Use cases/COBOL → modern services

Modernize a COBOL system

Explore how shared characterization fixtures, a bounded comparison and domain review can reduce repeated analysis while improving confidence in a COBOL migration.

Cost · elapsed time · output quality
Trace the workWorking methods, tradeoffs and evidence

Different tools.
Shared project context.

Model, harness and platform choices used in the examples.

ClaudeClaude Code
OpenAICodex CLI
GeminiGemini CLI
AndroidApp modernization

Explore the collection

Where the work changes.
How to judge the difference.

Start with the process: cost, elapsed time and output quality.
Inspect the method, tradeoffs and evidence for each case.

Now exploring: Capture the rules once. Challenge every replacement.

Process study · proposed method

Capture the rules once. Challenge every replacement.

Explore how shared characterization fixtures, a bounded comparison and domain review can reduce repeated analysis while improving confidence in a COBOL migration.

Establish the baseline

  • COBOL source and copybooks
  • Job definitions and sample records
  • Approved reference outputs

Evidence to retain

  • Reusable reference fixtures
  • Bounded approach comparison
  • Reconciliation and domain decisions

Why work this way?

The process, and what it could improve.

Proposed method · no measured savings claim

Cost

Turn domain explanations into reusable fixtures.

Capture record layouts, decimal behavior and accepted outputs before translating code. Share those artifacts with implementation and review workers.

What to compare
Model charges and domain-expert effort per reconciled capability, including fixture creation and unexplained differences.
The tradeoff
Characterization costs effort upfront and may expose missing knowledge that expands the work.

Turn domain explanations into reusable fixtures.

Compare the same scope and acceptance criteria. Include setup, coordination, failed attempts and human review alongside the successful model call.

Inspect the agents, competing approaches, context and review gates.

Design the work

One problem. A coordinated agent team.

Proposed task plan

A model reasons. A harness runs its agent session and tool loop. Orchard coordinates the work, context and handoffs across them.

Orchestration phase 1: Split the work. Preserve the question.

Orchard orchestratorScopes work · delegates · synthesizes evidence
CONTROL

Implementation lead

01
Model familyClaudeHarnessClaude Code

Map copybooks, JCL, file layouts and callers; propose an API seam around the selected capability.

Bounded task assigned

Counterproposal agent

02
Model familyGPTHarnessCodex CLI

Assume the rules are incompletely documented. Challenge the replacement with precision, encoding and restart cases.

Opposing assumption assigned

Independent reviewer

03
Model familyGeminiHarnessGemini CLI

Reconcile old/new outputs and separate exact matches, explained differences and unresolved behavior.

Evidence criteria assigned
Shared project contract

Rules · skills · hooks · MCP configuration

Adapted to each harness
01 / 04 · Dispatch

Split the work. Preserve the question.

One objective, distinct responsibilities

Replace a bounded COBOL capability with a modern service while preserving its business semantics.

Approved legacy outputs are the comparison baseline. No production retirement follows from code translation alone.
Implementation leaddependency-map.md + service contract
Counterproposal agentgolden-master fixtures + semantic-differences.md
Independent reviewerreconciliation report + cutover questions
Illustrative execution planAssignment Evidence Review

Model families and pairings are illustrative. Assignments here are manual examples, not measured model comparisons or automatic cost optimization.

Trellis / shared knowledge

Legacy knowledge

Copybooks, job dependencies, record layouts and expert explanations.

Decision record

Reference fixtures, disputed semantics and accepted interface choices.

BEAM / coordination

Bounded tasks, ownership notices, findings and handoffs between sessions. A queued message and a processed receipt are distinct states.

Recall → work → retain decisions

Tools / execution

COBOL toolchain / sourceFixture comparison harnessTarget service + contract tests

Access follows the configured harness, credentials and approved scope.

Inspect the example work orderJSON

An illustrative work-order format for this scenario. Changing an example session updates this document; no agents run from this page.

{
  "example": "cobol-modernization",
  "objective": "Replace a bounded COBOL capability with a modern service while preserving its business semantics.",
  "boundary": "Approved legacy outputs are the comparison baseline. No production retirement follows from code translation alone.",
  "sessions": [
    {
      "role": "proposer",
      "model_family": "Claude",
      "harness": "Claude Code",
      "task": "Map copybooks, JCL, file layouts and callers; propose an API seam around the selected capability.",
      "expected_artifact": "dependency-map.md + service contract"
    },
    {
      "role": "challenger",
      "model_family": "GPT",
      "harness": "Codex CLI",
      "task": "Assume the rules are incompletely documented. Challenge the replacement with precision, encoding and restart cases.",
      "expected_artifact": "golden-master fixtures + semantic-differences.md"
    },
    {
      "role": "reviewer",
      "model_family": "Gemini",
      "harness": "Gemini CLI",
      "task": "Reconcile old/new outputs and separate exact matches, explained differences and unresolved behavior.",
      "expected_artifact": "reconciliation report + cutover questions"
    }
  ],
  "project_contract": [
    "Rules",
    "Skills",
    "Hooks",
    "Tool configuration"
  ],
  "shared_context": [
    "Legacy knowledge",
    "Decision record"
  ],
  "evidence_required": [
    {
      "label": "Money reconciles",
      "evidence": "Compare exact decimal values, signs, rounding and invalid-record handling."
    },
    {
      "label": "Operational behavior holds",
      "evidence": "Test job ordering, partial failure, restart and duplicate input."
    },
    {
      "label": "Differences are explained",
      "evidence": "Have a domain expert disposition every material discrepancy."
    }
  ],
  "release_owner_gate": "A domain expert and operations owner accept reconciliation and cutover readiness before production traffic moves."
}

The process principle

Judge the process by reconciled behavior.

Scope of this exampleRuntime and database choices follow discovery. Parallel comparisons support review; they do not establish universal business equivalence.

A proposed modernization approach. No production conversion or performance result is claimed. Incremental replacement pattern

Reuse accepted context.

Share source references, constraints and decisions so each worker can start from the same reviewed material. Verify it is still current.

Parallelize independent work.

Split bounded tasks only after their interfaces are clear. Include coordination and integration overhead when evaluating elapsed time.

Make review change the output.

Use a second perspective to challenge a specific risk. Preserve the finding, the correction and the evidence that the correction holds.

Your next chapter

Where does your
work repeat itself?

Bring a real task, a baseline and acceptance criteria. Evaluate the process through the work it produces.

Explore Orchard
Photography and technology credits

Photography illustrates each project context. Interface concepts use fictional brands and sample records. Technology names and marks identify the tools discussed.