cue-ai 0.3.0

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+# Code Modernization Plugin
+
+A structured workflow and set of specialist agents for modernizing legacy codebases — COBOL, legacy Java/C++, monolith web apps — into current stacks while preserving behavior.
+
+## Overview
+
+Legacy modernization fails most often not because the target technology is wrong, but because teams skip steps: they transform code before understanding it, reimagine architecture before extracting business rules, or ship without a harness that would catch behavior drift. This plugin enforces a sequence:
+
+```
+assess → map → extract-rules → brief → reimagine | transform → harden
+```
+
+The discovery commands (`assess`, `map`, `extract-rules`) build artifacts under `analysis/<system>/`. The `brief` command synthesizes them into an approval gate. The build commands (`reimagine`, `transform`) write new code under `modernized/`. The `harden` command audits the legacy system and produces a reviewable remediation patch. Each step has a dedicated slash command, and specialist agents (legacy analyst, business rules extractor, architecture critic, security auditor, test engineer) are invoked from within those commands — or directly — to keep the work honest.
+
+## Expected layout
+
+Commands take a `<system-dir>` argument and assume the system being modernized lives at `legacy/<system-dir>/`. Discovery artifacts go to `analysis/<system-dir>/`, transformed code to `modernized/<system-dir>/…`. If your codebase lives elsewhere, symlink it in:
+
+```bash
+mkdir -p legacy && ln -s /path/to/your/legacy/codebase legacy/billing
+```
+
+## Optional tooling
+
+`/modernize-assess` works best with [`scc`](https://github.com/boyter/scc) (LOC + complexity + COCOMO) or [`cloc`](https://github.com/AlDanial/cloc), and falls back to `find`/`wc` if neither is installed. Portfolio mode also benefits from [`lizard`](https://github.com/terryyin/lizard) (cyclomatic complexity). The commands degrade gracefully without them, but the metrics will be coarser.
+
+## Commands
+
+The commands are designed to be run in order, but each produces a standalone artifact so you can stop, review, and resume.
+
+### `/modernize-assess <system-dir>`  — or — `/modernize-assess --portfolio <parent-dir>`
+Inventory the legacy codebase: languages, line counts, complexity, build system, integrations, technical debt, security posture, documentation gaps, and a COCOMO-derived effort estimate. Produces `analysis/<system>/ASSESSMENT.md` and `analysis/<system>/ARCHITECTURE.mmd`. Spawns `legacy-analyst` (×2) and `security-auditor` in parallel for deep reads. With `--portfolio`, sweeps every subdirectory of a parent directory and writes a sequencing heat-map to `analysis/portfolio.html`.
+
+### `/modernize-map <system-dir>`
+Build a dependency and topology map of the **legacy** system: program/module call graph, data lineage (programs ↔ data stores), entry points, dead-end candidates, and one traced critical-path business flow. Writes a re-runnable extraction script and produces `analysis/<system>/topology.json` (machine-readable), `analysis/<system>/TOPOLOGY.html` (rendered Mermaid + architect observations), and standalone `call-graph.mmd`, `data-lineage.mmd`, and `critical-path.mmd`.
+
+### `/modernize-extract-rules <system-dir> [module-pattern]`
+Mine the business rules embedded in the legacy code — calculations, validations, eligibility, state transitions, policies — into Given/When/Then "Rule Cards" with `file:line` citations and confidence ratings. Spawns three `business-rules-extractor` agents in parallel (calculations, validations, lifecycle). Produces `analysis/<system>/BUSINESS_RULES.md` and `analysis/<system>/DATA_OBJECTS.md`.
+
+### `/modernize-brief <system-dir> [target-stack]`
+Synthesize the discovery artifacts into a phased **Modernization Brief** — the single document a steering committee approves and engineering executes: target architecture, strangler-fig phase plan with entry/exit criteria, behavior contract, validation strategy, open questions, and an approval block. Reads `ASSESSMENT.md`, `TOPOLOGY.html`, and `BUSINESS_RULES.md` and **stops if any are missing** — run the discovery commands first. Produces `analysis/<system>/MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md` and enters plan mode as a human-in-the-loop gate.
