code-add-migration

name

code-add-migration

description

Generate and review a Drizzle (or Prisma / Knex / raw SQL) migration safely — classifies the change as additive, mutating, or destructive; for mutating/destructive changes, splits into a multi-phase plan (deploy code that tolerates both shapes → migrate → deploy code that requires the new shape). Catches the landmines: NOT NULL on a populated column without backfill, dropping a column still referenced by old code, adding a unique constraint with existing duplicates, large-table index without `CONCURRENTLY`, type changes that rewrite the table, default values evaluated at migration time vs. row time. Trigger phrases — "add a migration", "schema change", "add column to X", "drop column X", "rename column", "add index", "/code-add-migration", "drizzle migration", "alter table". Skip for — pure code changes with no schema impact, seed-data-only changes (use add-seed-data), and infra-level changes (DB version upgrades, replication setup).

Code Add Migration

A migration that breaks production usually broke at design time, not at run time. Classify the change first; the plan follows from the class.

---

Phase 1 — Detect Migration Tooling

In order:

1. drizzle.config.* → Drizzle (drizzle-kit generate).
2. prisma/schema.prisma → Prisma (prisma migrate dev --create-only).
3. knexfile.* → Knex (knex migrate:make).
4. migrations/ with bare .sql files → raw SQL (project's own runner).

If none detected and the user wants a migration, ask which tool they use rather than picking one.

Exit: the migration tool, command, and output directory are known.

---

Phase 2 — Classify the Change

MANDATORY — READ references/change-classes.md before classifying. Every change falls into one of three classes; the deployment plan depends on the class.

ADDITIVE    — strictly adds. Old code keeps working unchanged.
MUTATING    — changes shape of existing rows or constraints. Old code may break.
DESTRUCTIVE — removes data or columns. Cannot be reverted from data alone.

State the class and the one-line reason. If the user's request mixes classes (e.g., "rename column" = drop + add + backfill), split it into separate migrations.

Exit: every requested change has exactly one class.

---

Phase 3 — Plan by Class

ADDITIVE

Single migration. Examples: new nullable column, new table, new index, new enum value (if the DB supports concurrent enum extension).

Generate the migration. Add the index CONCURRENTLY if the table has any non-trivial size and the DB engine is Postgres. For Drizzle, this requires raw SQL (drizzle-kit does not emit CONCURRENTLY from schema diffs alone).

MUTATING

Multi-step plan. Each step is its own deploy + migration:

1. Code tolerates both shapes. Update the application to read/write either old or new shape.
2. Backfill / migrate data. Run the migration. For NOT NULL adds: column is added nullable, backfilled, then constrained to NOT NULL in a third step. For type changes: add new column, dual-write, backfill, swap reads, drop old.
3. Code requires new shape only. Remove the dual-shape tolerance.

State each step explicitly. Do not collapse them into a single migration even if the table is small today — the pattern is what makes it safe at scale.

DESTRUCTIVE

Multi-step plan with a wait period:

1. Stop writing to the column/table. Update code to neither read nor write it. Deploy.
2. Verify in production logs/metrics for at least one full deployment cycle (not enforced by this skill — but call it out).
3. Drop the column/table. Migration.

For dropping rows (data deletion), get an explicit user y and require a backup pointer (snapshot SHA, dump filename) be recorded in the migration's accompanying notes file.

Exit: the plan is written down with one migration per step.

---

Phase 4 — Generate

Run the project's generate command. For Drizzle:

pnpm drizzle-kit generate

Open the generated SQL. Read it. drizzle-kit can produce surprising diffs (renames inferred as drop+add, default-value reordering). If the SQL doesn't match the plan, edit it directly — or adjust the schema and regenerate.

For each migration file, verify:

• Index creation on tables with > a few thousand rows uses CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY (Postgres). If the tool can't emit this, hand-edit the SQL and add a note in the migration that it must be run outside a transaction.
• Adding a NOT NULL column has a default OR is followed in a later step by the backfill + constraint.
• Default values: DEFAULT now() is evaluated per row; DEFAULT '2026-01-01' is a literal. Make sure the right one was generated.
• Foreign-key drops/adds: confirm cascade behavior matches the schema's references(...).onDelete(...).

