blast-radius-check

分类: 开发与编程 | 上传者: bordenet | 下载: 0 | 版本: v1.0（最新）
爆炸半径分析 - 在修改任何现有代码之前搜索所有用法。在范围修复之前通过范围影响来防止破坏不相关的消费者。
更新日志: Source: GitHub https://github.com/bordenet/superpowers-plus
目录结构

当前层级: tree/main/skills/engineering/blast-radius-check/
📄 skill.md 7.5 KB
SKILL.md

---
name: blast-radius-check
source: superpowers-plus
augment_menu: true
triggers: ["/sp-blast", "refactor", "modify existing", "change existing", "update function", "update method", "fix bug", "quick fix", "multi-component change", "cross-service change"]
anti_triggers: ["review this PR", "code review", "review these changes", "write new"]
description: Blast radius analysis - search for ALL usages before modifying any existing code. Prevents breaking unrelated consumers by scoping impact before scoping fix.
summary: "Use when: modifying existing code. Skip when: writing new isolated code."
coordination:
  group: engineering
  order: 2
  requires: []
  enables: ["field-rename-verification"]
  escalates_to: ["unified-commit-gate"]
  internal: false
composition:
  consumes: [code-changes]
  produces: [impact-analysis]
  capabilities: [analyzes-code, traces-consumers]
  priority: 10
---

# 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

```bash
# 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 Type | Count | Impact 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 Radius | Action |
|--------------|--------|
| 1 caller | Safe to modify directly |
| 2-5 callers | Review each caller's usage before modifying |
| 5+ callers | Consider adding new function/parameter instead of modifying |
| Shared utility | Almost 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:

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

### Enumerate ALL Touchpoints

| Layer | File(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:

```bash
# 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)

```bash
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:

| Location | What to check |
|----------|---------------|
| `skills/*/skill.md` | `coordination.requires`, `.enables`, `.escalates_to` |
| `tools/high-cost-skills.json` | Array entries |
| `docs/composition-manifest.json` | Object keys |
| `docs/skill-dependency-graph.md` | Node declarations AND edge declarations (underscore form) |
| `lib/intent-patterns.js` | Skill name strings |
| `docs/*.md` prose | Companion 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.

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

### Step 4: harsh-review.sh

```bash
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

| Failure | Fix |
|---------|-----|
| Only checked direct callers, missed transitive consumers | Trace data flow through ALL paths (READ → STORE → PASS) |
| Skipped test impact analysis | Run full test suite, check for tests that exercise changed paths |
| Assumed internal function has no external consumers | Grep for ALL references — internal/external distinction is often wrong |
| Changed API contract without checking client services | Use `field-rename-verification` for cross-service contract changes |
登录后下载/点赞/收藏 ❤ 6 | ★ 0
blast-radius-check

目录结构

SKILL.md

举报内容

提示
