agentleFS
MicrosoftKnown publishermicrosoft/frontier-agentic-modernization-rvas/plugins/agentic-modernization/skills/azure-app-rebuild/SKILL.md

azure-app-rebuild

Skill9 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Implement an explicitly scoped complete application, migration wave, or vertical slice from a reviewed existing-application modernization package. Use for a separately requested rearchitecture or rebuild after functional discovery and target selection, preserving requirements, external contracts, data ownership, and incumbent UI authority. Implement incrementally and verify the full requested scope before reporting completion. Not for initial assessment, isolated runtime upgrades, greenfield design, automatic deployment, or production data migration.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 5

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read the current repository instructions and the complete package under docs/modernization/: assessment.md, specification.md, …

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Use existing patterns and preserve all behavior and contracts not explicitly changed by the specification.

    line 62
  3. Very specific:

    Use synthetic or sanitized data.

    line 74
  4. Very specific:

    Do not use the upstream implement skill as an unattended wrapper: its contract includes committing work.

    line 79
  5. Distinctive:

    Add focused tests for changed behavior, including important failure and compatibility paths.

    line 87
  6. Very specific:

    Do not silently relabel partial delivery as a smaller successful scope.

    line 116
  7. Very specific:

    Stop at the agreed app/wave/slice boundary.

    line 117

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Azure App Rebuild

Implement the customer's explicitly requested application, wave, or slice in their application repository. A complete-app rebuild is a supported delivery scope, not a requirement to rewrite everything in one pass. This is a separate delivery workflow, never an automatic continuation of azure-app-modernization.

1. Reconcile the delivery contract

Read the current repository instructions and the complete package under docs/modernization/: assessment.md, specification.md, strategy-matrix.md, target-architecture.md, infrastructure-plan.md, cost-estimate.md, current-state.drawio, target-architecture.drawio, and migration-plan.md. Inspect the source, tests, manifests, data contracts, deployment configuration, domain records, and relevant UI authority. Discover available supporting skills instead of assuming installation.

Require an explicit delivery scope: complete application, migration wave, or vertical slice, with its boundary, acceptance IDs, preserve/change/retire decisions, prerequisites, and expected validation evidence. Use the reviewed package and explicit delivery request directly; do not require another summary or handoff document. If scope is missing or ambiguous, obtain a decision before editing; do not assume either an unrestricted rewrite or a single-slice outcome. A reviewed package need not carry formal approval unless the customer's governance requires it. Check any required acceptance record.

For complete-app scope, account for every required workflow, integration, and applicable UI surface in the reviewed specification. Track coverage in existing task/test records or the response, linking workflows to acceptance IDs, implementation work, tests/checks, and pass/fail/blocked evidence. Resolve gaps in required behavior or acceptance criteria with the decision owner rather than inventing criteria or silently dropping workflows. An intentional retirement needs a recorded package decision.

Compare current source with the confirmed baseline and selected target. Identify stale evidence, missing artifacts, contradictions, and unresolved feasibility blockers. Stop affected implementation and return material architecture changes to planning; do not invent a target, acceptance criteria, or approval.

Readiness for static planning is not readiness to execute: establish a repeatable build/test approach, safe fixtures, and required local access for the requested scope. Record pre-existing failures separately. Do not execute unknown scripts, restore database backups, or use production credentials simply to establish a baseline.

2. Implement incrementally within the agreed scope

Break the agreed scope into testable end-to-end increments and follow the reviewed dependency order. For complete-app delivery, continue through the increments inside that scope while prerequisites hold; a working first journey is a checkpoint, not completion. Do not require a new scope decision for each already-agreed increment, or stop after one merely because it works. For a wave or slice request, keep later waves and unrelated workflows out of scope. Material blockers or architecture changes still require the affected work to stop.

Use existing patterns and preserve all behavior and contracts not explicitly changed by the specification. Keep unrelated components untouched. Use codebase-design, tdd, or diagnosing-bugs for bounded support when installed, without granting those skills broader scope.

For UI work, load impeccable when available and use PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, .impeccable/design.json, and confirmed SURF- dispositions as authority. New frontend technology does not authorize redesign. Report missing design evidence before changing affected surfaces.

For data/integration changes, preserve write ownership, ordering, idempotency, compatibility, coexistence, and rollback/reconciliation boundaries from the plan. Use synthetic or sanitized data. Author migration/IaC/CI files only when in the agreed scope; generating them does not authorize running them. Use infrastructure-plan.md to reconcile the app's configuration, identity, and dependency needs with the provided infrastructure contract.

Do not use the upstream implement skill as an unattended wrapper: its contract includes committing work. Do not commit, publish issues, provision resources, deploy, migrate production data, or change repository/cloud settings without explicit authorization for that action in this delivery session. Tool permission prompts and repository controls remain in force.

3. Validate and review

Add focused tests for changed behavior, including important failure and compatibility paths. Run the smallest relevant existing checks, expanding to integration/build checks as needed. Verify every in-scope acceptance criterion with actual output; a generated test or workflow file is not a passed check.

For complete-app scope, reconcile workflow coverage against the full reviewed specification, including workflows absent from the implementation diff. Exercise the app's required workflows and integrations with safe fixtures; record unavailable checks as blocked. Passing one journey, a build, or an increment's tests does not establish whole-app completion.

Review implementation completeness against requirements, wave dependencies, data and UI commitments, and directly related documentation. Use the host's code-review workflow or installed code-review skill, then resolve findings and rerun affected checks. Run a separate security review after completeness findings are resolved or explicitly accepted. If independent review or runtime tooling is unavailable, name the missing review/check and its owner; do not claim it passed.

4. Report results and stop

Report the package revision, requested delivery scope, completed increments, changed files, acceptance IDs with pass/fail/blocked evidence, review findings and disposition, pre-existing failures, remaining prerequisites, and rollback/reconciliation readiness. Distinguish local validation from deployment or production readiness.

A failed, blocked, or uncovered required criterion means the requested scope is incomplete or explicitly partial, not done. For a complete-app request, report remaining workflows and blockers even when several increments are finished. Do not silently relabel partial delivery as a smaller successful scope. Stop at the agreed app/wave/slice boundary; do not advance to an unrequested wave or expand the application. Leave commits and operational execution to separately authorized actions.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.