SkillVaultskills Browse all 500 skills

Maintenance · Version 1.1.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

End-of-Life Dependency Planner

Reduce change risk for EOL inventory and migration prioritization with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 4 documented failure modes 4 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Inventories unsupported runtimes and dependencies, maps business exposure, sequences migrations, and creates enforceable end-of-life exit criteria.

₹99 one-time

Get this skill archive

What this skill helps you do

  • EOL inventory
  • Migration prioritization
  • Support-risk reduction

How End-of-Life Dependency Planner works

You provide

Current versions, changelogs, support dates, and coverage

It inspects

Breaking changes and transitive pins behind EOL inventory

It decides

A migration prioritization sequence taking one major at a time

You verify

Suite green between increments with rollback proven

What it checks first

End-of-Life Dependency Planner inventories unsupported runtimes and dependencies, maps business exposure, sequences migrations, and creates enforceable end-of-life exit criteria. Use it when the work involves EOL inventory, Migration prioritization, Support-risk reduction.

  1. Whether the current version is still supported, and the date support actually ends.
  2. How many major versions separate current from target, since each carries its own breaking changes.
  3. Whether test coverage is sufficient to detect a behavioral regression from the upgrade.
  4. Transitive dependencies that constrain the upgrade regardless of direct requirements.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Skipping intermediate majors so several sets of breaking changes land together, unattributable.
  • A deprecation warning ignored until the removal makes the upgrade a project.
  • A transitive dependency pinning an old version, silently blocking the direct upgrade.
  • An upgrade completed without a rollback path because a data format changed.

Answers it will reject

  • Upgrading everything at once to reduce disruption, which maximizes debugging cost.
  • Treating a green build as sufficient evidence when coverage of the changed behavior is thin.
  • Deferring an end-of-life migration until support has already lapsed.

Decision rules it applies

  • Upgrade one major at a time with the suite green between each step.
  • Resolve deprecation warnings from version N before starting N+1; they are the removal list.
  • Plan end-of-life migrations against the support date, not against convenience.

Evidence it asks for

  • Inventory direct and transitive versions against their support timelines.
  • Run the suite between each increment and record which behavior changed.
  • Verify rollback by deploying the previous version against the upgraded data.

The method inside

  1. Establish the current state and the constraint that actually limits EOL inventory.
  2. Separate the requested solution from the underlying problem in migration prioritization, and name the assumptions carrying the most risk.
  3. Compare only viable options for support-risk reduction against weighted constraints, cost of reversal, and operational ownership.
  4. Commit to a sequenced recommendation with success criteria, guardrails, and the observation that would reverse it.

Deliverables

  • EOL inventory assessment
  • Migration prioritization decision and action plan
  • Support-risk reduction verification checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Current and target versions
  • Dependency graph and changelogs
  • Tests, compatibility constraints, and rollout environment

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

We have services on three unsupported runtime versions. Create a migration plan that reflects customer and operational risk.

Expected output

Prioritize internet-facing and high-change services first, then group migrations by shared framework constraints. Define completion as production traffic on supported versions with rollback and observability, not merely a merged code change...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • EOL inventory: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Migration prioritization: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Support-risk reduction: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Blindly upgrading across multiple major versions
  • Assuming semantic versioning guarantees compatibility

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot custom agents
  • Claude Agent Skills / SKILL.md
  • Any instruction-following chat model

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.