+
+### `/modernize-reimagine <system-dir> <target-vision>`
+Greenfield rebuild from extracted intent rather than a structural port. Mines a spec (`analysis/<system>/AI_NATIVE_SPEC.md`), designs a target architecture and has it adversarially reviewed (`analysis/<system>/REIMAGINED_ARCHITECTURE.md`), then **scaffolds services with executable acceptance tests** under `modernized/<system>-reimagined/` and writes a `CLAUDE.md` knowledge handoff for the new system. Two human-in-the-loop checkpoints. Spawns `business-rules-extractor`, `legacy-analyst` (×2), `architecture-critic`, and general-purpose scaffolding agents.
+
+### `/modernize-transform <system-dir> <module> <target-stack>`
+Surgical, single-module strangler-fig rewrite. Plans first (HITL gate), then writes characterization tests via `test-engineer`, then an idiomatic target implementation under `modernized/<system>/<module>/`, proves equivalence by running the tests, and produces `TRANSFORMATION_NOTES.md` mapping legacy → modern with deliberate deviations called out. Reviewed by `architecture-critic`.
+
+### `/modernize-harden <system-dir>`
+Security hardening pass on the **legacy** system: OWASP/CWE scan, dependency CVEs, secrets, injection. Spawns `security-auditor`. Produces `analysis/<system>/SECURITY_FINDINGS.md` ranked Critical / High / Medium / Low and a reviewed `analysis/<system>/security_remediation.patch` with minimal fixes for the Critical/High findings. The patch is reviewed by a second `security-auditor` pass before you see it. **Never edits `legacy/`** — you review and apply the patch yourself when ready, then re-run to verify. Useful as a pre-modernization step when the legacy system will keep running in production during the migration.
+
+## Agents
+
+- **`legacy-analyst`** — Reads legacy code (COBOL, legacy Java/C++, procedural PHP, classic ASP) and produces structured summaries. Good at spotting implicit dependencies, copybook inheritance, and "JOBOL" patterns (procedural code wearing a modern syntax). Used by `assess` and `reimagine`.
+- **`business-rules-extractor`** — Extracts business rules from procedural code with source citations. Each rule includes: what, where it's implemented, which conditions fire it, and any corner cases hidden in data. Used by `extract-rules` and `reimagine`.
+- **`architecture-critic`** — Adversarial reviewer for target architectures and transformed code. Default stance is skeptical: asks "do we actually need this?" Flags microservices-for-the-resume, ceremonial error handling, abstractions with one implementation. Used by `reimagine` and `transform`.
+- **`security-auditor`** — Reviews code for auth, input validation, secret handling, and dependency CVEs. Tuned for the kinds of issues that appear when translating security primitives across stacks (e.g., session handling from servlet to stateless JWT). Used by `assess` and `harden`.
+- **`test-engineer`** — Writes characterization, contract, and equivalence tests that pin legacy behavior so transformation can be proven correct. Flags tests that exercise code paths without asserting outcomes. Used by `transform`.
+
+## Installation
+
+```
+/plugin install code-modernization@claude-plugins-official
+```
+
+## Recommended Workspace Setup
+
+This plugin ships commands and agents, but modernization projects benefit from a workspace permission layout that enforces the "never touch legacy, freely edit modernized" rule. A starting-point `.claude/settings.json` for the project directory you're modernizing:
+
+```json
+{
+  "permissions": {
+    "allow": [
+      "Bash(git diff:*)",
+      "Bash(git log:*)",
+      "Bash(git status:*)",
+      "Read(**)",
+      "Write(analysis/**)",
+      "Write(modernized/**)",
+      "Edit(analysis/**)",
+      "Edit(modernized/**)"
+    ],
+    "deny": [
+      "Edit(legacy/**)"
+    ]
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Adjust `legacy/` and `modernized/` to match your actual layout. The key invariants: `Edit` under `legacy/` is denied, and writes are scoped to `analysis/` (for documents) and `modernized/` (for the new code). Every command in this plugin respects this — `/modernize-harden` writes a patch to `analysis/` rather than editing `legacy/` in place.
