Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

afrexai-legacy-modernization(Afrexai 遗产现代化)

afrexai-legacy-modernization 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 OpenClaw 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 OpenClaw,通过ClawHub获取,权限为需要联网;许可证为 MIT-0,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 8,822。

总安装 15,520周安装 634GitHub Stars 公开资料未说明下载 4,971核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
MIT-0
版本
1.0.0

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:afrexai-legacy-modernization(Afrexai 遗产现代化)
来源仓库:https://github.com/1kalin/afrexai-legacy-modernization
安装命令:
openclaw skills install afrexai-legacy-modernization
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 OpenClaw 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

ClawHubOpenClaw
openclaw skills install afrexai-legacy-modernization

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

提供遗留系统现代化的端到端指导框架。适用于企业 IT 架构升级、云迁移策略制定及技术栈重构等场景。涵盖评估、规划、分解实施到运维监控的全流程方法论支持。安装命令:openclaw skills install afrexai-legacy-modernization;建议核实目标系统范围与合规要求。

适用宿主包括 OpenClaw,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 openclaw skills install afrexai-legacy-modernization;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要需要联网,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

afrexai-legacy-modernization 怎么安装?

在终端执行 openclaw skills install afrexai-legacy-modernization。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 OpenClaw。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 需要什么权限?

权限级别是需要联网。该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT-0。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 15,520 次,近一周安装 634 次,下载 4,971 次。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

afrexai-legacy-modernization 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 专注 OpenClaw 一种宿主,触发方式和使用习惯不用来回切换。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT-0,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 OpenClaw,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
afrexai-legacy-modernization

Afrexai 遗产现代化 · 本页

15,520—需要联网MIT-0通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Legacy System Modernization Engine

Complete methodology for assessing, planning, and executing legacy system modernization — from monolith decomposition to cloud migration. Works for any tech stack, any scale.


Phase 1: System Assessment

Modernization Brief

system_name: "[Name]"
age_years: 0
primary_language: ""
framework: ""
database: ""
deployment: "on-prem | VM | container | serverless"
lines_of_code: 0
team_size: 0
monthly_users: 0
annual_revenue_supported: "$0"
compliance_requirements: []
known_pain_points: []
business_driver: "cost | speed | talent | risk | compliance | scale"
timeline_pressure: "low | medium | high | critical"
budget_range: "$0-$0"
sponsor: ""

Technical Debt Inventory

Score each dimension 1-5 (1=critical, 5=healthy):

DimensionScoreEvidence
Code quality — test coverage, complexity, duplication
Architecture — coupling, modularity, clear boundaries
Infrastructure — deployment automation, monitoring, scaling
Dependencies — outdated libraries, EOL frameworks, security vulns
Data — schema quality, migration history, backup/recovery
Documentation — accuracy, coverage, onboarding effectiveness
Operations — deployment frequency, MTTR, incident rate
Security — auth patterns, encryption, audit trail, compliance gaps
Developer experience — build time, local setup, debugging tools
Business logic clarity — documented rules, test coverage of logic

Total: /50

  • 40-50: Healthy — incremental improvement
  • 30-39: Aging — targeted modernization
  • 20-29: Legacy — systematic modernization needed
  • 10-19: Critical — modernize or replace

Dependency Risk Matrix

For each major dependency:

dependency: ""
current_version: ""
latest_version: ""
eol_date: ""  # End of life
security_vulns: 0  # Known CVEs
upgrade_difficulty: "trivial | moderate | hard | rewrite"
business_risk: "low | medium | high | critical"
alternatives: []

Priority rules:

  • EOL within 12 months → P0
  • Known unpatched CVEs → P0
  • 3+ major versions behind → P1
  • No active maintainer → P1
  • Everything else → P2

Phase 2: Strategy Selection

Modernization Strategy Decision Matrix

StrategyWhen to UseRiskCostSpeedDisruption
Rehost (lift & shift)Datacenter exit, minimal changeLowLowFastLow
Replatform (lift & optimize)Cloud benefits without rewriteLow-MedMediumMediumLow-Med
Refactor (restructure)Good code, bad architectureMediumMediumMediumMedium
Re-architect (rebuild patterns)Monolith→services, new patternsHighHighSlowHigh
Rebuild (rewrite)Small system, clear requirementsVery HighVery HighVery SlowVery High
Replace (buy/SaaS)Commodity functionalityMediumVariableFastHigh
RetireNo longer neededNoneNegativeInstantLow
Retain (do nothing)Working fine, other prioritiesNoneOngoingN/ANone

