name: cloud-migration version: 1.0.0 argument-hint: "project-or-system-name" description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "plan a cloud migration", "assess workloads for migration", "design a landing zone", "create migration waves", or mentions 7R, rehost, replatform, refactor, lift-and-shift, or migration factory. [EXPLICIT] It produces comprehensive migration plans covering 7R assessment, workload analysis, wave planning, landing zone design, cutover execution, and post-migration optimization. [EXPLICIT] Use this skill whenever the user discusses moving workloads to the cloud, even if they don't explicitly ask for "cloud-migration". [EXPLICIT] model: opus context: fork allowed-tools: - Read - Write - Edit - Glob - Grep - Bash
Cloud Migration: Assessment, Planning & Execution
Cloud migration moves workloads from on-premises or legacy environments to cloud platforms. This skill produces comprehensive migration plans covering 7R assessment, workload analysis, wave planning, landing zone design, execution patterns, and post-migration optimization. [EXPLICIT]
Principio Rector
Migrar sin estrategia 7R es mover problemas de datacenter a la nube. Cada workload merece una clasificación explícita (rehost, replatform, refactor, repurchase, retire, retain, relocate). Wave planning reduce riesgo. Cutover rehearsal es obligatorio — nunca se hace un cutover en producción sin haber ensayado en staging.
Filosofía de Migración Cloud
- 7R assessment per workload. No existe "migrar todo igual". Cada aplicación tiene contexto, dependencias, y restricciones que determinan su estrategia óptima. [EXPLICIT]
- Wave planning reduces risk. Migraciones big-bang son apuestas. Waves incrementales permiten aprender, ajustar tooling, y escalar throughput progresivamente. [EXPLICIT]
- Cutover rehearsal is mandatory. Si el runbook no se ha ejecutado end-to-end en staging, no está listo para producción. Incluye rollback — siempre. [EXPLICIT]
- Retire ruthlessly. Cada workload que no migra es costo evitado. La clasificación "retain" y "retire" son decisiones legítimas de arquitectura. [EXPLICIT]
Inputs
The user provides a migration program or portfolio name as $ARGUMENTS. Parse $1 as the program/portfolio name used throughout all output artifacts. [EXPLICIT]
Parameters:
{MODO}:piloto-auto(default) |desatendido|supervisado|paso-a-paso- piloto-auto: Auto para discovery y 7R classification, HITL para wave sequencing y cutover decisions. [EXPLICIT]
- desatendido: Cero interrupciones. Plan de migración completo automáticamente. Supuestos documentados. [EXPLICIT]
- supervisado: Autónomo con checkpoint en 7R classification y landing zone design. [EXPLICIT]
- paso-a-paso: Confirma cada workload classification, wave assignment, landing zone component, y cutover step. [EXPLICIT]
{FORMATO}:markdown(default) |html|dual{VARIANTE}:ejecutiva(~40% — S1 7R classification + S3 wave plan + S5 cutover) |técnica(full 6 sections, default)
Before generating migration plan, detect existing infrastructure context:
!find . -name "*.tf" -o -name "*.yaml" -o -name "inventory*" -o -name "*.csv" | head -20
If reference materials exist, load them:
Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/migration-patterns.md
When to Use
- Planning migration of workloads from on-premises to cloud
- Classifying applications using the 7R framework
- Mapping application dependencies for migration sequencing
- Designing cloud landing zones for migrated workloads
- Planning migration waves and cutover execution
- Validating post-migration performance and decommissioning legacy systems
When NOT to Use
- Designing cloud-native architecture for new applications --> use cloud-native-architecture skill
- Infrastructure platform design (VPC, compute, storage) --> use infrastructure-architecture skill
- Current-state analysis without migration intent --> use asis-analysis skill
- Enterprise portfolio strategy --> use enterprise-architecture skill
Delivery Structure: 6 Sections
S1: Migration Assessment & 7R Classification
Classify every workload using the 7R framework to determine optimal migration strategy. [EXPLICIT]
7R Strategies:
- Rehost (Lift-and-Shift): Move as-is to cloud VMs. Fastest, lowest risk, no modernization. Best for: quick wins, legacy apps with no code access.
- Replatform (Lift-and-Reshape): Minor adjustments (managed DB, container runtime). Moderate effort. Best for: apps that benefit from managed services without rewrite.
- Refactor (Re-architect): Redesign for cloud-native. Highest effort, highest cloud benefit. Best for: strategic apps with 5+ year lifecycle.
- Repurchase (Drop-and-Shop): Replace with SaaS equivalent. Best for: commodity functions (email, CRM, HR).
- Retire: Decommission. Best for: unused, redundant, or replaced applications.
- Retain: Keep on-premises. Best for: compliance constraints, recent investment, nearing end-of-life.