Exit: the migration SQL has been read and matches the plan.

---

Phase 5 — Backfill (if MUTATING)

For backfills that touch many rows:

-- Bad: locks the table for the entire UPDATE
UPDATE big_table SET new_col = derive(old_col);

-- Good: chunked
UPDATE big_table SET new_col = derive(old_col)
WHERE id BETWEEN <lo> AND <hi>;

For Postgres on tables expected to grow large, use LIMIT + loop or a chunked migration script. The migration runner alone does not chunk.

If the project has no convention for chunked backfills, write the backfill as a separate *.sql file and a one-line note in the migration: -- Run scripts/backfill-<n>.sql before applying the NOT NULL constraint in <next>.sql.

Exit: a backfill plan exists for any column being made NOT NULL on populated data.

---

Phase 6 — Test the Migration

Run against a local/test DB:

1. Restore the DB to a state representative of production (seeded fixtures, ideally a dump).
2. Apply the migration.
3. Apply the next migration in line, if any.
4. Run the app's test suite — at minimum the data-access tests.

If the migration fails to apply on representative data, fix it. If the tests fail, the dual-shape tolerance from Phase 3 step 1 is missing.

Exit: migration applies cleanly on representative data; tests pass.

---

Phase 7 — Report

Migration added: <file path>
  Class:       <ADDITIVE / MUTATING / DESTRUCTIVE>
  Plan:        <step 1>: <this migration>
               <step 2>: <next migration's purpose, if multi-step>
               <step 3>: <next>
  Backfill:    <none / inline / scripts/backfill-N.sql>
  Concurrent:  <yes/no — and why>
  Reversible:  <yes / no, requires restoring from <backup pointer>>

Apply locally: <command>
Apply in prod: <command>  (run during low-traffic window if step requires lock)

If the change was MUTATING or DESTRUCTIVE, remind the user that step 1 must deploy before step 2 runs in production.

---

NEVER

• NEVER add a NOT NULL column to a populated table in a single step. Instead: add nullable, backfill, then add the NOT NULL constraint in a follow-up migration. Why: a single-step NOT NULL on a populated table requires a default. The default applies at migration time and locks the table while every row is rewritten — minutes to hours of downtime on large tables. The three-step pattern is online.

• NEVER drop a column in the same deploy that stops using it. Instead: deploy code that no longer references the column → wait for the deploy to settle → drop the column in a follow-up migration. Why: during a rolling deploy, old pods still query the column; dropping it in the same release crashes those pods until they're replaced. Production goes down for the duration of the rollout.

• NEVER add an index on a large table without CONCURRENTLY (Postgres). Instead: hand-edit the migration SQL to use CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY and run it outside a transaction. Why: a non-concurrent CREATE INDEX takes an ACCESS EXCLUSIVE lock — every read and write blocks for the duration. On a 50M-row table that's tens of minutes of full unavailability.

• NEVER add a UNIQUE constraint without checking for existing duplicates. Instead: run SELECT col, count(*) FROM t GROUP BY col HAVING count(*) > 1 against representative data first; resolve duplicates as a backfill. Why: the migration will fail mid-deploy when it hits the first duplicate, leaving the schema in a partially-applied state — the worst kind of outage to recover from.

• NEVER assume drizzle-kit (or any ORM diff tool) generated what you intended. Instead: read the generated SQL line by line. Renames are inferred as drop+add; default values can be reordered; cascades may differ. Why: the schema is a model; the migration is data loss. The diff between them is where bugs live.

• NEVER write a single migration that mixes additive, mutating, and destructive changes. Instead: split per class. Even if the changes feel related, they have different rollout requirements. Why: the safe rollout for a destructive change waits between steps; bundling it with additive changes either holds back the additive deploy or rushes the destructive one. Either is wrong.