Strategy Selection Decision Tree

Is the system still needed?
├─ No → RETIRE
├─ Yes → Is it a commodity (CRM, email, etc.)?
│  ├─ Yes → REPLACE (buy SaaS)
│  └─ No → Is the code maintainable?
│     ├─ Yes → Is the architecture the problem?
│     │  ├─ Yes → RE-ARCHITECT (strangler fig)
│     │  └─ No → Is the infrastructure the problem?
│     │     ├─ Yes → REPLATFORM
│     │     └─ No → REFACTOR incrementally
│     └─ No → Is the system small (<50K LOC)?
│        ├─ Yes → Can requirements be clearly defined?
│        │  ├─ Yes → REBUILD
│        │  └─ No → REFACTOR + RE-ARCHITECT
│        └─ No → STRANGLER FIG (never big-bang rewrite)

The Big Rewrite Anti-Pattern

NEVER do a full rewrite of a large system. It fails 70%+ of the time because:

  1. The old system keeps getting features — moving target
  2. Hidden business rules only exist in code — they get lost
  3. Timeline always 2-3x longer than estimated
  4. Two systems to maintain during transition
  5. Team burns out before completion

Always use Strangler Fig instead. Replace piece by piece.


Phase 3: Strangler Fig Pattern

How It Works

  1. Identify a boundary — a feature, page, or API endpoint
  2. Build the replacement — new stack, new patterns
  3. Route traffic — proxy/facade sends requests to new or old
  4. Verify parity — same behavior, same data
  5. Cut over — remove the proxy, retire the old code
  6. Repeat — next boundary

Strangler Facade YAML

facade_name: "[API Gateway / Reverse Proxy / BFF]"
routing_rules:
  - path: "/api/users/*"
    target: "new-service"
    status: "migrated"
    migrated_date: "2025-01-15"
  - path: "/api/orders/*"
    target: "legacy"
    status: "planned"
    target_date: "2025-Q2"
  - path: "/api/reports/*"
    target: "legacy"
    status: "not-planned"
    notes: "Low priority, rarely used"

Migration Sequence Rules

  1. Start with the easiest, most isolated module — build confidence
  2. Then the highest-value business capability — prove ROI early
  3. Leave the hardest, most coupled parts for last — team learns patterns first
  4. Never migrate auth/identity early — it touches everything
  5. Migrate data access layer before business logic — clean data = clean migration
  6. Always keep the old system as fallback until new is proven

Dual-Write / Data Sync Patterns

PatternWhenComplexityRisk
Dual writeBoth systems write simultaneouslyHighData inconsistency
CDC (Change Data Capture)Stream changes from old→new DBMediumLag, ordering
ETL batch syncPeriodic bulk syncLowStale data
Event sourcing bridgeEvents from old, replay in newHighSchema mapping
Read from new, write to oldTransition periodMediumRouting complexity

Golden rule: Pick ONE source of truth. Never let both systems own the same data simultaneously.


Phase 4: Monolith Decomposition

Domain Discovery

Before splitting a monolith, identify bounded contexts:

  1. Event Storming (preferred) — sticky notes for domain events, commands, aggregates
  2. Code analysis — find clusters of related classes/tables
  3. Team analysis — which teams own which features?
  4. Data coupling analysis — which tables are joined together?

Bounded Context YAML

context_name: ""
description: ""
team: ""
entities: []
commands: []
events_published: []
events_consumed: []
database_tables: []
external_integrations: []
coupling_score: 0  # 0=independent, 10=deeply coupled
extraction_difficulty: "easy | moderate | hard | very-hard"
business_value: "low | medium | high | critical"

Extraction Priority Matrix

Plot contexts on: Business Value (Y) × Extraction Difficulty (X)

EasyModerateHard
High value🟢 Do first🟡 Do second🟠 Plan carefully
Medium value🟢 Quick win🟡 Evaluate ROI🔴 Probably not worth it
Low value🟡 If easy, why not🔴 Skip🔴 Definitely skip

Service Extraction Checklist

For each service being extracted:

  • [ ] Bounded context clearly defined
  • [ ] API contract designed (OpenAPI spec)
  • [ ] Database separated (no shared tables)
  • [ ] Authentication/authorization integrated
  • [ ] Event publishing for cross-service communication
  • [ ] Circuit breaker for calls back to monolith
  • [ ] Monitoring and alerting configured
  • [ ] Deployment pipeline independent
  • [ ] Feature flag for traffic routing
  • [ ] Rollback plan documented
  • [ ] Performance baseline captured (before/after)
  • [ ] Data migration script tested
  • [ ] Integration tests with monolith passing
  • [ ] Runbook for on-call written