- Relocate (Hypervisor-level): Move VMs at hypervisor level (VMware Cloud on AWS). Best for: rapid datacenter exit.
Classification Decision Matrix:
| Factor | Rehost | Replatform | Refactor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Business criticality | Low-medium | Medium | High (strategic) |
| Technical complexity | Any | Low-medium | High (code access required) |
| Timeline pressure | Urgent (<3 months) | Moderate (3-6 months) | Long-term (6-18 months) |
| Cloud benefit needed | Minimal | Moderate | Maximum |
| Budget | Low ($) | Medium ($$) | High ($$$) |
Output: Application-by-application classification table with strategy, rationale, effort estimate, risk level, and wave assignment.
S2: Workload Analysis & Dependency Mapping
Automated Discovery Tools:
| Tool | Provider | Method | Discovers |
|---|---|---|---|
| AWS Application Discovery Service | AWS | Agent or agentless | Server config, utilization, network connections, process data |
| AWS Migration Hub | AWS | Aggregator | Unified view across discovery + migration tools |
| Azure Migrate | Azure | Agent or appliance | Servers, databases, web apps, VDI; includes assessment + migration |
| Azure App Service Migration Assistant | Azure | Web app scan | .NET/Java web app readiness for Azure App Service |
| Google Cloud Migration Center | GCP | Agent or API import | Technical fit, TCO, migration complexity scoring |
| Cloudamize | Multi-cloud | Agent-based | Performance profiling, right-sizing, cost projection, dependency mapping |
| Flexera One | Multi-cloud | CMDB integration | License optimization, cloud cost modeling, portfolio rationalization |
- Start with agentless discovery for broad inventory (network flow analysis, DNS logs). Deploy agents on Tier 1/2 applications for detailed dependency and performance data.
- Run discovery for minimum 30 days to capture full monthly patterns (batch jobs, month-end processing).
Application Inventory Fields: Name, owner, business unit, criticality tier (T1-T4), technology stack, infrastructure requirements (CPU, memory, storage, network), performance baseline (response time, throughput, utilization), compliance requirements. [EXPLICIT]
Dependency Graph:
- App-to-app: API calls, file transfers, shared databases
- App-to-infrastructure: specific hardware, network, licenses
- Data dependencies: shared databases, ETL feeds, replication chains
- External: third-party APIs, SaaS integrations, partner connections
Data Gravity Analysis:
- Data gravity score per workload:
(data_volume_TB * access_frequency * compliance_anchors)-- higher score = harder to move - Transfer time estimate:
(data_size_GB / bandwidth_Gbps) * 8 / 3600 = hours+ 30-50% verification overhead - Connectivity: Direct Connect/ExpressRoute for >5TB; VPN for smaller transfers; Snowball/Data Box for >50TB
- Anti-pattern: Underestimating data volumes and WAN throttling. Start continuous replication weeks before cutover.
Application Difficulty Scoring:
- Score 1-5 on: technical complexity, dependency count, data gravity, compliance constraints
- Composite:
(technical * 0.3) + (dependencies * 0.25) + (data_gravity * 0.25) + (compliance * 0.2) - Score >4.0: requires dedicated migration architect and extended parallel-run
- Group tightly coupled applications into the same wave
S3: Wave Planning & Sequencing
Migration Factory Model:
A migration factory standardizes repeatable processes across waves. Structure:
| Role | Responsibility | Staffing |
|---|---|---|
| Factory Manager | Wave scheduling, escalation, metrics | 1 per program |
| Migration Architect | Technical design per application | 1 per 10-15 apps |
| Migration Engineer | Execute rehost/replatform using tooling | 2-4 per wave |
| Test Lead | Validation scripts, acceptance criteria | 1 per wave |
| App Owner (from business) | Requirements, UAT sign-off, cutover approval | 1 per application |
- Automation backbone: AWS Cloud Migration Factory, Azure Migrate, or custom Terraform + Ansible pipeline.
- Metrics: apps migrated/week, avg cutover duration, rollback rate, post-migration incidents.
- Target throughput: 15-25 apps/month at steady state after Wave 2.
Wave Design:
- Wave 0 (Foundation): Landing zone, connectivity, shared services, monitoring. Duration: 4-6 weeks.
- Wave 1 (Pilot): 2-3 low-risk, low-dependency applications. Duration: 2-4 weeks. Purpose: validate tooling and process.
- Wave 2-N (Production): Grouped by dependency clusters, business domain, or team. Duration: 2-6 weeks each.
- Final Wave: Complex, high-risk, deeply integrated systems.