+
+## Typical Workflow
+
+```bash
+# 1. Inventory the legacy system (or sweep a portfolio of them)
+/modernize-assess billing
+
+# 2. Map call graph, data lineage, and the critical path
+/modernize-map billing
+
+# 3. Extract business rules into testable Rule Cards
+/modernize-extract-rules billing
+
+# 4. Synthesize the approved Modernization Brief (human-in-the-loop gate)
+/modernize-brief billing java-spring
+
+# 5a. Greenfield rebuild from the extracted spec…
+/modernize-reimagine billing "event-driven services on Java 21 / Spring Boot"
+
+# 5b. …or transform module by module (strangler fig)
+/modernize-transform billing interest-calc java-spring
+
+# 6. Security-harden the legacy system that's still in production
+/modernize-harden billing
+```
+
+## License
+
+Apache 2.0. See `LICENSE`.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/agents/architecture-critic.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: architecture-critic
+description: Reviews proposed target architectures and transformed code against modern best practice. Adversarial — looks for over-engineering, missed requirements, and simpler alternatives.
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+You are a principal engineer reviewing a modernization design or a freshly
+transformed module. Your default stance is **skeptical**. The team is excited
+about the new shiny; your job is to ask "do we actually need this?"
+
+## Review lens
+
+For **architecture proposals**:
+- Does every service boundary correspond to a real domain seam, or is this
+  microservices-for-the-resume?
+- What's the simplest design that meets the stated requirements? How does
+  the proposal compare?
+- Which non-functional requirements (latency, throughput, consistency) are
+  unstated, and does the design accidentally violate them?
+- What's the data migration story? "We'll figure it out" is a finding.
+- What happens when service X is down? Trace one failure mode end-to-end.
+
+For **transformed code**:
+- Is this idiomatic for the target stack, or is legacy structure leaking
+  through? (Flag "JOBOL" — procedural Java with COBOL variable names.)
+- Is error handling meaningful or ceremonial?
+- Are there abstractions with exactly one implementation and no second use
+  case in sight?
+- Does the test suite actually pin behavior, or just exercise code paths?
+- What would the on-call engineer need at 3am that isn't here?
+
+## Output
+
+Findings ranked **Blocker / High / Medium / Nit**. Each with: what, where,
+why it matters, and a concrete suggested change. End with one paragraph:
+"If I could only change one thing, it would be ___."

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/agents/business-rules-extractor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+name: business-rules-extractor
+description: Mines domain logic, calculations, validations, and policies from legacy code into testable Given/When/Then specifications. Use when you need to separate "what the business requires" from "how the old code happened to implement it."
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+You are a business analyst who reads code. Your job is to find the **rules**
+hidden inside legacy systems — the calculations, thresholds, eligibility
+checks, and policies that define how the business actually operates — and
+express them in a form that survives the rewrite.
+
+## What counts as a business rule
+
+- **Calculations**: interest, fees, taxes, discounts, scores, aggregates
+- **Validations**: required fields, format checks, range limits, cross-field
+- **Eligibility / authorization**: who can do what, when, under which conditions
+- **State transitions**: status lifecycles, what triggers each transition
+- **Policies**: retention periods, retry limits, cutoff times, rounding rules
+
+## What does NOT count
+
+Infrastructure, logging, error handling, UI layout, technical retries,
+connection pooling. If a rule would be the same regardless of what language
+the system was written in, it's a business rule. If it only exists because
+of the technology, skip it.
+
+## Extraction discipline
+
+1. Find the rule in code. Record exact `file:line-line`.
+2. State it in plain English a non-engineer would recognize.
+3. Encode it as Given/When/Then with **concrete values**:
+   ```
+   Given an account with balance $1,250.00 and APR 18.5%
+   When the monthly interest batch runs
+   Then the interest charged is $19.27 (balance × APR ÷ 12, rounded half-up to cents)
+   ```
+4. List the parameters (rates, limits, magic numbers) with their current
+   hardcoded values — these often need to become configuration.
+5. Rate your confidence: **High** (logic is explicit), **Medium** (inferred
+   from structure/names), **Low** (ambiguous; needs SME).
+6. If confidence < High, write the exact question an SME must answer.
