본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

dependency-mapping

Map symbol dependencies, callers, and blast radius before editing code. Load when the user asks what depends on a symbol, what breaks if they change something, blast radius of a change, reverse dependencies, or which tests cover a function. Also triggers on "who calls this", "impact of changing", "dependency map", "what uses this", "find callers", or before any non-trivial edit when safe-change is not yet active. Pairs with codebase-understanding for broad architecture; this skill is symbol-scoped and edit-gated.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(3)

  • SKILL.md4.9 KB
  • references/examples.md1.5 KB
  • references/IMPACT-QUERIES.md2.0 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Dependency Mapping

You answer three mandatory impact questions before any non-trivial code edit: what depends on this symbol, what breaks if it changes, and which tests cover it. Output is an evidence-backed impact report — not guesses from file names.

Hard Rules

Never edit code — map only. Editing routes to safe-change. Answer all three impact questions in references/IMPACT-QUERIES.md with cited paths before any edit elsewhere. Prefer LSP or tree-sitter when available; fall back to ripgrep and import tracing — document which ladder rung you used. Tag every claim [EXTRACTED] (read in source) or [INFERRED] (structural guess). If scope is whole-repo architecture, call codebase-understanding first, then return here for symbol-level blast radius.


Workflow

Step 1 — Scope the target

Identify: symbol name, file path, change type (signature, behavior, rename, delete). Ask ONE question if ambiguous: "Which symbol or file should I map?"

Step 2 — Run the capability ladder

  1. LSP — go-to-references, find-references when the host exposes them.
  2. tree-sitter / AST — import/call edges when a parser is available.
  3. Text search — ripgrep for symbol name, qualified imports, string literals (routes, config keys).
  4. Test map — search test/, __tests__/, *_test.*, *.spec.* for imports or describe blocks naming the symbol.

Record ladder rung in the report.

Step 3 — Answer the three-question gate

Read references/IMPACT-QUERIES.md. Fill every row with evidence. If any row is unknown, mark [AMBIGUOUS] and list what to verify — do not proceed to edits until resolved or user accepts risk.

Step 4 — Emit impact report

Use the output format below. State risk: low | medium | high with a plain-language reason.

Step 5 — Hand off

If the user will edit next, recommend safe-change with this report attached.


Gotchas

  • Re-exports and barrel files (index.ts) hide real callers — trace through export chains.
  • Dynamic dispatch (getattr, plugin registries, DI containers) may miss static references — flag as [INFERRED] gap.
  • Generated code and lockfiles are not callers — exclude them.
  • A symbol with zero static callers may still break via reflection, config, or API contracts.

Output Format

## Impact report — [symbol] in [file]

Capability ladder: [LSP | tree-sitter | text-search]
Risk: [low | medium | high] — [one sentence]

| Question | Answer | Evidence |
|----------|--------|----------|
| What depends on this? | [callers/importers] | [paths] |
| What breaks if I change it? | [breaking surfaces] | [paths] |
| Which tests cover it? | [test files] | [paths or NONE] |

Affected files: [list]
Recommended verify: [typecheck command] + [test command or "none — behaviorVerified: false"]

Examples

Teaser: User asks "what breaks if I rename validateSkill?" → report lists 4 importers in eval-pipeline + 2 tests; risk medium.

Full pairs: references/examples.md


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"File name tells me enough"Blast radius needs import/call evidence.
"I'll find callers after I edit"That's how builds break.
"No tests means low risk"No tests means unverified risk — flag behaviorVerified: false.
"Whole repo scan is faster"Symbol scope only; use codebase-understanding for architecture.
"Dynamic calls don't matter"Flag them — they are the #1 missed breakage.

Verification

  • All three impact questions answered with paths
  • Capability ladder rung stated
  • Risk enum assigned with reason
  • No code edits performed

Red Flags

  • Impact report with zero cited paths
  • HIGH risk assigned without listing breaking surfaces
  • Edit started before three-question gate complete

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-05

  • Initial release from high-leverage skill spec (Skill 2 family)

Impact Report

Dependency mapped: [symbol] | Risk: [level] | Callers: N | Tests: N | Ladder: [rung]
Handoff: [safe-change recommended | map-only complete]

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

dvy1987의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고