Pilot Selection Criteria:
- Low business criticality (failure is recoverable)
- Few dependencies (isolated, self-contained)
- Representative technology (validates migration tooling)
- Willing team (champions who provide feedback)
- Measurable success criteria defined upfront
Wave Calendar:
- 1-2 week buffer between waves for retrospective and tooling fixes
- Go/no-go gate before each wave starts
- Parallel streams: infrastructure, application, data, testing, cutover
S4: Landing Zone Design
Account Structure:
- Management: billing, organizational policies, SCPs
- Shared services: logging, monitoring, security tooling, CI/CD
- Network hub: transit gateway, VPN/Direct Connect, DNS
- Workload accounts: per-environment or per-application
Networking:
- Hybrid connectivity: VPN (quick, lower bandwidth) or Direct Connect/ExpressRoute (dedicated)
- Transit Gateway / Azure Virtual WAN: hub-and-spoke inter-account routing
- DNS: split-horizon for gradual cutover
- IP address planning: non-overlapping CIDR ranges with future growth headroom
Security Baseline:
- IAM: federated identity (SSO via SAML/OIDC), service roles, least privilege
- Encryption: at rest (KMS), in transit (TLS 1.2+), key rotation
- Network: security groups, NACLs, WAF, DDoS protection
- Logging: CloudTrail/Activity Log, VPC Flow Logs, centralized SIEM
Governance Guardrails:
- Preventive: SCPs/Azure Policy blocking dangerous actions (public storage, root usage)
- Detective: Config Rules, Security Hub, compliance dashboards
- Tagging: mandatory (owner, environment, cost-center, migration-wave)
- Budget alerts: per-account, per-wave, anomaly detection
S5: Migration Execution Patterns
Rehost Tools: AWS MGN (Application Migration Service), Azure Migrate/Site Recovery, GCP Migrate for Compute Engine. Process: install agent, replicate, test, cutover, decommission.
Database Migration: Homogeneous (native replication, DMS continuous) or heterogeneous (schema conversion + DMS). Zero-downtime via continuous replication. Validate: row counts, checksums, sample comparison.
TCO Calculator Methodology:
| Cost Category | On-Premises | Cloud |
|---|---|---|
| Compute | Hardware amortization (3-5yr) | Reserved + on-demand instances |
| Storage | SAN/NAS, disk replacement | S3/EBS tiered pricing |
| Facilities | Power, cooling, DC lease ($8-15/kW/mo) | Included |
| Staff | FTE * fully loaded cost | Reduced (managed services) |
| Licenses | On-prem perpetual or subscription | BYOL, cloud-native, or included |
| Network | WAN circuits, load balancers | Egress fees, cross-AZ traffic |
| Migration (one-time) | N/A | Dual-run, tooling, consulting, training |
- Break-even: typically 18-36 months. Include hidden costs: egress fees, premium support, cross-AZ traffic.
- Use AWS Pricing Calculator, Azure TCO Calculator, or Google Cloud Pricing Calculator for estimates. Validate with 3-month post-migration actuals.
Cutover Rehearsal Checklist:
Perform a full dress rehearsal 1-2 weeks before each production cutover:
- Execute complete cutover runbook end-to-end in non-prod environment
- Measure actual duration vs. planned window (target: <80% of window)
- Test data sync: verify final replication lag <1 minute
- Execute DNS switch and verify propagation
- Run full smoke test suite against cloud endpoints
- Execute rollback procedure -- restore source, revert DNS, verify source healthy
- Validate monitoring/alerting fires correctly in cloud environment
- Time the rollback procedure (target: <30 minutes)
- Document gaps and update runbook before production cutover
- Obtain sign-off from app owner and operations team
Rollback Decision Criteria:
Trigger rollback if ANY of the following occur during cutover:
| Condition | Threshold | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Error rate spike | >5x baseline for 15+ minutes | Immediate rollback |
| Latency degradation | P99 >3x baseline for 15+ minutes | Immediate rollback |
| Data integrity failure | Any checksum mismatch on critical tables | Immediate rollback |
| Functionality gap | Any Tier 1 feature non-functional | Immediate rollback |
| Cutover window exceeded | >80% of planned window with steps remaining | Assess and likely rollback |
| Monitoring blind spot | Key dashboards/alerts not functioning | Pause and remediate; rollback if >30 min |
- Keep source running during validation period (1-2 weeks minimum).
- Reverse replication from cloud to on-prem for data-heavy workloads.
- Rollback window: define per application (typically 24-72 hours post-cutover).
Common Anti-Patterns:
| Anti-Pattern | Consequence | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Skip discovery; migrate by guesswork | Missed dependencies cause outages during cutover | Run automated discovery 30+ days |
| Migrate without application owner | No UAT, no sign-off, unclear accountability | Require named owner before wave assignment |
| No cutover rehearsal | Surprises on go-live night, panic rollbacks | Mandatory dress rehearsal for every wave |
| Big-bang migration of entire portfolio | Maximum blast radius, no learning curve | Wave-based with pilot first |
| Underestimate data transfer time | Cutover window exceeded, forced rollback | Calculate transfer time + 50% buffer; use continuous replication |
| Retire nothing | Cloud costs add to existing costs | Enforce retire/retain classification in 7R assessment |
| No rollback plan | Cannot revert when issues found | Define rollback triggers and test procedure |
S6: Validation & Optimization
Parallel-Run Validation:
- Run source and target simultaneously for 1-4 weeks
- Compare: response codes, data checksums, latency percentiles
- Escalation gates: <1% discrepancy = proceed; 1-5% = investigate; >5% = halt
Functional Validation: Automated test suites, manual smoke testing of critical flows, integration testing with dependent systems, data validation.