Phase 5: Database Modernization

Database Migration Strategies

StrategyDescriptionDowntimeRisk
Parallel runNew DB alongside old, sync bothZeroHigh complexity
Blue-greenFull copy, switch DNSMinutesMedium
RollingMigrate table by tableZero per tableMedium
Big bangStop, migrate, startHoursHigh

Schema Evolution Rules

  1. Always additive — add columns/tables, never remove in the same release
  2. Two-phase removal — Release 1: stop writing. Release 2: drop column (after backfill verified)
  3. Default values always — every new column gets a default
  4. Backward compatible — old code must work with new schema during rollout
  5. Index concurrently — never lock production tables
  6. Test with production-scale data — 100 rows ≠ 100M rows

Data Quality Gates

Before migrating data:

table: ""
row_count_source: 0
row_count_target: 0
count_match: false
checksum_match: false
null_analysis: "pass | fail"
referential_integrity: "pass | fail"
business_rule_validation: "pass | fail"
sample_manual_review: "pass | fail"
performance_benchmark: "pass | fail"
rollback_tested: false

Rule: All gates must pass before cutover. No exceptions.


Phase 6: Cloud Migration

Cloud Readiness Assessment

Score each workload:

FactorScore (1-5)Notes
Stateless design
Configuration externalized
Logging to stdout
Health check endpoint
Graceful shutdown
Horizontal scalability
Secret management
12-factor compliance

35-40: Cloud-native ready 25-34: Minor modifications needed 15-24: Significant refactoring 8-14: Major redesign required

Cloud Migration Checklist

  • [ ] Network architecture designed (VPC, subnets, security groups)
  • [ ] Identity and access management configured
  • [ ] Data residency requirements verified
  • [ ] Compliance mapping (cloud controls ↔ requirements)
  • [ ] Cost estimation completed (TCO comparison)
  • [ ] Disaster recovery plan updated
  • [ ] Monitoring and alerting migrated
  • [ ] DNS and certificate management planned
  • [ ] CDN configuration
  • [ ] Load testing in cloud environment
  • [ ] Security scanning pipeline
  • [ ] Backup and restore verified
  • [ ] Runbooks updated for cloud operations
  • [ ] Team trained on cloud platform
  • [ ] Vendor lock-in assessment

Cost Optimization from Day 1

  • Right-size instances — start small, scale up with data
  • Reserved/committed use — only after 3 months of usage data
  • Spot/preemptible — for batch jobs, CI/CD, dev/test
  • Auto-scaling — scale down at night, weekends
  • Storage tiers — hot/warm/cold/archive based on access patterns
  • Tag everything — cost allocation by team, service, environment
  • Monthly review — unused resources, oversized instances

Phase 7: API Modernization

API Wrapping Pattern

For legacy systems without APIs:

  1. Screen scraping adapter — parse HTML/mainframe screens
  2. Database tap — read directly from legacy DB (read-only!)
  3. File-based integration — watch folders, parse files
  4. Message queue bridge — legacy writes to queue, new reads
  5. RPC wrapper — expose existing functions via REST/gRPC

API Contract-First Migration

endpoint: "/api/v2/orders"
legacy_source: "stored_procedure: sp_GetOrders"
new_implementation: "orders-service"
migration_status: "legacy | dual-run | new-only"
contract_changes:
  - field: "order_date"
    old_format: "MM/DD/YYYY string"
    new_format: "ISO 8601"
    adapter: "date_format_adapter"
  - field: "status"
    old_values: ["A", "C", "P"]
    new_values: ["active", "completed", "pending"]
    adapter: "status_code_mapper"
parity_tests: 47
parity_passing: 47

Phase 8: Testing Strategy

Migration Testing Pyramid

         /  Smoke Tests  \           ← Whole system alive?
        / Parity Tests    \          ← Same behavior old vs new?
       / Integration Tests \         ← Services work together?
      / Contract Tests      \        ← API contracts honored?
     / Performance Tests     \       ← Not slower than before?
    / Data Validation Tests   \      ← Data migrated correctly?
   /  Unit Tests               \     ← New code works?

