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.
In this repository10 other files it gives its agents.
- grillingSkill
- grill-meSkill
- humanize-contentSkill
- impeccableSkill
- rvap-brandSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- writing-for-agentsSkill
- impeccableSkill
- azure-app-modernizationSkill
- cloud-architecture-diagramSkill
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
- Very specific: line 16
Read the current repository instructions and the complete package under docs/modernization/: assessment.md, specification.md, …
- Distinctive: line 62
Use existing patterns and preserve all behavior and contracts not explicitly changed by the specification.
- Very specific: line 74
Use synthetic or sanitized data.
- Very specific: line 79
Do not use the upstream implement skill as an unattended wrapper: its contract includes committing work.
- Distinctive: line 87
Add focused tests for changed behavior, including important failure and compatibility paths.
- Very specific: line 116
Do not silently relabel partial delivery as a smaller successful scope.
- Very specific: line 117
Stop at the agreed app/wave/slice boundary.
≈ “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.
Files
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.
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.

