/blast-radius

name: blast-radius
role: entrypoint
description: Analyzes code change impact with risk scoring and affected-node mapping. Use before merging to understand what a change touches and what lacks test coverage.
tags:
- code-review
- impact-analysis
- risk-scoring
tools: []
dependencies:
- imbue:review-core
- imbue:structured-output

Blast Radius Analysis

Analyze the impact of current code changes using the code knowledge graph.

When NOT To Use

• Reading the changed code for defects (use `pensive:bug-review`)
• The code graph is missing or stale (use `gauntlet:graph-build`)

Prerequisites

This skill requires the **gauntlet** plugin for graph data. Check if it's available:

GRAPH_QUERY=$(find ~/.claude/plugins -name "graph_query.py" -path "*/gauntlet/*" 2>/dev/null | head -1)

**If gauntlet is not installed** (GRAPH_QUERY is empty): Fall back to a manual impact analysis using `git diff` and `grep` to trace imports and call sites. Skip graph steps and go directly to step 3 (manual mode).

**If gauntlet is installed but no graph.db exists**: Tell the user: "Run `/gauntlet-graph build` first."

Steps

1. **Show current changes**: Run `git diff --stat` to show the user what files changed.

2. **Run impact analysis** (requires gauntlet):

   python3 "$GRAPH_QUERY" \
       --action impact --base-ref HEAD --depth 2

**Fallback tier 1 (sem available, no gauntlet)**: Use sem for cross-file dependency tracing:

   if command -v sem &>/dev/null; then
     sem impact --json <changed-file>
   fi

This traces real function-level dependencies instead of filename matching. See `leyline:sem-integration` for detection patterns.

**Fallback tier 2 (no sem, no gauntlet)**: Trace callers of changed functions with rg (or grep):

   # Prefer rg for speed; fall back to grep
   if command -v rg &>/dev/null; then
     git diff --name-only HEAD | while read f; do
       stem="${f%.*}"; stem="${stem##*/}"
       [ -z "$stem" ] && continue  # skip dotfiles (.gitignore etc.)
       rg -l "$stem" . 2>/dev/null
     done | sort -u
   else
     git diff --name-only HEAD | while read f; do
       stem="${f%.*}"; stem="${stem##*/}"
       [ -z "$stem" ] && continue  # skip dotfiles (.gitignore etc.)
       grep -rl "$stem" . 2>/dev/null
     done | sort -u
   fi

Note: this searches all file types. For Python-only projects, add `--type py` to `rg` or `--include="*.py"` to `grep` to reduce false positives.

3. **Display results in priority order**:

Format the output as a table:

   Risk  | Node                    | File          | Anchor                          | Reason
   0.85  | auth.py::verify_token   | auth.py:45    | `def verify_token(token):`      | untested, security
   0.62  | db.py::execute_query    | db.py:112     | `cursor.execute(query, params)` | high fan-in
   0.41  | api.py::handle_request  | api.py:78     | `def handle_request(req):`      | flow participant

The `Anchor` column is the verbatim source text at the cited line. It lets a reviewer confirm the finding without re-running the tool.

4. **Highlight untested functions**: List any affected functions that lack test coverage (no TESTED_BY edge).

5. **Show overall risk**: Display the overall risk level (low/medium/high) based on the maximum risk score.

6. **Suggest actions**:

• For high-risk nodes: "Consider adding tests before

merging"

• For security-sensitive nodes: "Review authentication

and authorization logic carefully"

• For high-fan-in nodes: "Changes here affect many

callers; verify backward compatibility"

Verify Findings Are Grounded (`blast-radius:findings-verified`)

Write findings to `.review/findings.json`, run the citation verifier (`Skill(imbue:review-core)` Step 5), and drop or label `UNVERIFIED` any the verifier rejects.

Exit Criteria

• [ ] Results table lists every affected node with a `File` (file:line)

and verbatim `Anchor` column.

• [ ] Overall risk level (low/medium/high) is displayed based on the

maximum risk score.

• [ ] Every reported finding carries a `Location` + verbatim `Anchor`

confirmed by `citation_verifier.py` (exit `0`), or unverified findings were dropped or labeled `UNVERIFIED`.

Risk Scoring Model

Five weighted factors (sum capped at 1.0):

| Factor | Weight | Meaning | |--------|--------|---------| | Test gap | 0.30 | No test coverage | | Security | 0.20 | Auth/crypto/SQL keywords | | Flow participation | 0.25 | Part of execution flows | | Cross-community | 0.15 | Called from other modules | | Caller count | 0.10 | High fan-in function |