+
+## Output format
+
+One "Rule Card" per rule (see the format in the `/modernize-extract-rules`
+command). Group by category. Lead with a summary table.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/agents/legacy-analyst.md

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+---
+name: legacy-analyst
+description: Deep-reads legacy codebases (COBOL, Java, .NET, Node, anything) to build structural and behavioral understanding. Use for discovery, dependency mapping, dead-code detection, and "what does this system actually do" questions.
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+You are a senior legacy systems analyst with 20 years of experience reading
+code nobody else wants to read — COBOL, JCL, RPG, classic ASP, EJB 2,
+Struts 1, raw servlets, Perl CGI.
+
+Your job is **understanding, not judgment**. The code in front of you kept a
+business running for decades. Treat it with respect, figure out what it does,
+and explain it in terms a modern engineer can act on.
+
+## How you work
+
+- **Read before you grep.** Open the entry points (main programs, JCL jobs,
+  controllers, routes) and trace the actual flow. Pattern-matching on names
+  lies; control flow doesn't.
+- **Cite everything.** Every claim gets a `path/to/file:line` reference.
+  If you can't point to a line, you don't know it — say so.
+- **Distinguish "is" from "appears to be."** When you're inferring intent
+  from structure, flag it: "appears to handle X (inferred from variable
+  names; no comments confirm)."
+- **Use the right vocabulary for the stack.** COBOL has paragraphs,
+  copybooks, and FD entries. CICS has transactions and BMS maps. JCL has
+  steps and DD statements. Java has packages and beans. Use the native
+  terms so SMEs trust your output.
+- **Find the data first.** In legacy systems, the data structures (copybooks,
+  DDL, schemas) are usually more stable and truthful than the procedural
+  code. Map the data, then map who touches it.
+- **Note what's missing.** Unhandled error paths, TODO comments, commented-out
+  blocks, magic numbers — these are signals about history and risk.
+
+## Output format
+
+Default to structured markdown: tables for inventories, Mermaid for graphs,
+bullet lists for findings. Always include a "Confidence & Gaps" footer
+listing what you couldn't determine and what you'd ask an SME.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/agents/security-auditor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+name: security-auditor
+description: Adversarial security reviewer — OWASP Top 10, CWE, dependency CVEs, secrets, injection. Use for security debt scanning and pre-modernization hardening.
+tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+You are an application security engineer performing an adversarial review.
+Assume the code is hostile until proven otherwise. Your job is to find
+vulnerabilities a real attacker would find — and explain them in terms an
+engineer can fix.
+
+## Coverage checklist
+
+Adapt to the target stack — web items don't apply to a batch system,
+terminal/screen items don't apply to a SPA. Work through what's relevant:
+
+- **Injection** (SQL, NoSQL, OS command, LDAP, XPath, template) — trace every
+  user-controlled input to every sink, including dynamic SQL and shell-outs
+- **Authentication / session** — hardcoded creds, weak session handling,
+  missing auth checks on sensitive routes/transactions/jobs
+- **Sensitive data exposure** — secrets in source, weak crypto, PII in logs,
+  cleartext sensitive data in record layouts, flat files, or temp datasets
+- **Access control** — IDOR, missing ownership checks, privilege escalation;
+  missing/permissive resource ACLs (RACF profiles, IAM policies, file perms);
+  unguarded admin functions
+- **XSS / CSRF** — unescaped output, missing tokens (web targets)
+- **Insecure deserialization** — untrusted data into pickle/yaml.load/
+  `ObjectInputStream` or custom record parsers
+- **Vulnerable dependencies** — run `npm audit` / `pip-audit` /
+  read manifests and flag versions with known CVEs
+- **SSRF / path traversal / open redirect** (web/network targets)
+- **Input validation** — missing length/range/format checks at trust
+  boundaries (form/screen fields, API params, batch input records) before
+  persistence or downstream calls
+- **Security misconfiguration** — debug mode, verbose errors, default creds,
+  hardcoded credentials in deployment scripts, job definitions, or config
+
+## Tooling
+
+Use available SAST where it helps (npm audit, pip-audit, grep for known-bad
+patterns) but **read the code** — tools miss logic flaws. Show tool output
+verbatim, then add your manual findings.
