Kiss blast radius

KISS — Blast Radius

The most-voiced fear about AI coding: it "helpfully" rewrites the code around your change and breaks things that worked. This skill answers it. A change must stay inside its boundary; the surrounding services and functions are off-limits unless the task explicitly includes them.

Before the cut — contain it

1. Identify the bounded unit you are allowed to touch — the labeled section / function / module the task is about. Use kiss-map (.kiss/inert.md) to see exactly what that unit is and what references it.
2. Map the radius. What depends on this unit? A change to a shared interface has a large radius; a change inside one section's body has a small one. Prefer the smallest-radius change that solves the problem.
3. Draw the line. Everything outside the unit is off-limits. You are not refactoring the neighbors, renaming their variables, or "improving" them — even if they look improvable.

The cut — once, surgically

• Every changed line traces to the request (see kiss-clean-edits). If you can't trace it, don't cut it.
• Prefer extracting a section's body over rewriting in place (the labeled boundary from kiss-readable is your firewall — keep the cut on one side of it).
• Make the change once, deliberately. Thrashing — edit, undo, re-edit across files — widens the radius and is how surrounding code gets damaged.

After the cut — verify non-interference

A change isn't done because it's written; it's done when you've shown it didn't break the neighbors:

• Scope the diff — every changed file/line should be inside the intended unit. A surprise file in the diff is a blast-radius leak; investigate it.
• Build / run the affected tests — confirm the neighbors still pass, not just your unit.
• Re-check the map — symbols you didn't intend to touch should be unchanged.

State the evidence, don't assert success. "Diff is confined to payments/, build is green, the auth tests still pass" — not "should be fine."

Replacing a condition — the silent-deletion trap

Containment is not enough. You can stay perfectly inside your bounded unit, change exactly what you were asked to, pass every test — and still delete a rule.

Because a condition often does two jobs: the one it says, and one nobody wrote down.

The "ugly" line	What it says	What it was also doing
ctrl is TemplateBase ? Roster.IsEnabled(id) : Settings.IsEnabled(id)	pick the right store	hiding licence-locked agents — Roster didn't know them, so it returned false
the same line, elsewhere	pick the right store	hiding the orchestrator from the agent roster — same accident

Both were replaced with a correct, cleaner, identity-based accessor. Both hidden rules evaporated: unlicensed agents joined a paid council; the orchestrator appeared in the agent list, un-removable. Neither was caught by 700+ passing tests — because the rule was never tested; it was never even intended. It was a side-effect that load-bore.

Before you replace a condition, ask what it is incidentally preventing. Not what it says — what it stops from happening. Then re-implement that rule explicitly, or you have just deleted it.

How to actually check (tests will not tell you):

1. Enumerate what flows through it. For each kind of input, what did the old branch answer, and what does the new one answer? Any input whose answer flips is a rule you are changing — name it out loud.
2. Hunt the fail-open default. Where does the new path send an input it doesn't recognise? If that fallback answers "yes" for unknowns (unknown ⇒ allowed), then every routing mistake becomes a grant — security, licensing, visibility. This is how both incidents above became grants rather than denials.
3. A green suite is not evidence here. The rule was accidental, so no test asserts it. Reason about the inputs, or verify at runtime.

Corollary — a permissive default may be load-bearing. If unknown ⇒ true is what makes new records appear at all, do not "fix" it to fail closed. Fix the routing that wrongly reached it, and mark the default as deliberate (see kiss-coherence → Record the negative finding).

Deleting an entity — the residue trap

The trap above is a change that reaches too far. This one is a deletion that does not reach far enough — and it is the more common of the two.

Deleting an entity's code is not deleting the entity.

An entity — an agent, a plugin, a user, a product, a feature flag — has a footprint far wider than its class. Delete the class and the rest silently persists:

Residue	Where it hides
asset files	avatars, icons, seed content, sample data
config rows	a true in a settings JSON for an id that no longer exists
data folders	per-entity vaults, caches, workspaces, session stores
build artifacts	bin/, dist/ — a non-clean build never removes what source deleted
packaging globs	<Content Include="Assets\**\*" /> will happily ship a corpse

A real case: two retired entities were cleanly removed from the source tree — no code, nothing in git, a green build. They still shipped: 4.2 MB of avatars, two per-entity vaults, four bootstrapper folders, and two stale true rows in the settings file that made the app behave as if they were still enabled. A wildcard packaging glob swept them straight into the release.

Nothing was wrong. Nothing threw. The dead-code sweep reported clean — because it swept dead code.

Before deleting an entity:

1. Enumerate the footprint, don't guess it. Grep the id string — not the class name — across the whole repo and the deploy/output tree: config, assets, data dirs, build output. The id outlives the type.
2. Look for an existing purge path. Most systems that create entities at runtime already have one (DeleteEntityData, a cascade, an uninstall hook). If it exists, deletion must go through it — a hand-rolled rm of the class is how the footprint gets orphaned. If it does not exist, that absence is itself the finding.
3. Check the packaging globs. A wildcard Content Include means anything left in the tree ships.
4. Force a clean build. Stale bin//dist/ output is a second, invisible copy of the corpse.

A green dead-code sweep proves the code is gone. It says nothing about the data.

Why containment beats cleanup

Collateral damage is the most expensive kind: it breaks code that was already working and that no one was watching. Containing the radius prevents it at the source — cheaper than any amount of after-the-fact debugging.