agentleFS
bordenetbordenet/superpowers-plus/skills/engineering/blast-radius-check/skill.md

blast-radius-check

Skill8 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Blast radius analysis - search for ALL usages before modifying any existing code. Prevents breaking unrelated consumers by scoping impact before scoping fix.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. About 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈12

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before modifying any existing function, method, type, or API contract

    line 33
  2. Distinctive:

    Before modifying ANY existing code, determine the full blast radius — every caller, consumer, and dependent that could be affected.

    line 42
  3. Distinctive:

    If shared: Do ALL consumers need this change, or just ONE?

    line 73
  4. Distinctive:

    If one: Should I modify the shared code, or create a new variant?

    line 74
  5. Distinctive:

    Fill this table BEFORE implementing: Every empty row is a potential bug.

    line 116
  6. Very specific:

    No TypeScript errors (field is optional or any)

    line 122
  7. Distinctive:

    No test failures (tests mock inputs)

    line 123
  8. Distinctive:

    No lint errors (code is valid)

    line 124
  9. Distinctive:

    If yes → that transform must include new fields.

    line 128
  10. Distinctive:

    After implementing, verify with cross-repo grep:

    line 132
  11. Distinctive:

    Use the inventory from Step 1 as a checklist.

    line 168
  12. Distinctive:

    After all edits, re-run the same grep commands from Step 1.

    line 181
  13. Distinctive:

    CHECK 4c will fail if any structured file still references the deleted skill.

    line 194

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
skill.md

Blast Radius Check

Wrong skill? Pre-commit checks → pre-commit-gate. Field renames → field-rename-verification. Output inspection → output-verification.

Source: superpowers-plus Part of: Engineering Rigor skill family

When to Use

  • Before modifying any existing function, method, type, or API contract
  • Refactoring shared utilities, base classes, or cross-cutting concerns
  • Applying a "quick fix" or hotfix to production code
  • Changing configuration, feature flags, or environment variables used by multiple services

The Rule

SCOPE YOUR IMPACT BEFORE YOU SCOPE YOUR FIX.

Before modifying ANY existing code, determine the full blast radius — every caller, consumer, and dependent that could be affected.

Why This Gate Exists

Common failure: Making changes without checking blast radius. The "fix" breaks multiple unrelated consumers because you only looked at the immediate problem, not the full dependency graph. Never assume a change is isolated without proving it.

Step 1: Search for ALL Usages

# Search ALL repos for the function/class/field you're modifying
grep -rn "functionName\|ClassName\|fieldName" --include="*.ts" .

# Check for imports
grep -rn "import.*functionName\|from.*moduleName" --include="*.ts" .

# Check for interface implementations
grep -rn "implements InterfaceName\|extends BaseClass" --include="*.ts" .

Step 2: Categorize Dependents

Dependent TypeCountImpact if Changed
Direct callers
Subclasses/implementations
Test files
Config/types

Step 3: Ask the Hard Questions

  • Is this a shared utility (many consumers) or single-use code (one caller)?
  • If shared: Do ALL consumers need this change, or just ONE?
  • If one: Should I modify the shared code, or create a new variant?

Blast Radius Check

Wrong skill? Pre-commit checks → pre-commit-gate. Field renames → field-rename-verification. Output inspection → output-verification.list

  • How many files/functions call this code? (grep -c to count)
  • Is this a shared utility or single-use code?
  • Will this change require updates to OTHER components I'm not planning to touch?
  • What's the worst-case impact if I get this wrong?
  • Have I searched ALL repos, not just the one I'm working in?

Decision Matrix

Blast RadiusAction
1 callerSafe to modify directly
2-5 callersReview each caller's usage before modifying
5+ callersConsider adding new function/parameter instead of modifying
Shared utilityAlmost NEVER modify — extend or create variant instead

If you can't answer "How many things use this?" — STOP and find out.

Data Flow Tracing

For multi-component changes, trace the full data flow BEFORE implementing:

Data/Control Flow Diagram:
SOURCE → STORAGE → ROUTER → CONSUMER → EXTERNAL

Enumerate ALL Touchpoints

LayerFile(s)Change Required
Schema
Storage
Router
Consumer
External

Fill this table BEFORE implementing. Every empty row is a potential bug.

Identify "Silent" Pass-Through Points

These are files that receive data and pass it along WITHOUT using it locally. They're easy to miss because:

  • No TypeScript errors (field is optional or any)
  • No test failures (tests mock inputs)
  • No lint errors (code is valid)

Question to ask: "Does this component TRANSFORM the data before passing it?"

If yes → that transform must include new fields.

Post-Implementation Verification

After implementing, verify with cross-repo grep:

# Search ALL repos for the new field/function
grep -rn "newFieldName" --include="*.ts" --include="*.js" repo1/ repo2/ repo3/

# Include snake_case, camelCase, UPPER_CASE variants
grep -rn "new_field_name\|NewFieldName\|NEW_FIELD_NAME" .

Skill Deletion Protocol

Deleting or renaming a skill is a high blast-radius operation. Skills are referenced in many forms across many file types. Run this exact sequence before any deletion or rename.

Step 1: Full Reference Inventory (run first — before any edits)

SKILL="skill-name"          # e.g., engineering-rigor
MERMAID="${SKILL//-/_}"     # e.g., engineering_rigor

# All text files — hyphenated skill name
grep -rn "$SKILL" . --include="*.md" --include="*.sh" \
  --include="*.js" --include="*.json" --include="*.yaml" 2>/dev/null

# Mermaid node and edge declarations — underscore form
grep -rn "$MERMAID" . --include="*.md" 2>/dev/null

# Structured data files — these FAIL harsh-review if stale
grep -n "\"$SKILL\"" tools/high-cost-skills.json \
  docs/composition-manifest.json 2>/dev/null

Build a complete list of every hit before touching a single file. If the count is higher than expected, that's the real blast radius.

Step 2: Edit All Files

Use the inventory from Step 1 as a checklist. Touch every file on the list — including:

LocationWhat to check
skills/*/skill.mdcoordination.requires, .enables, .escalates_to
tools/high-cost-skills.jsonArray entries
docs/composition-manifest.jsonObject keys
docs/skill-dependency-graph.mdNode declarations AND edge declarations (underscore form)
lib/intent-patterns.jsSkill name strings
docs/*.md proseCompanion skill tables, "Wrong skill?" headers

Step 3: Re-run the Identical Grep

After all edits, re-run the same grep commands from Step 1. Zero hits = done.

grep -rn "$SKILL\|$MERMAID" . --include="*.md" --include="*.sh" \
  --include="*.js" --include="*.json" 2>/dev/null | grep -v CHANGELOG

Step 4: harsh-review.sh

bash tools/harsh-review.sh

CHECK 4c will fail if any structured file still references the deleted skill. A passing gate is mandatory before commit.

Companion Skills

  • pre-commit-gate — Before committing changes
  • providing-code-review — When reviewing others' PRs
  • autonomous-chain-controller: Chain-aware refactoring

Failure Modes

FailureFix
Only checked direct callers, missed transitive consumersTrace data flow through ALL paths (READ → STORE → PASS)
Skipped test impact analysisRun full test suite, check for tests that exercise changed paths
Assumed internal function has no external consumersGrep for ALL references — internal/external distinction is often wrong
Changed API contract without checking client servicesUse field-rename-verification for cross-service contract changes

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.