java-jdk-lifecycle-and-upgrade

name	java-jdk-lifecycle-and-upgrade
description	Use this skill when statically reviewing a Java estate's JDK lifecycle and upgrade posture — identifying the JDK vendor and version, mapping them to support and license boundaries, finding language/API upgrade blockers, and prescribing a phased, evidence-gated upgrade path. Trigger when a user provides build files (pom.xml, build.gradle), toolchain/CI config, or a Dockerfile and asks whether their JDK is supported, what an upgrade will break, or how to sequence it. Reads build files and source only; it never runs a build, invokes a JDK, or asserts vendor lifecycle dates from memory.
allowed-tools	Read Grep Glob
metadata	{"author":"github: Raishin","version":"0.2.0","updated":"2026-07-17","category":"platform","lifecycle":"experimental"}

Java JDK Lifecycle and Upgrade Review

Purpose

This skill statically assesses a Java estate's JDK lifecycle risk and prescribes an upgrade path. An estate is only safe if every runtime is on a JDK line that still receives security updates (for its specific vendor), the code does not depend on internals removed in the target JDK, third-party library floors are met, and the upgrade is sequenced in independently testable, revertible waves. The review identifies the JDK vendor and version, maps them to the correct support/license boundary using verified reference data, flags language- and API-level upgrade blockers, and produces a prioritized, gated plan.

Trigger conditions

• A user provides build files (pom.xml, build.gradle/settings.gradle), toolchain or CI configuration, .java-version/.sdkmanrc, or a Dockerfile base image and asks whether their JDK is supported or how to upgrade.
• A user asks whether a runtime is past a security-support or license-cost boundary.
• A user wants to know what a JDK upgrade (e.g. 8→11, 11→17, 17→21, 21→25) will break, what it lets them adopt, and how to sequence it.

When not to use

• The task is GC or runtime performance tuning — route to the JVM performance agent.
• The task is a framework version upgrade (Spring Boot, Jakarta EE) rather than the JDK itself — route to the framework readiness agent (a JDK floor is an input the framework agent consumes).
• The task asks to actually run the upgrade or a build in a live/CI system — this skill is static-review only.

Lean operating rules

• CRITICAL — never assert a JDK release date, LTS window, premier/extended support end, or license/support cutoff from memory. Cite the verified table in references/jdk-support-and-license-boundaries.md (primary source = the vendor's support-roadmap page). If a required date is not there or cannot be verified against the vendor page, mark it unknown (needs vendor page) and require the user to supply it. A wrong date produces confidently-wrong upgrade advice.
• HIGH — identify the JDK vendor (Oracle JDK, Eclipse Temurin/Adoptium, Amazon Corretto, Azul Zulu, Red Hat build of OpenJDK, Microsoft build of OpenJDK, GraalVM, …) and the exact version from the build files, toolchain/CI config, and Dockerfile base image; flag when they disagree. Vendor matters — a support/license fact true for Oracle JDK is often false for an OpenJDK distribution.
• CRITICAL — treat a runtime on a JDK line that is out of free security support, or past a license-cost boundary for the identified vendor (per the verified reference), as unpatched-CVE and/or licence exposure.
• HIGH — treat reliance on encapsulated/removed internals as an upgrade blocker: sun.misc.Unsafe, runtime --add-opens/--add-exports, modules removed after JDK 8/11 (JAXB, JAX-WS, CORBA, java.se.ee), Thread.stop, finalization. Name the specific removal and its replacement.
• HIGH — when identifying language/API upgrade blockers or the features a target JDK lets you adopt, consult references/lts-migration-and-language-features.md for the relevant LTS-to-LTS corridor (8→11, 11→17, 17→21, 21→25). Anchor every removal, deprecation, or feature to its JEP number and verify against the linked openjdk.org/jeps/<n> page; never assert a JEP-to-version mapping from memory. Recommend adopting only features the target ships as final — preview/incubating features pin the JDK via --enable-preview and are not a safe upgrade payload.
• HIGH — treat a deprecated-for-removal API (from user-supplied jdeprscan output) that the target JDK removes, and any third-party dependency whose minimum-supported JDK is below or above the target, as upgrade blockers; require the evidence rather than assuming.
• HIGH — reject rewrite-by-default and big-bang jumps: prefer the smallest supported LTS-to-LTS (or LTS-to-current) step that clears the risk, in waves, each independently testable and revertible.
• HIGH — require every upgrade recommendation to state the compatibility evidence gathered (jdeps/jdeprscan/build output the user supplies), a test and rollback plan, and a measurable post-upgrade verification.
• HIGH — label every finding with an evidence-basis label: , , , or .

References

Load these only when needed:

• JDK support and license boundaries — the verified vendor/version support + license-boundary table, its primary sources, last_verified date, refresh owner, and known uncertainty. Consult before stating any lifecycle date.
• LTS-to-LTS migration and language-feature map — the JEP/version-anchored corridor map (8→11, 11→17, 17→21, 21→25): the breaking removals and strong-encapsulation milestones, the deprecated-for-removal APIs, and the language/API features finalized in each corridor (with openjdk.org/jeps/<n> citations). Consult during blocker discovery (what a target JDK removes) and when framing what it lets you adopt.
• Workflow and output contract — the step-by-step review (identification → lifecycle mapping → blocker discovery → wave planning), the evidence checklist, and the output format.

Response minimum

Return, at minimum:

• A verdict (pass / pass-with-conditions / block).
• The JDK vendor + version in scope, and any disagreement across build/CI/Docker.
• Lifecycle exposure, cited from the verified reference or explicitly marked unknown.
• Upgrade blockers (severity-labelled, each with an evidence-basis label).
• A prescribed upgrade path (waves, target version, per-wave test + rollback + verification).
• Safe next actions and open questions (including any vendor date the user must supply).