Blast Radius

作者 cursorccb5507cec15無授權條款10K 個星標收錄於 2026年10月8日更新於 2026年10月8日儲存庫今天更新

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 產生的概覽

審查程式碼變更在 diff 之外可能造成的破壞,並透過執行真實程式碼驗證關鍵安全事實。

功能
此技能引導代理對變更進行影響範圍審查:閱讀 diff,找出變更安全性所依賴的那一項關鍵事實,並檢查符號搜尋找不到的地方,例如函式庫原始碼、鎖定版本、執行時機、傳輸格式與下游使用方。產出包含變更內容、安全事實及其證明或標記為未證實、附 file:line 與發生機率的已確認風險、已排查項目,以及合併前成本最低的測試。它強調透過執行指令碼或測試呼叫真實程式碼來證明關鍵事實,而非依賴看似合理的書面論述。
適用情境
當被問及某項變更的影響範圍、可能破壞什麼,或需要審查一個尚不信任的小型 diff 時使用。適用於合併前審查,此時 diff 之外的破壞比列出呼叫方更重要。
執行需求
不附指令碼,僅為說明性指示。需要代理能夠讀取程式碼庫與 diff、針對真實程式碼執行指令碼或測試,並可在變更範圍較大時諮詢其他模型。文中提到名為 how、why、arena 與 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.

來源與署名

來源:cursor/plugins位於pstack/skills/blast-radius提交ccb5507

授權條款: 無授權條款

內容歸原作者所有。SourceWeft 從公開儲存庫中收錄這些內容。

檢舉或申請下架