Menu
Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code.
| name | deprecation-and-migration |
| description | Manages deprecation and migration. Use when removing old systems, APIs, or features. Use when migrating users from one implementation to another. Use when deciding whether to maintain or sunset existing code. |
Code is a liability, not an asset. Every line of code has ongoing maintenance cost — bugs to fix, dependencies to update, security patches to apply, and new engineers to onboard. Deprecation is the discipline of removing code that no longer earns its keep, and migration is the process of moving users safely from the old to the new.
Most engineering organizations are good at building things. Few are good at removing them. This skill addresses that gap.
Every line of code has ongoing cost: it needs tests, documentation, security patches, dependency updates, and mental overhead for anyone working nearby. The value of code is the functionality it provides, not the code itself. When the same functionality can be provided with less code, less complexity, or better abstractions — the old code should go.
With enough users, every observable behavior becomes depended on — including bugs, timing quirks, and undocumented side effects. This is why deprecation requires active migration, not just announcement. Users can't "just switch" when they depend on behaviors the replacement doesn't replicate.
When building something new, ask: "How would we remove this in 3 years?" Systems designed with clean interfaces, feature flags, and minimal surface area are easier to deprecate than systems that leak implementation details everywhere.
Before deprecating anything, answer these questions:
1. Does this system still provide unique value?
→ If yes, maintain it. If no, proceed.
2. How many users/consumers depend on it?
→ Quantify the migration scope.
3. Does a replacement exist?
→ If no, build the replacement first. Don't deprecate without an alternative.
4. What's the migration cost for each consumer?
→ If trivially automated, do it. If manual and high-effort, weigh against maintenance cost.
5. What's the ongoing maintenance cost of NOT deprecating?
→ Security risk, engineer time, opportunity cost of complexity.
| Type | When to Use | Mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Advisory | Migration is optional, old system is stable | Warnings, documentation, nudges. Users migrate on their own timeline. |
| Compulsory | Old system has security issues, blocks progress, or maintenance cost is unsustainable | Hard deadline. Old system will be removed by date X. Provide migration tooling. |
Default to advisory. Use compulsory only when the maintenance cost or risk justifies forcing migration. Compulsory deprecation requires providing migration tooling, documentation, and support — you can't just announce a deadline.
Don't deprecate without a working alternative. The replacement must:
## Deprecation Notice: OldService
**Status:** Deprecated as of 2025-03-01
**Replacement:** NewService (see migration guide below)
**Removal date:** Advisory — no hard deadline yet
**Reason:** OldService requires manual scaling and lacks observability.
NewService handles both automatically.
### Migration Guide
1. Replace `import { client } from 'old-service'` with `import { client } from 'new-service'`
2. Update configuration (see examples below)
3. Run the migration verification script: `npx migrate-check`
Migrate consumers one at a time, not all at once. For each consumer:
1. Identify all touchpoints with the deprecated system
2. Update to use the replacement
3. Verify behavior matches (tests, integration checks)
4. Remove references to the old system
5. Confirm no regressions
The Churn Rule: If you own the infrastructure being deprecated, you are responsible for migrating your users — or providing backward-compatible updates that require no migration. Don't announce deprecation and leave users to figure it out.
Only after all consumers have migrated:
1. Verify zero active usage (metrics, logs, dependency analysis)
2. Remove the code
3. Remove associated tests, documentation, and configuration
4. Remove the deprecation notices
5. Celebrate — removing code is an achievement
Run old and new systems in parallel. Route traffic incrementally from old to new. When the old system handles 0% of traffic, remove it.
Phase 1: New system handles 0%, old handles 100%
Phase 2: New system handles 10% (canary)
Phase 3: New system handles 50%
Phase 4: New system handles 100%, old system idle
Phase 5: Remove old system
Create an adapter that translates calls from the old interface to the new implementation. Consumers keep using the old interface while you migrate the backend.
// Adapter: old interface, new implementation
class LegacyTaskService implements OldTaskAPI {
constructor(private newService: NewTaskService) {}
// Old method signature, delegates to new implementation
getTask(id: number): OldTask {
const task = this.newService.findById(String(id));
return this.toOldFormat(task);
}
}
Use feature flags to switch consumers from old to new system one at a time:
function getTaskService(userId: string): TaskService {
if (featureFlags.isEnabled('new-task-service', { userId })) {
return new NewTaskService();
}
return new LegacyTaskService();
}
Zombie code is code that nobody owns but everybody depends on. It's not actively maintained, has no clear owner, and accumulates security vulnerabilities and compatibility issues. Signs:
Response: Either assign an owner and maintain it properly, or deprecate it with a concrete migration plan. Zombie code cannot stay in limbo — it either gets investment or removal.
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "It still works, why remove it?" | Working code that nobody maintains accumulates security debt and complexity. Maintenance cost grows silently. |
| "Someone might need it later" | If it's needed later, it can be rebuilt. Keeping unused code "just in case" costs more than rebuilding. |
| "The migration is too expensive" | Compare migration cost to ongoing maintenance cost over 2-3 years. Migration is usually cheaper long-term. |
| "We'll deprecate it after we finish the new system" | Deprecation planning starts at design time. By the time the new system is done, you'll have new priorities. Plan now. |
| "Users will migrate on their own" | They won't. Provide tooling, documentation, and incentives — or do the migration yourself (the Churn Rule). |
| "We can maintain both systems indefinitely" | Two systems doing the same thing is double the maintenance, testing, documentation, and onboarding cost. |
After completing a deprecation:
Instruments code so production behavior is visible and diagnosable. Use when adding logging, metrics, tracing, or alerting. Use when shipping any feature that runs in production and you need evidence it works. Use when production issues are reported but you can't tell what happened from the available data.
Discovers and invokes agent skills. Use when starting a session or when you need to discover which skill applies to the current task. This is the meta-skill that governs how all other skills are discovered and invoked.
Tests in real browsers via Chrome DevTools MCP. Use when building or debugging anything that runs in a browser. Use when you need to inspect the DOM, capture console errors, analyze network requests, profile performance, or verify visual output with real runtime data. Requires the chrome-devtools MCP server to be configured.
Hardens code against vulnerabilities. Use when handling user input, authentication, data storage, or external integrations. Use when building any feature that accepts untrusted data, manages user sessions, or interacts with third-party services.
Extracts what the user actually wants instead of what they think they should want. Achieves this through one-question-at-a-time interview until ~95% confidence about the underlying intent. Use when an ask is underspecified ("build me X" without "for whom" or "why now"), when the user explicitly invokes ("interview me", "grill me", "are we sure?", "stress-test my thinking"), or when you catch yourself silently filling in ambiguous requirements before any plan, spec, or code exists.
Refines raw ideas into sharp, actionable concepts through structured divergent and convergent thinking. Use when an idea is still vague, when you need to stress-test assumptions before committing to a plan, or when you want to expand options before converging on one. Triggers on "ideate", "refine this idea", or "stress-test my plan".