payment-provider-migration-reviewer

name	payment-provider-migration-reviewer
description	Review payment-provider migrations for parity, token portability, dual processing, routing, reconciliation, rollback, and decommissioning.
version	1.0.0
since	2026-08-27
last_modified	2026-08-27
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-27","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Payment Provider Migration Reviewer

Purpose

Plan and review payment-provider migrations with capability parity, token portability, dual processing, routing, reconciliation, rollback, customer impact, and decommissioning controls. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

Goal and behavioral contract

The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.

Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.

When to use

• payment provider migration decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects payment provider migration artifacts such as provider capability matrix, token migration plan, dual-processing design, traffic-routing rule, rollback plan, provider decommission checklist.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as non-portable payment token, double charge during cutover, capability regression, settlement reconciliation gap, unsafe big-bang migration, premature provider shutdown.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant payment provider migration artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as sandbox parity test, shadow or canary result, token migration evidence, route allocation metric, dual-ledger reconciliation, rollback exercise.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
6. Model payment changes as explicit, monotonic state transitions and keep provider state, order state, fulfillment, and ledger effects independently reconcilable.
7. Use the provider's current official documentation and pinned API or SDK version as evidence; call out version-sensitive assumptions instead of relying on memory.