Blast Radius

作者 cursorccb5507cec15无许可证10K 个星标收录于 2026年10月8日更新于 2026年10月8日仓库今天更新

Find what a change could break somewhere else before it ships, beyond the diff, and prove the one fact it's safe because of by running real code instead of writing it up. Use for 'blast radius of X', 'what could this break', or reviewing a small diff you don't trust.

AI 生成的概览

审查代码改动在 diff 之外可能造成的破坏,并通过运行真实代码验证关键安全事实。

功能
该技能引导智能体对改动做影响范围审查:阅读 diff,找出改动安全性所依赖的那一个关键事实,并检查符号搜索发现不了的地方,例如库源码、锁定版本、执行时机、传输格式和下游使用方。产出包括改动内容、安全事实及其证明或标记为未证实、带 file:line 和发生概率的已确认风险、已排查项,以及合并前成本最低的测试。它强调通过运行脚本或测试调用真实代码来证明关键事实,而不是依赖看似合理的书面论证。
适用场景
当被问及某改动的影响范围、可能破坏什么,或需要审查一个尚不信任的小型 diff 时使用。适用于合并前审查,此时 diff 之外的破坏比列出调用方更重要。
运行要求
不附带脚本,仅为说明性指令。需要智能体能够读取代码库和 diff、针对真实代码运行脚本或测试,并可在改动范围较大时咨询其他模型。文中提到名为 how、why、arena 和 unslop 的配套技能。

Blast radius

Find what a change breaks somewhere else, before it ships. Use for "blast radius of X", "what could this break", or reviewing a small diff you don't trust yet.

Companion to how and why. how tells you what the code does. why tells you why it's shaped that way. Blast radius tells you what it breaks somewhere else.

Listing the callers is not the job. The agent can grep those in a second. The job is the breakage grep won't show you.

Don't trust your own writeup

A blast-radius writeup that sounds right is worthless. It reads as convincing whether or not it's true. So don't hand back the writeup. Find the one or two facts the whole thing depends on and prove them by running code.

How sure are you

For each fact the change's safety depends on, get it as far down this list as is cheap, and say where it stopped.

  1. You said so. Worthless on its own.
  2. You pointed at the line. A real file:line, or the library's own source.
  3. You showed the bad case can't happen. You walked the failure step by step and it doesn't reach.
  4. You ran it. A script or test that calls the real code and fails loud if you're wrong.
  5. You reproduced it in the running app.

Step 4 is usually one small script that imports the same library the app ships and calls the exact function you're worried about.

Steps

  1. Read the change. The diff, the symbols it adds, changes, and deletes, and what it now does differently, including the part the diff doesn't spell out. Use why step 2 to pull the PR and commits.
  2. Find the one fact it's safe because of. Most changes that look risky are safe because of a single fact, like "this call only drops already-dead cache entries and does nothing else". Find that fact. If it holds, most risky cases are cleared at once. Spend your time here, not on a long list of maybes.
  3. Look where grep stops. Read the source of the library you call, and check its pinned version and any local patch. Work out when things run: microtasks, unmount and teardown, Solid versus React. Follow what a symbol search misses: the JSON an API returns, a DB column, a wire format, another language reading the same bytes, a feature flag, code three hops downstream.
  4. Be honest about each risk. Give it a real chance of happening and a real cost if it does. Keep the risks you confirmed. List the ones you checked and cleared separately. Same rules as why. Cite a real file:line, a search that finds nothing is still an answer, and never make up a caller or an API.
  5. Prove the one fact. Write a script or test that runs the real code, run it, and paste what happened.
  6. For a big or wide change, run it as an arena. Ask more than one model the same question and merge the answers. Different models catch different real bugs.

What to hand back

  • What it does. What changed, including the part that isn't obvious.
  • The one fact it's safe because of. State it, say which step you got it to, and show the proof. If you couldn't prove it, write unproven.
  • Risks. Each names how it breaks, the file:line, how likely and how bad, and how to check. Paste the proof for the ones that matter.
  • Cleared. What you checked and why it's fine.
  • Before you merge. The cheapest test or repro that catches the real bug, including the script you wrote.

Write it through unslop, cite real code, and strip anything private before it goes anywhere public.

Reply: the writeup above, with the one safety fact either proven or marked unproven.

来源与署名

来源:cursor/plugins位于pstack/skills/blast-radius提交ccb5507

许可证: 无许可证

内容归原作者所有。SourceWeft 从公开仓库中收录这些内容。

举报或申请下架