本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

safe-change

Apply one logical code change with mandatory impact mapping, git snapshot, verification, and automatic revert on failure. Load when the user asks for a safe edit, verified change, one change at a time with rollback, or codespine-style edit loop. Also triggers on "safe change", "edit with verification", "don't break the build", "revert if tests fail", or any non-trivial code edit where blast radius matters. Always runs dependency-mapping first. Pairs with incremental-implementation for multi-slice work; this skill is one atomic verify cycle per invocation.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md4.8 KB
  • references/examples.md956 B
  • scripts/verify.sh2.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Safe Change

You make one logical edit per verify cycle: map blast radius, snapshot git state, apply the change, run scripts/verify.sh, keep on pass or auto-revert on fail. Non-negotiable.

Hard Rules

Invoke dependency-mapping and attach its impact report before editing — no exceptions for non-trivial edits. One logical change per cycle — feature + refactor = separate cycles (pr-authoring for commit separation). Take a git snapshot before editing (git stash push -u -m "safe-change snapshot" or commit on a branch). On verify failure: git restore . and git clean -fd (or git stash pop reversal) — always revert, never leave a broken tree. Never skip verify because "it's a small change." Report behaviorVerified: false when no test command exists.


Workflow

Step 1 — Impact gate

Run dependency-mapping for the target symbol/file. If risk is high and tests are NONE, confirm with user before proceeding.

Step 2 — Snapshot

git status   # must be clean or user-approved dirty scope
git stash push -u -m "safe-change: pre-edit $(date +%s)"
# OR: git checkout -b safe-change/<slug>

Record snapshot_ref (stash ref or branch name).

Step 3 — Apply one logical change

Edit only what the impact report scoped. No drive-by refactors.

Step 4 — Verify

# Use the package/fixture directory — not repo root for subpath edits
bash .agents/skills/safe-change/scripts/verify.sh examples/seed/calc

Parse JSON stdout: pass, typecheck, tests, behaviorVerified.

Step 5 — Keep or revert

ResultAction
pass: trueKeep change. Emit change-run report. Advise commit via git-workflow-and-versioning.
pass: falsegit restore . && git clean -fd (or stash pop to restore). Report failure with verify evidence. Do not retry blindly — revise plan or invoke dynamic-routing.

Step 6 — Next cycle

For multi-step work, hand off to incremental-implementation or repeat Steps 1–5 per slice.


Gotchas

  • Stash on a dirty tree may include unrelated files — scope stash paths when possible.
  • verify.sh skipping tests is not a pass for behavior — surface behaviorVerified: false.
  • Monorepos: pass the package/fixture path to verify.sh (e.g. examples/seed/calc), not . at repo root unless tests live there.
  • Auto-revert loses the failed attempt — capture error output before restoring.

Output Format

## Safe change run — [slug]

Snapshot: [stash@ref | branch]
Impact risk: [low|medium|high] (from dependency-mapping)

Verify:
- typecheck: [pass/fail] — [cmd]
- tests: [pass/fail/skip] — [cmd]
- behaviorVerified: [true/false]

Outcome: [KEPT | REVERTED]
Evidence: [stderr/stdout excerpt on failure]

Next: [commit message suggestion | revised approach]

Examples

Teaser: Rename export → impact medium → verify fails typecheck → auto-revert → report lists 3 TS errors at importers.

Full pairs: references/examples.md


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Too small to verify"Small edits cause the biggest surprise breakages.
"I'll fix forward"Revert first; forward-fix compounds errors.
"Tests are slow"Slow tests beat slow debugging.
"Impact map is overkill"It's 2 minutes vs 2 hours of bisect.
"Stash is annoying"Broken main is worse.

Verification

  • dependency-mapping report attached
  • Git snapshot taken before edit
  • verify.sh run after edit
  • Failed verify triggered revert

Red Flags

  • Edit applied without impact report
  • Verify skipped
  • Failed verify left dirty tree
  • Multiple logical changes in one cycle

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-05

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

Impact Report

Safe change: [slug] | Outcome: [KEPT|REVERTED] | behaviorVerified: [bool]
Verify: typecheck=[pass/fail] tests=[pass/fail/skip]

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

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".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

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).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

dvy1987/agent-loom32026年8月8日 更新

dvy1987 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する