Blast radius check

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 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:

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:

# 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:

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.

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

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