% same
- usmanmubarak1/ClaudeSkilledAgents★ 057% same
Wrote their own version · 7
- jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills★ 30same name
- belokonm/claude-supercode-skills★ 11same name
- xfstudio/skills★ 9same name
- ai4brands-design/claude-skills★ 2same name
- mcabreradev/hermes-sdd-agency★ 1same name
- mmondora/claude-skills★ 1same name
- saqqdy/legacy-modernizer★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository83 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- .codex/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- source-command-fix-buildSkill
- fine-tuning-expertSkill
- ml-pipelineSkill
- rag-architectSkill
- spark-engineerSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-designerSkill
- code-documenterSkill
- debugging-wizardSkill
- feature-forgeSkill
- fullstack-guardianSkill
- graphql-architectSkill
- microservices-architectSkill
- database-optimizerSkill
- postgres-proSkill
- sql-proSkill
- csharp-developerSkill
- dotnet-core-expertSkill
- angular-architectSkill
- flutter-expertSkill
- nextjs-developerSkill
- react-expertSkill
- react-native-expertSkill
- senior-frontendSkill
- ui-ux-pro-maxSkill
- vue-expert-jsSkill
- vue-expertSkill
- cpp-proSkill
- golang-proSkill
- rust-engineerSkill
- cli-developerSkill
- cloud-architectSkill
- devops-engineerSkill
- kubernetes-specialistSkill
- mcp-developerSkill
- monitoring-expertSkill
- sre-engineerSkill
- terraform-engineerSkill
- websocket-engineerSkill
- java-architectSkill
- kotlin-specialistSkill
- javascript-proSkill
- nestjs-expertSkill
- typescript-proSkill
- spring-boot-engineerSkill
- spring-boot-engineer_znSkill
- laravel-specialistSkill
- php-proSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- meeting-notesSkill
- prd-templateSkill
- stakeholder-updateSkill
- user-research-synthesisSkill
- django-expertSkill
- fastapi-expertSkill
- pandas-proSkill
- python-proSkill
- The first 60 shown.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

