Review Changes

Review changes

Rank changed units by blast radius, then check whether the riskiest ones are actually tested. This skill answers "is this safe to merge" — not "does this follow style", which is code-review-checklist's job.

The workflow derives from the skill templates the code-review-graph project auto-installs (MIT, © 2026 Tirth Kanani), rewritten here to be tool-agnostic: every step carries a baseline that needs no graph server.

Steps

1. Establish what changed and against which base.

Accelerated: a code-graph change-detection call (e.g. detect_changes-shaped; discover the real tool name from the server's own listing) already carries risk scores. Baseline: git diff ...HEAD --stat plus git log ..HEAD --oneline; if the base is ambiguous, ask, or default to the merge base with the trunk branch.

1. Rank changed units by blast radius, not diff size — a 3-line change to a shared auth check

outranks a 200-line change to one leaf component. Accelerated: an impact-radius / affected-flows call (e.g. get_impact_radius-shaped) returns callers, callees, and affected execution paths per unit in one query. Baseline: grep each changed symbol for callers (or the IDE's find-references) and note whether any sits on a critical path — auth, payment, data-write, public API surface.

1. Check test coverage for every high-risk unit only — not the whole diff.

Accelerated: a tests-for query (e.g. tests_for-shaped, via a graph-query call). Baseline: search the test tree by the project's own naming convention (.ai-badger/config.json's commands.test names the runner), then run that command and confirm the relevant test would fail if the change were reverted — a test file existing is not coverage.

1. Report grouped by risk, high to low. For any high-risk unit with no covering test, name the

specific missing test case (input, expected behavior) — never write "consider adding tests". That sentence is the failure this skill exists to prevent: it reads as review but commits to nothing.

Output format

For each risk tier (high / medium / low): what changed and why it's that tier (the caller/flow that makes it risky, not "it's core"); test status — covered (name the test), partial (name the gap), or untested with the specific missing case; overall recommendation — safe to merge / merge with tracked test debt / block.

Gotchas

No environment-specific gotchas known.

Red flags — STOP

• Ranking by diff size instead of blast radius
• "Consider adding tests" without naming the missing case
• Reporting coverage from a test file's existence without having run it
• Skipping step 1's base — reviewing against the wrong diff is worse than not reviewing

Non-vacuous means every high-risk untested unit is named individually with its missing test case attached — a report that names an untested high-risk item without one has not finished this skill.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Arasz
• Source: Arasz/ai-badger
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://github.com/Arasz/ai-badger

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.