Agent Framework Migration
Moving an agent from one framework to another with behaviour parity proven by evaluation rather than assumed, and the tool layer decoupled on the way out so the next migration is a smaller exercise.
Agent frameworks have a short half-life. Teams pick one, build for six months, then find the project deprecated, the abstraction fighting them, or the operational story missing. Migration is normal. What is not normal is doing it without any way to prove the new system behaves like the old one.
Agent framework migration is the porting of a working agent from one orchestration framework to another, or to a custom loop, with behaviour parity established through evaluation on real cases, the tool and prompt layers extracted so they are no longer framework-specific, and a staged cutover that can be reversed.
Why teams migrate
- The framework is being abandoned, or its direction has diverged from what you need.
- The abstraction is in the way. Simple changes require fighting the framework's model of how agents should work.
- Operational gaps. No usable tracing, no evaluation hooks, no way to enforce ceilings, which makes AgentOps impossible to implement properly.
- Performance and cost. Overhead the framework adds that you cannot remove.
- Consolidation. Three teams on three frameworks, and the operational cost of that is now visible.
There is also a bad reason, and we will name it: a newer framework is getting attention. If the current one works and can be traced, evaluated and controlled, migration is a cost with no return, and we would rather tell you that in week one.
How we migrate without breaking behaviour
Build the parity suite before touching anything
Real cases with the current agent's outcomes and routes recorded as the reference. Migration is complete when the new implementation matches on outcome and is acceptable on route, not when the code compiles. Where no evaluation exists, building it is the first milestone and it is worth the engagement on its own.
Extract the tools first
Tools are moved behind a framework-independent interface, ideally an MCP server, before the loop is touched. That single step removes most of the coupling, and it means the next migration is a change of orchestration rather than a rewrite of everything.
Separate prompts and policy from code
Prompts, tool descriptions, ceilings and escalation rules become versioned configuration rather than framework objects. They then port unchanged, and they stay portable afterwards, which is where most of the durable value of a migration actually sits.
Port the loop honestly
Frameworks differ in how they handle state, retries, parallelism and errors, and those differences change behaviour. We identify each one explicitly rather than assuming equivalence, and where the new framework cannot reproduce a behaviour, that is documented and decided on rather than silently lost.
Run both, then cut over
Old and new run in parallel against real traffic, with outcomes compared automatically. Divergences are investigated rather than averaged. Cutover is staged by task type with the old path kept warm and reversible until the new one has been stable long enough to trust.
Do not port the mistakes
A migration is the cheapest opportunity you will get to remove the tools nobody uses, the prompt instructions that contradict each other and the retry logic added during an incident two years ago. We inventory all of it and ask what should not come across, which frequently makes the new system simpler as well as newer.
What changes and what should not
| Layer | Should survive the migration | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Tools and schemas | Yes, unchanged behind an interface | Framework-independent by design |
| Prompts and policy | Yes, as versioned configuration | Portable, reviewable, testable |
| Evaluation suite | Yes, this is the parity reference | The only proof the migration worked |
| Orchestration loop | No, this is what is being replaced | The reason for the migration |
| Framework-specific state handling | No, rebuilt deliberately | Semantics differ and must be re-decided |
| Accumulated workarounds | Usually not | Migration is the moment to remove them |
How the engagement runs
Parity is defined and measured first, so migration has an objective finish line.
Inventory and parity suite
Current behaviour catalogued, real cases recorded with outcomes and routes, and the parity bar agreed in writing.
Decouple tools and configuration
Tools moved behind a framework-independent interface, prompts and policy extracted to versioned configuration.
Port the loop
Orchestration rebuilt on the target framework, with state, retry, parallelism and error semantics decided explicitly.
Parallel running
Both implementations against real traffic, outcomes compared automatically, divergences investigated and resolved.
Staged cutover and handover
Traffic moved by task type with the old path reversible, then decommissioning and handover.
What you receive
The same behaviour on better foundations, with the evidence that it is the same.
Parity evaluation suite
Real cases with recorded outcomes and routes, the reference the migration is measured against.
Decoupled tool layer
Tools behind a framework-independent interface, reusable by whatever comes next.
Portable configuration
Prompts, ceilings, escalation rules and tool descriptions as versioned configuration.
Migrated agent
The agent on the target framework, with semantic differences documented and decided.
Parallel run report
Outcome comparison across real traffic, with every divergence investigated and resolved.
Cutover and rollback plan
Staged by task type, with the old path warm and a tested reversal path.
Is this the right engagement?
Worth being direct. Agent Framework Migration is the wrong spend in some situations, and those are listed rather than buried.
Good fit if
- Your framework is deprecated, diverging, or fighting the changes you need to make.
- You cannot implement tracing, evaluation or ceilings properly on the current stack.
- Several teams are on different frameworks and the operational cost is now real.
- The agent is business-critical enough that parity has to be proven rather than assumed.
- You want the tool layer decoupled so the next move is cheaper.
Choose something else if
- The current framework works and can be traced, evaluated and controlled.
- The motivation is novelty rather than a measured limitation.
- The agent is an experiment that will be rewritten anyway.
- The real problem is agent quality rather than orchestration.
Frequently asked questions
Marked up with FAQPage schema so these answers can surface directly in search results and inside AI assistant responses.
How do you prove the migrated agent behaves the same?
With a parity suite built before the migration starts: real cases with the current agent's outcomes and routes recorded as the reference, then both implementations run in parallel against real traffic with outcomes compared automatically. Parity is a measurement, not an assertion.
Which frameworks do you migrate between?
The common orchestration frameworks and custom loops in both directions, including to a deliberately minimal in-house loop where the framework is adding more overhead than value. The target is chosen on your operational requirements, not on our preference.
How long does an agent framework migration take?
Four to eight weeks for a typical production agent, including parallel running. Where no evaluation suite exists, building one is the first milestone, and that work has value regardless of whether you then migrate.
Will we have to do this again in a year?
Less painfully, if the tool and configuration layers are extracted properly on the way through. Most of the cost of a migration is coupling, so removing it is the durable outcome even more than the new framework is.
Should we migrate at all?
Often not. If the current framework works and you can trace, evaluate and control the agent on it, migration is a cost with no return. We assess that in week one and will tell you to stay where you are if that is what the assessment shows.
Often paired with this
Most clients combine two or three engagements from the AI Agents & Agentic Automation pillar. These are the ones that most often run immediately before or after.
AgentOps: Monitoring, Evaluation and Guardrails
The operations layer for production agents: trajectory tracing, evaluation, spend ceilings and a tested kill switch.
Read more →MCP Server Development and Integration
Your internal systems exposed as safe, scoped, audited tools that any compliant agent or assistant can use.
Read more →Custom AI Agent Development
An agent that completes work in your systems, with scoped tools, trajectory evaluation and a circuit breaker.
Read more →Is this the right engagement?
Tell us what you are trying to build. If a different service fits better, or if you do not need us at all, we will say so.