/blast-radius
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.
$ npx -y skills add cursor/plugins --skill blast-radius --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/blast-radius
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
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.
SKILL.md
blast-radius.SKILL.mdname: blast-radius
description: "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."
disable-model-invocation: true
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, and that is the trap you are walking into. So don't hand back the writeup. Find the one or two facts the whole thing depends on and prove them by running code. Words are where you start, not what you ship.
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.
Any safety fact you can't get to step 4, say so out loud. Don't write it up as settled. 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 scary 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 of the scary cases die 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. If you can't prove it cheaply, mark it unproven. Don't round up. 6. For a big or wide change, run it as an `arena`. Ask several models 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.** Only the real ones. 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.
Read more
name: blast-radius description: "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." disable-model-invocation: true
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, and that is the trap you are walking into. So don't hand back the writeup. Find the one or two facts the whole thing depends on and prove them by running code. Words are where you start, not what you ship.
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.
Any safety fact you can't get to step 4, say so out loud. Don't write it up as settled. 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 scary 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 of the scary cases die 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. If you can't prove it cheaply, mark it unproven. Don't round up. 6. For a big or wide change, run it as an `arena`. Ask several models 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.** Only the real ones. 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.
Official Cursor plugins for popular developer tools, frameworks, and SaaS products. Each plugin is a standalone directory at the repository root with its own .cursor-plugin/plugin.json manifest.
Repo: cursor/plugins
Other skills on cursor-plugins.
- /check-agent-compatibility
Run the full repository compatibility pass: scanner score, startup path, validation loop, and docs reliability.
Open skill - /cli-for-agents
Designs or reviews CLIs so coding agents can run them reliably: non-interactive flags, layered --help with examples, stdin/pipelines, fast actionable errors, idempotency, dry-run, and predictable structure. Use when building a CLI, adding commands, writing --help, or when the
Open skill - /continual-learning
Orchestrate continual learning by delegating transcript mining and AGENTS.md updates to `agents-memory-updater`.
Open skill - /create-plugin-scaffold
Create a new Cursor plugin scaffold with a valid manifest, component directories, and marketplace wiring. Use when starting a new plugin or adding a plugin to a multi-plugin repository.
Open skill - /review-plugin-submission
Audit a Cursor plugin for marketplace readiness. Use when validating manifests, component metadata, discovery paths, and submission quality before publishing.
Open skill - /cursor-sdk
Guide users building apps, scripts, CI pipelines, or automations on top of the Cursor TypeScript SDK (`@cursor/sdk`). Use this skill whenever the user mentions integrating, installing, or writing code against the Cursor SDK; whenever they say `Agent.create`, `Agent.prompt`,
Open skill

