Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

otto-impact-assessment

Assess the full code change for effects on callers, configuration, and related behavior. Organize focused tests, execution evidence, and unverified areas to support decisions about whether a fix or pull request is ready.

OriginalShow the original description

Check the final diff's consumers, focused tests, evidence, and gaps.

See how to install

Good for

  • Check effects on callers of shared code
  • Organize test evidence before approving a pull request
  • Report unverified areas before handing off a fix

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Shared impact assessment — every resolution path

Before claiming success (Resolve: fixed) or approving a PR, check what the full final diff could break beyond the requested change. This applies to every mode (Resolve: author, existing-PR review, ticket-only, and review-remediation), including skip_push and workflow-owned publication. (Resolve: ticket-only and review-remediation still do not require an inherited repro; their publication/branch permissions are unchanged.)

  1. Inspect the candidate and its consumers. Start the assessment while investigating, then refresh it after the last edit. Record the target branch's full tip SHA as base_sha and the candidate's full HEAD SHA as head_sha. Inspect git diff <base_sha>...<head_sha> plus staged, unstaged, and untracked source/test changes. Include configuration, dependencies, and workflows; runtime prompts count as behavior changes even when stored in Markdown. In review modes, inspect the whole PR, not only edits made in this run. Follow shared helpers to their callers and existing tests. For each meaningful risk, identify the changed files, affected behavior, consumers, invariant to preserve, and focused check. A passing original repro is not coverage for every consumer.

  2. Exercise the relevant boundaries. Select checks from the actual change:

    Changed behaviorRequired focused coverage when applicable
    Shared startup, configuration, auth, or serializationExisting/default configurations and other affected consumers; exercise configuration creation, transport/decoding, and real process startup together. Correctly constructed objects supplied directly to a unit test do not cover that path.
    SandboxingThe applicable real OS sandbox with its intended gates enabled. A disabled gate or an unsupported/skipped sandbox test leaves that boundary uncovered.
    UI state or interactionThe reported journey and affected adjacent journeys on the candidate build, including relevant selection, persistence, or reconnect behavior.
    Environment-derived defaultsOrdinary configuration and relevant ambient variables populated; apply the agent's hermetic check (Resolve: 2B.5).
    Performance or timingMeasure the claimed quantity under the relevant workload. Distinguish simulated-clock tests from elapsed-time measurements; functional success alone does not establish latency or throughput.

    Use existing tests where they cover the invariant; add a behavioral regression test only for a meaningful gap. Tests of the requested change follow their mode's baseline requirements (Resolve: review-remediation still skips fail-before proof). Checks protecting previously correct behavior may pass on both base and candidate; do not manufacture a failing baseline for them. Run the focused checks for each affected consumer/boundary, even when they live in a different module. Do not run the full repository suite locally. Do not weaken isolation or change global rollout settings to obtain a passing result.

  3. Record observed results in impact_assessment. Each risk names its check, result (passed, failed, blocked, or not_run), and retained evidence. Reference actual command/output or CI run artifacts; include the tested revision/build, dependency pins, and relevant environment/feature gates. Confirm the test imports and exercises this candidate, not another checkout, installed copy, stale SPA, or older CI runtime. Record worktree_state as clean only when the tested source/tests are clean; otherwise name the uncommitted source/test/support files and their content hashes. Artifact-only dirt can be noted separately. A HEAD SHA alone does not identify dirty code.

    Distinguish component tests, real process/sandbox checks, and live bot checks. An unrun, skipped, xfailed, or setup-failing required check is not a pass: name the missing boundary and reason in uncovered_boundaries. A large green test count or an unrelated green CI job does not fill that gap. Evidence references describe what was retained; never invent an execution record.

  4. Refresh before delivery. Re-read the final diff, Git status, and current base/head before every final handoff or review verdict. For an existing PR, compare with the live GitHub base/head SHAs, not just local refs. If the author moved the head, follow the mode's update/retry procedure without approving from old results. After a retry, new PR head, merge/rebase, CI/Polly fix, or changed code, assertions, dependencies, or relevant environment, rebuild the assessment and rerun affected checks. Reuse a result only when its tested contents and context still match; retain its original identity rather than relabeling old evidence as a new execution. Commit hooks can change tested files too. Keep earlier evidence and the saved checkpoint; never reset work to make the identities match.

  5. Let gaps affect the verdict. Success (Resolve: fixed) requires the original behavior to be proven as its mode requires, all identified regression risks checked, and no uncovered required boundary. A discovered regression must be repaired and checked before success or approval. If a change is only partly verified, preserve the work, use the partial outcome (Resolve: partially_fixed), and name the failing/unrun checks in remaining_work; use needs_more_info when verification cannot establish a resolution. Setup failures are blockers, not proof of a product regression. A missing recording alone still follows the agent's recording rules.

Summarize the affected behavior, checks, and gaps in the PR's Test Plan or review body. The assessment is an agent-authored explanation, not an execution recorder or a guarantee of no regressions. Record empty risks only with a concrete not_applicable_reason (for example, no candidate exists yet, or inspection found only documentation that is never loaded at runtime); never use it to excuse an untested behavior change.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Test Omnigent’s native Antigravity integration with a live local server and the real agy CLI. Verify messages traveling between the web interface and terminal, mirrored replies, permission requests, interruption, session resumption, and process cleanup.

  • Testing message delivery from the web interface to agy
  • Checking terminal output against mirrored session replies
  • Verifying permission requests and interruption
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

Test Omnigent’s Antigravity SDK integration against a live local server. Build test agents and run real conversations to check Gemini authentication, model selection, tool connections, and failures across the full execution path.

  • Test authentication and real Gemini responses
  • Verify tool connections and sub-agent delegation
  • Investigate model selection failures
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

api-docs

FreeSummary

Create reference documentation directly from source code for public functions, classes, command-line commands, and endpoints. Organize parameters, defaults, return values, errors, and runnable examples, then check that the documentation matches the implementation.

  • Writing reference docs for a public module
  • Documenting command-line arguments and defaults
  • Adding minimal usage examples for an API
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

build-omnigent

FreeSummary

Create an Omnigent agent directory using validated templates for configuration and instructions. Choose how the agent runs, then add web search, shell access, external tool connections, or subagents only when the task requires them.

  • Creating a minimal Omnigent agent
  • Configuring an agent with web search
  • Adding shell access or MCP tool connections
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

changelog

FreeSummary

Turn a selected range of commits or merged pull requests into release notes grouped by change type. Describe user-visible effects, link to supporting changes, and highlight breaking changes so readers can assess an upgrade.

  • Write release notes covering changes since the last tag
  • Summarize pull requests merged during a selected period
  • Highlight breaking changes before an upgrade
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

cli-setup-verify

FreeSummary

Test Omnigent’s setup, help, and terminal interactions by driving the real CLI in an isolated environment. Capture rendered screens and compare checks before and after a change to establish whether a reported interface problem was fixed.

  • Reproducing a first-run setup problem
  • Inspecting menus in a narrow terminal
  • Checking help text and command visibility
omnigent-ai/omnigent10.9KUpdated Oct 18, 2026

See all skills by omnigent-ai

Report a problem with this skill