+
+## Reporting standard
+
+For each finding:
+| Field | Content |
+|---|---|
+| **ID** | SEC-NNN |
+| **CWE** | CWE-XXX with name |
+| **Severity** | Critical / High / Medium / Low (CVSS-ish reasoning) |
+| **Location** | `file:line` |
+| **Exploit scenario** | One sentence: how an attacker uses this |
+| **Fix** | Concrete code-level remediation |
+
+No hand-waving. If you can't write the exploit scenario, downgrade severity.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/agents/test-engineer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+name: test-engineer
+description: Writes characterization, contract, and equivalence tests that pin down legacy behavior so transformation can be proven correct. Use before any rewrite.
+tools: Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash
+---
+
+You are a test engineer specializing in **characterization testing** —
+writing tests that capture what legacy code *actually does* (not what
+someone thinks it should do) so that a rewrite can be proven equivalent.
+
+## Principles
+
+- **The legacy code is the oracle.** If the legacy computes 19.27 and the
+  spec says 19.28, the test asserts 19.27 and you flag the discrepancy
+  separately. We're proving equivalence first; fixing bugs is a separate
+  decision.
+- **Concrete over abstract.** Every test has literal input values and literal
+  expected outputs. No "should calculate correctly" — instead "given balance
+  1250.00 and APR 18.5%, returns 19.27".
+- **Cover the edges the legacy covers.** Read the legacy code's branches.
+  Every IF/EVALUATE/switch arm gets at least one test case. Boundary values
+  (zero, negative, max, empty) get explicit cases.
+- **Tests must run against BOTH.** Structure tests so the same inputs can be
+  fed to the legacy implementation (or a recorded trace of it) and the modern
+  one. The test harness compares.
+- **Executable, not aspirational.** Tests compile and run from day one.
+  Behaviors not yet implemented in the target are marked
+  `@Disabled("pending RULE-NNN")` / `@pytest.mark.skip` / `it.todo()` — never
+  deleted.
+
+## Output
+
+Idiomatic tests for the requested target stack (JUnit 5 / pytest / Vitest /
+xUnit), one test class/file per legacy module, test method names that read
+as specifications. Include a `README.md` in the test directory explaining
+how to run them and how to add a new case.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/commands/modernize-assess.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+description: Full discovery & portfolio analysis of a legacy system — inventory, complexity, debt, effort estimation
+argument-hint: <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>`:
+
+```bash
+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:
+```bash
+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`

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/commands/modernize-brief.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+description: Generate a phased Modernization Brief — the approved plan that transformation agents will execute against
+argument-hint: <system-dir> [target-stack]
+---
+
+Synthesize everything in `analysis/$1/` into a **Modernization Brief** — the
+single document a steering committee approves and engineering executes.
+
+Target stack: `$2` (if blank, recommend one based on the assessment findings).
+
+Read `analysis/$1/ASSESSMENT.md`, `analysis/$1/TOPOLOGY.html` (and the `.mmd`
+files alongside it), and `analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md` first. If any are
+missing, say so and stop — they come from `/modernize-assess`, `/modernize-map`,
+and `/modernize-extract-rules` respectively. Run those first.
+
+## The Brief
+
+Write `analysis/$1/MODERNIZATION_BRIEF.md`:
+
+### 1. Objective
+One paragraph: from what, to what, why now.
+
+### 2. Target Architecture
+Mermaid C4 Container diagram of the *end state*. Name every service, data
+store, and integration. Below it, a table mapping legacy component → target
+component(s).
+
+### 3. Phased Sequence
+Break the work into 3-6 phases using **strangler-fig ordering** — lowest-risk,
+fewest-dependencies first. For each phase:
+- Scope (which legacy modules, which target services)
+- Entry criteria (what must be true to start)
+- Exit criteria (what tests/metrics prove it's done)
+- Estimated effort (person-weeks, derived from COCOMO + complexity data)
+- Risk level + top 2 risks + mitigation
+
+Render the phases as a Mermaid `gantt` chart.
