Line Migration Guide
Benchmarked against: Anthropic — Migration Guide Architecture: Dual Agentic Lines Principle: Not replacement — mutual rescue and cross-learning
Migration between Line 1 (Claude Agentic) and Line 2 (LangGraph) is not about abandoning one line. It's about moving specific workloads to the most appropriate line while maintaining both.
Migration directions
| Direction | When | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Line 1 → Line 2 | Task proven on Claude, ready for low-cost automation | Research patrol, batch processing |
| Line 2 → Line 1 | Task too complex for LangGraph, needs Claude reasoning | Architecture decisions, novel problems |
| Line 1 blueprint → Line 2 implementation | Design in Claude, build in LangGraph | Agent Anatomy 13 → superportia_agent.py |
What migrates
| Asset | Migrates? | How |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge (UB) | Shared | Both lines access Cloud UB — no migration needed |
| Work orders | Shared | Both lines use WO system |
| Agent messages | Shared | Both lines use mailbox |
| Tool definitions | Needs adaptation | MCP tools → LangGraph tool bindings |
| Prompts/Rules | Needs adaptation | CLAUDE.md → LangGraph system prompts |
| State management | Different | Context window → Checkpoint persistence |
Migrating a task from Line 1 to Line 2
Prerequisites
- Task is well-defined and repeatable
- Task doesn't require Claude-only capabilities (file ops, complex reasoning)
- A suitable low-cost engine exists for the task
Steps
- Document the Claude workflow — What tools, what sequence, what decisions
- Map to LangGraph graph — Nodes for each step, edges for flow
- Select engine — Groq (free), Gemini (cheap), or other
- Build and test — Create LangGraph agent, verify output quality
- Compare — Run same task on both lines, compare results
- Switch — Route future WOs to Line 2 dispatch
Example: Research patrol
Line 1 (before): Opus agent searches web, analyzes, ingests
Cost: ~$2-5 per patrol
Line 2 (after): LangGraph + Groq searches, summarizes, ingests
Cost: $0 (free Groq)
Migrating a task from Line 2 to Line 1
When needed
- LangGraph agent produces poor quality output
- Task requires file operations (only Claude can do this)
- Task needs complex multi-step reasoning
- Engine limitations (tool calling, hallucination)
Steps
- Identify failure mode — Why Line 2 isn't working
- Create WO with
engine=claude— Route to Claude dispatch - Or use Claude Code directly — Interactive session
Shared infrastructure advantage
The key insight: both lines share Cloud UB, WO system, and messaging. This means:
- No data migration — Same UB, same WOs
- Gradual migration — Move one task at a time
- Easy rollback — Switch back by changing dispatch engine
- Cross-learning — Line 1 insights improve Line 2, and vice versa
Anti-patterns
| Anti-pattern | Why it fails |
|---|---|
| Migrating everything at once | One line fails, no fallback |
| Abandoning a line | Loses mutual rescue capability |
| Using Line 2 for architecture | Low-cost engines lack deep reasoning |
| Using Line 1 for batch work | Expensive, wastes Opus tokens |
Related pages
| Page | Relationship |
|---|---|
| Agent SDK Overview | Dual lines architecture |
| Choosing an Engine | Engine selection |
| Dispatch Modes | How dispatch routes to engines |