mcpField
B
blast-radius-audit

blast-radius-audit

github.com/marcellocurtoTesting & quality363 installsUpdated 1d ago
Repository

About blast-radius-audit

blast-radius-audit is a testing skill for reviewing changes in a repository without modifying files. It maps changed contracts to their consumers, checks plausible risks, and reports evidence-based dispositions.

Key features

  1. 01Inventory changed contracts
  2. 02Trace direct and indirect consumers
  3. 03Check risks with code, tests, or probes
  4. 04Classify risks by evidence and status
  5. 05Report an overall audit verdict

Use cases

  1. 01Review a pull request for compatibility risks
  2. 02Check whether changed configuration keys have consumers
  3. 03Assess risks before deploying a branch
  4. 04Audit effects on callers outside edited files

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/marcellocurto/skills --skill blast-radius-audit

After installing, type/blast-radius-auditin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Blast Radius Audit

Find how a change could break behavior outside the edited files, and check the facts its safety depends on.

This is an audit. Do not edit repository files, add permanent tests, apply fixes, commit, or touch production or external systems unless the user separately asks. Read-only inspection and reversible local commands are fine. Put temporary probe files outside the working tree, where they can still import the checked-out code, and delete them when done.

1. List the changed contracts

Audit the pull request, branch, commit, or working changes the user names. If none is named, audit the current branch against the default branch plus uncommitted changes. Record the base and head commits and the merge base, and read git diff <merge-base>..<head> so commits that only exist on the base are left out.

Read the full diff, the commit messages, the related tests, and the repository instructions. Then list every contract the change alters, including ones not obvious from the edited lines:

  • function and type signatures, return shapes, thrown errors, and error messages that callers match on
  • stored data: database columns, serialized formats, cache keys, events, files, and exports
  • external interfaces: HTTP or RPC responses, CLI output and flags, and public package exports
  • configuration keys, environment variables, feature flags, and defaults
  • timing: order of operations, retries, transactions, startup and shutdown, and work that runs later or more than once
  • permission checks, validation, and other checks that were moved, loosened, or removed
  • cost on hot paths: query counts, payload sizes, and loops over large collections

2. Find the consumers

For each changed contract, find what depends on it. Search by symbol name and by literal value, such as a column name, event name, config key, or route path, because many consumers reference a contract by string. Look beyond direct callers: generated code, dependency injection, plugins, reflection, migrations, fixtures, scripts, documentation, other services and repositories, and older versions still running during a rollout.

A search with no results does not prove a contract is unused. Say where you looked.

When a conclusion depends on how a library or runtime behaves, check the installed version and its code or documentation.

3. Check each risk

A risk needs a plausible path from the change to a consumer. Do not list concerns without one.

For each risk, state what must be true for the change to be safe, and check it the cheapest reliable way: read the code or documented contract, trace the path, run an existing test, or run a temporary probe. A probe must use the real code and dependency version and fail clearly if the assumption is false. A probe against a mock proves nothing about the shipped path. Do not rerun checks to repeat proof you already have.

Give each risk one status:

  • Confirmed: the failure can happen. State the conditions, and whether you reproduced it or established it by reading.
  • Unresolved: a specific missing fact prevents confirming or ruling it out. Name the fact and the check that would settle it.
  • Ruled out: evidence shows it cannot happen in the audited scenario.

4. Report

Choose the verdict, taking the first that applies:

  • Material risk if a confirmed risk would matter to users, data, compatibility, performance, or operation.
  • Unverified if an unresolved risk could be material.
  • Contained if every remaining risk is ruled out or confirmed as minor. This covers only what you inspected.

Use this format and omit sections with nothing to report:

**Verdict:** Material risk | Unverified | Contained, with one sentence on why.

**Changed contracts:** the contracts from step 1 that have consumers outside the diff.

**Risks**, confirmed and unresolved, most severe first:

- **Status: what breaks.** The conditions, who is affected, and the evidence. The next check or fix direction, plus detection and rollback when they matter.

**Ruled out:** only concerns a reviewer would likely raise, each with its evidence in one line.

**Before merge:** checks or decisions still needed.

Comments

Markdown supported