Performance Baseline: Compare cloud vs. on-premises for latency, throughput, resource utilization. Document regressions.
Cost Optimization (post-migration):
- Right-size after 2-4 weeks of utilization data
- Reserved instances / savings plans for steady-state
- Spot for batch. Storage tiering. Delete orphaned resources.
- Target: 15-30% cost reduction within 90 days of migration completion.
Decommission:
- Validation period complete and signed off
- Archive required data per retention policy
- Reclaim licenses. Secure hardware disposal.
- Update architecture diagrams and CMDB
Trade-off Matrix
| Decision | Enables | Constrains | When to Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rehost | Speed, low risk | No modernization | Datacenter exit deadline |
| Replatform | Some cloud benefit, moderate effort | Partial optimization | Managed DB, container runtime swaps |
| Refactor | Full cloud-native benefit | High effort, long timeline | Strategic, 5+ year lifecycle apps |
| Migration Factory | Repeatable, metrics-driven, scalable | Setup overhead, process rigidity | >20 applications, enterprise programs |
| Big Bang | Clean cutover, no hybrid period | High risk, long outage | Small portfolios (<10 apps), maintenance windows |
| Wave-Based | Incremental risk, learning curve | Hybrid period, dual costs | Large portfolios, enterprise migrations |
| Direct Connect | High bandwidth, low latency | Cost, 4-8 week lead time | Large data (>5TB), long-term hybrid |
Assumptions
- Target cloud platform selected (AWS, Azure, GCP, or multi-cloud)
- Application inventory exists or can be discovered
- Budget approved for migration (dual-run costs included)
- Team has or will develop cloud operations skills
- Business stakeholders available for cutover scheduling and sign-off
Limits
- Does not design cloud-native architecture for refactored applications (use cloud-native-architecture skill)
- Does not design infrastructure platform from scratch (use infrastructure-architecture skill)
- Does not assess current state without migration context (use asis-analysis skill)
- Organizational change management (training, team restructuring) acknowledged but not deeply covered
Edge Cases
Datacenter Exit with Hard Deadline: Favor rehost for speed. Accept technical debt. Plan post-migration optimization waves. Prioritize by lease expiry. [EXPLICIT]
Shared Database Serving Multiple Applications: Cannot migrate database independently. Options: migrate all consumers together, introduce API layer to decouple, or replicate and gradually cut over consumers. [EXPLICIT]
Mainframe Workloads: Specialized tools (Micro Focus, AWS Mainframe Modernization, Azure Mainframe Migration). Replatform to cloud-hosted emulation first, then gradually refactor. [EXPLICIT]
Compliance-Restricted Data: Data residency may limit regions. Encryption requirements affect replication tooling. Audit trail must be maintained through migration. [EXPLICIT]
No Source Code Available: Rehost is the only viable strategy. Containerization may be possible for binary apps. Evaluate repurchase with SaaS alternative. [EXPLICIT]
Validation Gate
Before finalizing delivery, verify:
- Every application has a 7R classification with documented rationale
- Automated discovery tool deployed and ran for 30+ days
- Dependency graph covers all inter-application and data dependencies
- TCO comparison completed (on-prem vs. cloud, including migration costs)
- Wave plan sequences applications by dependency and risk
- Migration factory roles and automation defined
- Landing zone meets security, networking, and governance requirements
- Cutover rehearsal checklist completed for pilot wave
- Rollback decision criteria defined with specific thresholds
- Performance baselines captured for pre/post comparison
- Cost optimization plan ready for post-migration execution
Output Format Protocol
| Format | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|
markdown |
Yes | Rich Markdown + Mermaid diagrams. Token-efficient. |
html |
On demand | Branded HTML (Design System). Visual impact. |
dual |
On demand | Both formats. |
Default output is Markdown with embedded Mermaid diagrams. HTML generation requires explicit {FORMATO}=html parameter. [EXPLICIT]
Output Artifact
Primary: A-01_Cloud_Migration_Plan.html -- Executive summary, 7R classification table, dependency map, wave plan, landing zone design, execution playbook, validation checklist, cost optimization targets.
Secondary: Application inventory spreadsheet, wave calendar, cutover runbook, rollback procedures, TCO comparison, decommission checklist.
Author: Javier Montano | Last updated: March 18, 2026