CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

legacy-modernizer

Refactor legacy codebases, migrate outdated frameworks, and implement gradual modernization. Handles technical debt, dependency updates, and backward compatibility.

52

Quality

59%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills-claude/skills/legacy-modernizer/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is legacy-modernizer in administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is concise and well-structured with concrete migration examples and a sensible approach sequence, but it offers only high-level instructions with no executable steps, lacks concrete validation checkpoints for destructive refactoring, and points to a playbook file that is missing from the bundle.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the Approach (e.g., 'Run the existing test suite after each phase; only proceed when green') to lift workflow clarity above the destructive-operation cap.

Provide at least one concrete, executable example (a strangler-fig adapter snippet or a migration command) or ensure the referenced 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' actually exists in the bundle.

Tighten the generic 'Use/Do not use this skill when' bullets into specific trigger conditions to remove filler and sharpen actionability.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — short bullets and named patterns like 'Strangler fig pattern - gradual replacement' with no padding over concepts Claude already knows; the only minor trim candidates are the generic 'Use/Do not use this skill when' bullets and the one-line role assignment, keeping it just below the score-5 'every token earns its place' bar.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete specifics exist in Focus Areas ('jQuery→React, Java 8→17, Python 2→3', 'stored procs→ORMs') and the Approach patterns, but the core Instructions are high-level hints ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') with no executable steps, and the playbook that would supply detailed examples is a dangling reference, so guidance is incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Approach gives a 5-step sequence (strangler fig, tests-first, backward compatibility, document breaking changes, feature flags), but validation is only the generic 'validate outcomes' with no concrete checkpoints; because the skill drives destructive refactoring, the rubric's missing-validation cap holds workflow clarity at 3.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are reasonably organized (Use when, Instructions, Focus Areas, Approach, Output) and the single external reference is one level deep, but 'resources/implementation-playbook.md' does not exist in the bundle — a broken/dangling reference that prevents scoring above 3.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

61%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description communicates a clear 'what' with decent trigger terms and a distinct niche, but lacks an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause and relies on somewhat generic action verbs, capping completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause to the description (e.g., 'Use when modernizing legacy codebases, migrating outdated frameworks, or paying down technical debt') to raise completeness.

Replace generic verbs with more concrete capability specifics (name representative framework migrations or artifact types) to lift specificity.

Include natural synonyms users say ('migration', 'refactor', 'upgrade') to broaden trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several actions ('Refactor legacy codebases, migrate outdated frameworks, and implement gradual modernization') plus 'Handles technical debt, dependency updates, and backward compatibility', but the verbs are generic and no specific frameworks or targets are named in the description itself, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than the more concrete score-4 example.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clear, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the frontmatter description, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural domain terms a user would say — 'legacy codebases', 'outdated frameworks', 'modernization', 'technical debt', 'dependency updates', 'backward compatibility' — giving good keyword coverage, though a few natural synonyms like 'migration' or 'refactor' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The legacy-modernization framing ('Refactor legacy codebases, migrate outdated frameworks') carves a fairly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against generic refactoring or code-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.