s4hana-migration — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited s4hana-migration (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
This skill enforces structured S/4HANA migration decision-making so that no approach recommendation is made without analyzing simplification items, custom code volume, and disruption tolerance — the three inputs that determine whether a migration succeeds or becomes a production crisis.
| Agent Will Try To... | Why It Seems Reasonable | Why It Fails | Counter |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recommend greenfield by default | "Greenfield is the modern approach, clients want a clean start" | Greenfield ignores years of business-critical customizations, reporting logic, and embedded process knowledge. Re-creating it costs more than the migration itself. | Iron Law 1: Check simplification items AND custom code volume first. Greenfield is only appropriate when both support it. |
| Recommend brownfield by default | "Brownfield is safer, we just lift and shift" | Brownfield carries technical debt into S/4HANA. You get to S/4HANA but you do not get the benefits. Legacy designs block future clean-core compliance. | Iron Law 3: Document which business processes would be redesigned vs. carried forward. Model both timelines. |
| Skip SAP Readiness Check | "We know the landscape well enough" | Readiness Check surfaces hidden simplification items (FI-GL to Universal Journal migration, material ledger activation, etc.) that have multi-week remediation effort. Unknown items blow timelines. | Hard Gate: Readiness Check output must exist before Step 3. |
| Give a single timeline number | "The migration will take 12-18 months" | Timeline without custom code analysis is fiction. A client with 2,000 custom objects has a 6-month buffer where a 20,000-object client has an 18-month buffer for remediation alone. | Checklist Step 4: Decompose timeline by phase and by custom code remediation waves. |
| Ignore hyperscaler / hosting decision | "We can decide cloud vs on-premise later" | Hyperscaler selection affects licensing, BTP entitlements, network architecture, and go-live readiness. Deferring adds rework. | Checklist Step 2: Hosting decision inputs must be captured as part of the migration approach. |
| Understate selective data transition complexity | "Selective is the best of both worlds" | Selective data transition (also called Bluefield) requires specialized tooling, detailed data scoping, and expert execution. It is the most complex approach, not a compromise. | Checklist Step 3: Document selective approach prerequisites: tooling vendor, data scope, reconciliation plan. |
| Omit cutover complexity from the timeline | "Cutover is just the last few days" | S/4HANA cutovers involve data migration, balance carryforward, open document handling, and integration cutovers. Under-resourcing this phase causes go-live failures. | Checklist Step 5: Cutover window must be explicitly sized with dry run count. |
Watch for these phrases in your own reasoning — each one signals you are about to violate an Iron Law:
<HARD-GATE> DO NOT recommend a migration approach until ALL of the following exist:
</HARD-GATE>
Establish the why and the what before the how.
Evidence: Landscape summary document with all six categories populated. Gate: Business driver is explicitly documented and agreed with the client stakeholder.
Run or review SAP Readiness Check output.
Evidence: Simplification item register with impact classification per module. Gate: No module marked Red proceeds to approach decision without a specific remediation plan.
Quantify and categorize all custom development.
Evidence: Custom code analysis report with object counts, ATC results, effort estimates by module, and retirement candidates. Gate: Remediation effort estimate exists in days (not percentages) before timeline is built.
Select and justify the migration approach using all prior inputs.
Greenfield (New Implementation):
Brownfield (System Conversion):
Selective Data Transition (Bluefield/Mixed):
Evidence: Approach recommendation document with selection rationale mapped to Readiness Check and custom code analysis inputs. Gate: Approach is backed by data from Steps 1-3, not stated as a default preference.
Build a phase-level timeline using custom code analysis as the primary variable.
Phase structure aligned to SAP Activate:
For each phase, provide:
Evidence: Phase timeline table with week ranges, critical path identified, and at least 2 dry run cutover cycles planned. Gate: Custom code remediation waves are sequenced and capacity-planned against available ABAP developer headcount.
Build a 5-year TCO comparison.
Evidence: TCO comparison model with current state, migration investment, and 5-year future state for each migration approach option being considered. Gate: Business case must show a positive NPV scenario within 5 years. If it does not, document why the migration is still required (regulatory, EOM support).
Assemble the deliverable using the template below.
Evidence: Complete migration strategy document. Gate: All Hard Gate conditions met and all six steps have documented evidence.
# S/4HANA Migration Strategy
**Client:** [Name]
**Date:** [Date]
**Prepared by:** [Consultant]
**Version:** [1.0]
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence summary: current state, recommended approach, headline timeline and investment]
## Landscape Assessment
### Current SAP Environment
| Parameter | Value |
|-----------|-------|
| ECC Version | |
| Database | |
| DB Size | |
| Active Modules | |
| Company Codes / Plants | |
| Integration Count | |
### Business Drivers
[Ranked list of drivers: compliance, transformation, cost, etc.]
## Simplification Item Analysis
| Module Area | Item Count | Mandatory Remediation | Effort Estimate | RAG |
|-------------|-----------|----------------------|-----------------|-----|
### Critical Simplification Items
[Detail the top 5 highest-impact items with remediation approach]
## Custom Code Analysis
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Custom Objects | |
| ATC Errors (must fix) | |
| ATC Warnings (should fix) | |
| Retirement Candidates | |
| Estimated Remediation Effort | [days] |
### Custom Code by Module
[Table: module, object count, error count, remediation days]
## Migration Approach Recommendation
**Recommended Approach:** [Greenfield / Brownfield / Selective]
### Justification
[Structured rationale referencing simplification item data and custom code analysis]
### Approach Comparison
| Criterion | Greenfield | Brownfield | Selective |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Timeline | | | |
| Cost | | | |
| Risk | | | |
| Business Disruption | | | |
| Clean Core Alignment | | | |
## Migration Timeline
| Phase | Duration | Key Deliverables | Dependencies |
|-------|----------|-----------------|--------------|
| Prepare | | | |
| Explore | | | |
| Realize (Wave 1) | | | |
| Realize (Wave 2) | | | |
| UAT | | | |
| Deploy | | | |
**Total Timeline:** [range] weeks
**Go-Live Target:** [date]
**Dry Run Cutovers:** [count]
## TCO Comparison
| Scenario | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 5 | NPV |
|----------|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----|
| Current State (do nothing) | | | | | |
| Brownfield Migration | | | | | |
| Greenfield Migration | | | | | |
## Key Risks
| Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation |
|------|------------|--------|------------|
## Assumptions
[Numbered list of all assumptions underpinning this strategy]
## Recommended Next Steps
[3-5 specific actions with owners and deadlines]This skill is complete ONLY when ALL of the following are true:
Evidence required: Migration strategy document with all sections populated, simplification item register, and custom code analysis report.
If any verification item is not met, the skill is NOT complete. Do not claim completion.
After completing this skill, invoke one of:
activate-methodology — When transitioning from strategy into project execution planning across SAP Activate phasesclean-core-strategy — When the migration approach is confirmed and custom code remediation needs a long-term clean-core roadmaprise-licensing — When the hosting model decision (RISE vs own infrastructure) requires detailed commercial analysisConditions for handoff: Migration approach is agreed, timeline is approved by the client, and the project is moving into detailed project planning.
activate-methodology — For Activate phase gate criteria referenced in the timelineclean-core-strategy — For custom code remediation roadmap post-migrationrise-licensing — For RISE with SAP commercial assessmentestimation — For detailed effort estimation of individual workstreamsproject-kickoff — For project governance setup once approach is confirmed~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.