Parity Testing Framework

For EVERY migrated feature:

feature: ""
test_type: "api_parity | ui_parity | data_parity"
method: "shadow traffic | replay | parallel run"
sample_size: 0
match_rate: "0%"  # Target: 99.9%+
mismatches_investigated: 0
mismatches_accepted: 0  # Known intentional differences
mismatches_bugs: 0
sign_off: false

Shadow traffic — copy production requests to new system, compare responses (don't serve new responses to users yet).

Performance Regression Rules

  • P95 latency must not increase >10% vs legacy
  • Throughput must meet or exceed legacy under same load
  • Database query count must not increase per request
  • Memory usage must not increase >20%
  • If ANY metric regresses → investigate before proceeding

Phase 9: Team & Process

Modernization Team Structure

RoleResponsibilityWhen Needed
Modernization LeadStrategy, sequencing, blockersFull-time
Legacy ExpertKnows where the bodies are buriedPart-time, on-call
New Platform EngineerBuilds target architectureFull-time
Data EngineerMigration, sync, validationPhase-dependent
QA/Test EngineerParity testing, automationFull-time
DevOps/PlatformCI/CD, infrastructurePart-time
Product OwnerBusiness priority, acceptancePart-time

Knowledge Mining from Legacy

The most dangerous part of modernization is losing undocumented business rules.

  1. Code archaeology — git blame, find oldest unchanged code, understand why
  2. Interview stakeholders — "What would break if we changed X?"
  3. Production log analysis — what edge cases actually occur?
  4. Error handling review — each catch block is a documented business rule
  5. Test suite review — tests describe expected behavior
  6. Configuration review — magic numbers, feature flags, overrides

Communication Plan

AudienceFrequencyContent
Executive sponsorBi-weeklyProgress, risks, budget, timeline
Engineering teamWeeklySprint goals, technical decisions, blockers
Dependent teamsMonthlyUpcoming changes, migration dates, API changes
End usersPer migrationWhat's changing, when, how it affects them

Phase 10: Risk Management

Top 10 Modernization Risks (Pre-Built)

#RiskLikelihoodImpactMitigation
1Undocumented business rules lostHighCriticalCode archaeology + stakeholder interviews + parity tests
2Timeline underestimationVery HighHigh2x initial estimate, phase-gated checkpoints
3Data migration corruptionMediumCriticalChecksums, parallel runs, rollback plans
4Feature parity gapsHighHighShadow traffic testing, user acceptance testing
5Team knowledge loss (people leave)MediumHighDocument everything, pair programming, knowledge sharing
6Legacy system changes during migrationHighMediumFeature freeze or dual-write contract
7Performance regressionMediumHighLoad testing at every phase, performance budgets
8Scope creep (improve while migrating)Very HighMediumStrict "migrate, don't improve" rule for Phase 1
9Integration failuresMediumHighContract testing, circuit breakers, fallback routing
10Stakeholder fatigueHighMediumQuick wins early, visible progress dashboard

Kill Criteria

Stop the modernization if:

  • Budget exceeds 2x initial estimate with <50% complete
  • Key business rules can't be verified after migration
  • Team attrition >30% during project
  • Legacy system stability degrades due to migration work
  • Business context changes (M&A, pivot, sunset)

If kill criteria triggered: Stabilize what's done, document learnings, reassess in 6 months.


Phase 11: Patterns & Playbooks

Language/Framework Migration Patterns

Java → Modern Java (8→17+)

  • Records, sealed classes, pattern matching
  • Virtual threads (Project Loom) for thread-per-request
  • Migrate build: Maven→Gradle or update Maven plugins
  • Spring Boot 2→3: javax→jakarta namespace

Python 2→3

  • Use 2to3 tool for automated conversion
  • Fix: print(), division, unicode, dict methods
  • Upgrade dependencies (check py3 compat)

jQuery→React/Vue

  • Extract components from page sections
  • State management replaces DOM manipulation
  • Event handlers become component methods
  • Ajax calls become API service layer

Monolith→Microservices

  • Strangler fig (see Phase 3)
  • Start with read models (reporting, search)
  • Extract stateless services first
  • Shared database → database-per-service last

On-Prem→Cloud

  • Rehost first (lift & shift)
  • Then replatform (managed services)
  • Then re-architect (cloud-native patterns)
  • Never skip steps — each proves value

COBOL/Mainframe Modernization

  1. API wrapping — expose CICS/IMS transactions as REST APIs
  2. Screen scraping — automate 3270 terminal interactions
  3. Gradual extraction — one transaction at a time
  4. Data replication — DB2/VSAM → PostgreSQL/cloud DB
  5. Rule extraction — COBOL paragraphs → business rule engine
  6. Never rewrite all at once — decades of business logic = decades of edge cases

