← ClaudeAtlas

blast-radiuslisted

Find what a change could break beyond its diff, then prove the one or two safety-critical facts by running real code. Use for change-risk analysis, suspicious small diffs, migrations, or requests such as "what could this break?"
3metaJun/mstack · ★ 0 · Code & Development · score 75
Install: claude install-skill 3metaJun/mstack
# Blast radius Find effects that a symbol search alone will miss. A convincing write-up is not proof, so reduce the analysis to the facts on which safety depends and execute the cheapest real checks for those facts. ## Evidence ladder For each safety-critical fact, get as far down this ladder as is practical and state where the evidence stops: 1. Hypothesis only. 2. Source evidence with an exact file and line. 3. A traced failure path showing the bad case cannot reach the change. 4. A script or test that calls the real shipped code and fails loudly if wrong. 5. Reproduction in the running application. Treat anything below level 4 as unproven unless the user accepts a lower bar. ## Workflow 1. Read the complete diff and identify changed behavior, including implicit behavior caused by deletions, reordered work, or changed defaults. 2. State the one or two facts that make the change safe. Focus effort there. 3. Trace beyond direct callers: pinned dependency source, local patches, teardown timing, serialization, APIs, schemas, databases, feature flags, other languages, and downstream consumers. 4. Classify each risk by concrete failure mode, likelihood, and impact. Cite exact evidence and list cleared risks separately. 5. Write and run the smallest script or test that proves each important fact. Use the real dependency and configuration where practical. 6. For genuinely broad changes, use independent parallel reviewers if the host supports delegation, the