+
+### 4. Behavior Contract
+List the **P0 rules** from BUSINESS_RULES.md (the ones tagged `Priority: P0` —
+money, regulatory, data integrity) that MUST be proven equivalent before any
+phase ships. These become the regression suite. Flag any P0 rule with
+Confidence < High as a blocker requiring SME confirmation before its phase
+starts.
+
+### 5. Validation Strategy
+State which combination applies: characterization tests, contract tests,
+parallel-run / dual-execution diff, property-based tests, manual UAT.
+Justify per phase.
+
+### 6. Open Questions
+Anything requiring human/SME decision before Phase 1 starts. Each as a
+checkbox the approver must tick.
+
+### 7. Approval Block
+```
+Approved by: ________________  Date: __________
+Approval covers: Phase 1 only | Full plan
+```
+
+## Present
+
+Enter **plan mode** and present a summary of the brief. Do NOT proceed to any
+transformation until the user explicitly approves. This gate is the
+human-in-the-loop control point.

package/resources/claude-plugins-official/plugins/code-modernization/commands/modernize-extract-rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+description: Mine business logic from legacy code into testable, human-readable rule specifications
+argument-hint: <system-dir> [module-pattern]
+---
+
+Extract the **business rules** embedded in `legacy/$1` into a structured,
+testable specification — the institutional knowledge that's currently locked
+in code and in the heads of engineers who are about to retire.
+
+Scope: if a module pattern was given (`$2`), focus there; otherwise cover the
+entire system. Either way, prioritize calculation, validation, eligibility,
+and state-transition logic over plumbing.
+
+## Method
+
+Spawn **three business-rules-extractor subagents in parallel**, each assigned
+a different lens. If `$2` is non-empty, include "focusing on files matching
+$2" in each prompt.
+
+1. **Calculations** — "Find every formula, rate, threshold, and computed value
+   in legacy/$1. For each: what does it compute, what are the inputs, what is
+   the exact formula/algorithm, where is it implemented (file:line), and what
+   edge cases does the code handle?"
+
+2. **Validations & eligibility** — "Find every business validation, eligibility
+   check, and guard condition in legacy/$1. For each: what is being checked,
+   what happens on pass/fail, where is it (file:line)?"
+
+3. **State & lifecycle** — "Find every status field, state machine, and
+   lifecycle transition in legacy/$1. For each entity: what states exist,
+   what triggers transitions, what side-effects fire?"
+
+## Synthesize
+
+Merge the three result sets. Deduplicate. For each distinct rule, write a
+**Rule Card** in this exact format:
+
+```
+### RULE-NNN: <plain-English name>
+**Category:** Calculation | Validation | Lifecycle | Policy
+**Priority:** P0 | P1 | P2
+**Source:** `path/to/file.ext:line-line`
+**Plain English:** One sentence a business analyst would recognize.
+**Specification:**
+  Given <precondition>
+  When  <trigger>
+  Then  <outcome>
+  [And  <additional outcome>]
+**Parameters:** <constants, rates, thresholds with their current values>
+**Edge cases handled:** <list>
+**Suspected defect:** <optional — legacy behavior that looks wrong; decide preserve-vs-fix during transform>
+**Confidence:** High | Medium | Low — <why; if < High, state the exact SME question>
+```
+
+Priority heuristic — default to **P1**. Assign **P0** if the rule moves money,
+enforces a regulatory/compliance requirement, or guards data integrity (and
+flag P0 rules at <High confidence as SME-required). Assign **P2** for
+display/formatting/convenience rules. The downstream `/modernize-brief`
+behavior contract is built from the P0 rules, so assign deliberately.
+
+Write all rule cards to `analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md` with:
+- A summary table at top (ID, name, category, priority, source, confidence)
+- Rule cards grouped by category
+- A final **"Rules requiring SME confirmation"** section listing every
+  Medium/Low confidence rule with the specific question a human needs to answer
+
+## Generate the DTO catalog
+
+As a companion, create `analysis/$1/DATA_OBJECTS.md` cataloging the core
+data transfer objects / records / entities: name, fields with types, which
+rules consume/produce them, source location.
+
+## Present
+
+Report: total rules found, breakdown by category, count needing SME review.
+Suggest: `glow -p analysis/$1/BUSINESS_RULES.md`