Microservices Anti-Patterns to Avoid

Anti-PatternSymptomFix
Distributed monolithServices must deploy togetherIdentify and break coupling
Shared databaseMultiple services write same tablesDatabase-per-service
Synchronous chainsA calls B calls C calls DAsync events, choreography
Nano-servicesHundreds of tiny servicesMerge related services
Shared libraries for business logicLibrary update breaks consumersDuplicate code > shared coupling
No API versioningBreaking changes cascadeSemantic versioning, deprecation policy

Phase 12: Metrics & Reporting

Modernization Health Dashboard

project: ""
assessment_date: ""
overall_health: "green | yellow | red"

progress:
  modules_total: 0
  modules_migrated: 0
  modules_in_progress: 0
  percent_complete: "0%"
  
velocity:
  modules_per_sprint: 0
  estimated_completion: ""
  on_track: true

quality:
  parity_test_pass_rate: "0%"
  production_incidents_from_migration: 0
  rollbacks: 0
  
risk:
  open_risks: 0
  p0_risks: 0
  blocked_items: 0

cost:
  budget_total: "$0"
  budget_spent: "$0"
  budget_remaining: "$0"
  burn_rate_monthly: "$0"

100-Point Modernization Quality Rubric

DimensionWeightScore (0-10)Weighted
Strategy clarity15%
Risk management15%
Testing rigor15%
Data integrity15%
Architecture quality10%
Team capability10%
Stakeholder alignment10%
Documentation10%
Total100%/100

90-100: Exemplary — reference project 70-89: Strong — minor improvements 50-69: Adequate — address gaps Below 50: At risk — pause and reassess

Weekly Status Template

## Modernization Status — Week of [DATE]

### Progress
- Modules migrated this week: [N]
- Total migrated: [N]/[TOTAL] ([X]%)
- On track for [TARGET DATE]: [Yes/No]

### Completed
- [What shipped this week]

### In Progress
- [What's being worked on]

### Blockers
- [What's stuck and what's needed]

### Risks
- [New or changed risks]

### Next Week
- [Plan for next sprint]

Edge Cases

"We need to modernize but can't stop adding features"

  • Strangler fig — modernize around new features
  • Feature freeze on legacy module ONLY when that module is being migrated
  • New features build in new stack from day 1

"We don't know what the system does"

  • Start with observability: instrument logging, tracing, metrics
  • Run for 2-4 weeks to understand actual usage patterns
  • Code coverage analysis shows what code is actually executed
  • Interview longest-tenured team members

"Multiple systems need modernizing simultaneously"

  • Sequence by dependency order — downstream first
  • Shared services (auth, data) get modernized once, reused
  • Never parallelize more than 2 modernization streams

"The original developers are gone"

  • Treat code as the documentation
  • Invest 2-4 weeks in code archaeology before any migration work
  • Pair new developers with business stakeholders
  • Write tests for existing behavior before changing anything

"We're being acquired / merging systems"

  • Map overlapping functionality first
  • Pick "winner" system per domain — don't merge codebases
  • API integration layer between systems
  • 18-month realistic timeline for full consolidation

"Compliance requires the old system"

  • Maintain compliance evidence chain during migration
  • Dual-audit period with both systems
  • Get compliance team involved in migration planning from Day 1
  • Document control mapping: old control → new implementation

Natural Language Commands

CommandAction
"Assess this system for modernization"Run full Technical Debt Inventory
"Which modernization strategy should we use?"Walk through Strategy Decision Tree
"Plan a strangler fig migration"Generate Strangler Facade YAML + sequence
"Decompose this monolith"Domain discovery + Bounded Context mapping
"Migrate this database"Data Quality Gates + migration strategy
"Check cloud readiness"Run Cloud Readiness Assessment
"Create a migration testing plan"Build Testing Pyramid with parity tests
"What are the risks?"Generate Top 10 risk register
"How do we migrate from [X] to [Y]?"Pattern-specific playbook
"Status update for modernization"Generate Weekly Status Template
"Score this modernization project"Run 100-Point Quality Rubric
"Should we kill this modernization?"Evaluate Kill Criteria

平台分布

OpenClaw

95.5%
按下载量换算4,747

安全审计

VirusTotal

通过

ClawScan

通过

Static analysis

未展示

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills