Claude Skill

change-impact-analysis

Use this skill when you need to analyze how a code, configuration, or requirement change affects quality scope; triggers include change impact analysis.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 0 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download naodeng-awesome-qa-skills-skills_en_testing-types_change-impact-analysis-c44b892.zip · 7 KB
naodeng/awesome-qa-skills 230 31 forks Updated 3d ago
Part of naodeng/awesome-qa-skills — 97 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills/tree/main/skills/en/testing-types/change-impact-analysis
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install naodeng-awesome-qa-skills@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/naodeng/awesome-qa-skills.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole naodeng/awesome-qa-skills collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Change Impact Analysis

When to Use

  • Use this skill when you need to identify affected capabilities, regression scope, and release risk from code, configuration, data, and dependency changes.
  • Use it to review an existing plan, result, or evidence set and produce actionable improvements.
  • Use it when context is incomplete but a bounded first pass is still valuable.

Output Format Options

  • Default to Markdown for review, execution, and incremental refinement.
  • When the user requests tables, CSV, JSON, or ticket fields, preserve risk, evidence, priority, and boundary information.
  • For machine-consumed output, confirm the schema, enums, and required fields first.

How to Use

  1. Read and follow prompts/change-impact-analysis.md, including its input contract, execution rules, minimum coverage, and output order.
  2. Add only context that changes the decision: scope, environment, version, constraints, evidence, and success criteria.
  3. Audit the input, then separate confirmed facts, working assumptions, and open questions.
  4. Rank by risk and evidence strength, and produce an artifact that can be executed or reviewed directly.
  5. If information is missing, deliver a bounded first pass and state which conclusions remain unsupported.

Reference Files

  • Always read prompts/change-impact-analysis.md; it is the complete execution specification for this skill.
  • For evaluation or regression, read evals/eval.yaml and the relevant cases under evals/cases/.
  • Load references/, examples/, scripts/, or output-formats.md only when those directories exist and the task needs them.

Core Constraints

  • separate confirmed from inferred impact
  • do not select tests only by changed files
  • flag untraceable dependencies as risk
  • Never invent system behavior, fields, data, metrics, or root causes absent from the evidence.
  • Link important conclusions to evidence; mark unsupported conclusions as hypotheses with a verification method.
  • Explain priority using business impact, likelihood, or detectability.

Delivery Checklist

  • Covered: direct impact, transitive impact, data compatibility, API contracts, permissions, runtime dependencies, rollback, observability.
  • Separated facts, assumptions, gaps, and recommendations.
  • Gave high-risk items a priority, evidence basis, owner or next action.
  • Defined verifiable decision criteria instead of generic advice.
  • Performed no unauthorized production writes or destructive actions.

Common Pitfalls

  • Listing checks without preconditions, expected outcomes, or evidence.
  • Marking everything high priority and avoiding tradeoffs.
  • Substituting tool names or generic theory for domain reasoning.
  • Refusing incomplete input, or pretending incomplete evidence supports certainty.

Best Practices

  • Start with paths most likely to cause business loss, safety issues, or release blockage.
  • Reduce uncertainty through the smallest verifiable experiment and record reproduction conditions.
  • Make the artifact executable and independently reviewable by another engineer.
Files (awesome-qa-skills)
  • agents
    • openai.yaml 301 B 
      version: 1
metadata:
  key: change-impact-analysis
interface:
  display_name: "Change Impact Analysis"
  short_description: "Analyze quality impact scope and risk from change"
  default_prompt: "Use the change-impact-analysis skill to analyze change impact."
policy:
  allow_implicit_invocation: true
  • evals
    • cases
      • basic-success.yaml 854 B 
        id: basic-success
title: "Change Impact Analysis: domain-complete scenario"
description: |
  Checks that the skill produces domain-specific, evidence-based, prioritized, executable output.

input:
  prompt: |
    Use the change-impact-analysis skill for this scenario: checkout changes tax calculation, upgrades an exchange-rate dependency, and adds a database field. The basic scope is available. Provide risk priorities, core execution items, expected results or decision criteria, evidence, and open questions.

expect:
  must_contain:
    - "Task Understanding"
    - "Input Audit"
    - "Risks"
    - "P0"
    - "Expected"
  must_not_contain:
    - "TODO"
    - "I cannot"
    - "unable to help"

judge:
  type: rule_based
  success:
    - output_contains:
        all:
          - "Task Understanding"
          - "Input Audit"
          - "Risks"
      • edge-incomplete-input.yaml 895 B 
        id: edge-incomplete-input
title: "Change Impact Analysis: bounded first pass with incomplete input"
description: |
  Checks that missing context leads to a bounded first pass with assumptions and gaps, not refusal or invention.

input:
  prompt: |
    Use the change-impact-analysis skill. The only known fact is: checkout changes tax calculation, upgrades an exchange-rate dependency, and adds a database field. No environment, version, or supporting evidence is available. Deliver a useful first pass and state which conclusions are unsupported.

expect:
  must_contain:
    - "Working Assumptions"
    - "Open Questions"
    - "evidence"
    - "Next Actions"
  must_not_contain:
    - "TODO"
    - "I cannot"
    - "unable to help"

judge:
  type: rule_based
  success:
    - output_contains:
        all:
          - "Working Assumptions"
          - "Open Questions"
          - "evidence"
      • edge-risk-priority.yaml 854 B 
        id: edge-risk-priority
title: "Change Impact Analysis: high-risk boundary and tradeoffs"
description: |
  Checks that a constrained window produces risk focus plus stop, escalation, or human-handoff boundaries.

input:
  prompt: |
    Use the change-impact-analysis skill for: checkout changes tax calculation, upgrades an exchange-rate dependency, and adds a database field. The execution window is half a day and no destructive production action is authorized. Bound the scope, prioritize P0/P1, and state residual risk plus stop or escalation conditions.

expect:
  must_contain:
    - "P0"
    - "P1"
    - "Residual Risk"
    - "condition"
  must_not_contain:
    - "TODO"
    - "I cannot"
    - "unable to help"

judge:
  type: rule_based
  success:
    - output_contains:
        all:
          - "P0"
          - "P1"
          - "Residual Risk"
      • phase-1-project-context.yaml 3.9 KB 
        id: phase-1-project-context
title: "Phase 1 project context: dsh-qa Panel/Slot migration impact"
description: |
  Verifies that change-impact analysis turns real project constraints, evidence paths, and unassessed boundaries into traceable impact analysis instead of treating Match Review as runtime proof.

input:
  prompt: |
    Use the change-impact-analysis skill to review the following dsh-qa project context for the v1.6 Phase 1 review. Do not assume access to the external repository; the facts and links below are the evidence for this run.

    Project: naodeng/dsh-qa at pinned revision 6d650cae72be8fc582bc4f47d6ba48e3fc28157d.
    Evidence:
    - docs/quality-workbench/2026-09-15-requirements.md: v0.5.0 migrates the Workbench shell from DOM selectors to the official Panel/Slot contract while preserving the Workbench iframe and API boundary.
    - docs/quality-workbench/2026-08-25-technical-design.md: the execution profile allows one running test per project, two globally, MAX_ACTIVE_PREVIEWS=20, queueing, and terminal states.
    - server/quality/test-runner.js: MAX_RUNNING_PER_PROJECT=1, MAX_RUNNING_GLOBAL=2, MAX_ACTIVE_PREVIEWS=20, and terminal states are defined in the runner.
    - test/e2e/dsh-panel-lifecycle.spec.js: observable Panel lifecycle behavior is covered.
    - Stable link: https://github.com/naodeng/dsh-qa/blob/6d650cae72be8fc582bc4f47d6ba48e3fc28157d/docs/quality-workbench/2026-09-15-requirements.md

    Produce Task Understanding and Scope, Input Audit, P0-P3 risks, and an impact map covering direct impact and transitive impact. Cover data compatibility, API contracts, permissions, runtime dependencies, rollback, and observability. Give preconditions, expected results or decision criteria, and evidence paths for every high-risk item. Separate confirmed facts, working assumptions, open questions, blockers, and residual risk. Explain why semantic equivalence remains UNASSESSED here and why this cannot replace runtime, model, or business acceptance.
    To keep the evidence boundary traceable, preserve these labels verbatim: Confirmed Facts, Working Assumptions, Open Questions, Evidence Paths, and UNASSESSED. Cite the supplied file paths verbatim and do not turn static constraints into production or semantic-equivalence claims.

constraints:
  timeout_seconds: 720

expect:
  must_contain:
    - "Task Understanding and Scope"
    - "Input Audit"
    - "Direct impact"
    - "Transitive impact"
    - "API contract"
    - "Panel/Slot"
    - "iframe"
    - "API"
    - "MAX_ACTIVE_PREVIEWS=20"
    - "rollback"
    - "evidence"
    - "Confirmed Facts"
    - "Working Assumptions"
    - "Open Questions"
    - "Evidence Paths"
    - "docs/quality-workbench/2026-09-15-requirements.md"
    - "docs/quality-workbench/2026-08-25-technical-design.md"
    - "server/quality/test-runner.js"
    - "test/e2e/dsh-panel-lifecycle.spec.js"
    - "Residual Risk"
    - "UNASSESSED"
  must_not_contain:
    - "TODO"
    - "I cannot"
    - "unable to help"

judge:
  type: rule_based
  success:
    - output_contains:
        all:
          - "Direct impact"
          - "Transitive impact"
          - "Panel/Slot"
          - "MAX_ACTIVE_PREVIEWS=20"
          - "UNASSESSED"
          - "evidence"
          - "Residual Risk"
    - output_matches:
        all:
          - "(?i)Confirmed Facts"
          - "(?i)Working Assumptions"
          - "(?i)Open Questions"
          - "(?i)Evidence Paths"
          - "docs/quality-workbench/2026-09-15-requirements.md"
          - "docs/quality-workbench/2026-08-25-technical-design.md"
          - "server/quality/test-runner.js"
          - "test/e2e/dsh-panel-lifecycle.spec.js"
        not:
          - "(?im)^([-*] )?(production capacity|semantic equivalence) (is|has been) (proven|confirmed|validated|established|demonstrated)[.!]?$"
          - "(?im)^([-*] )?semantic equivalence holds[.!]?$"
          - "(?im)^([-*] )?(business|production) acceptance (is|has been) (complete|passed|approved)[.!]?$"
    • eval.yaml 604 B 
      schema_version: v1alpha1

environment:
  type: none

skills:
  - source: local_path
    path: .

engine:
  name: claude_code
  # model is optional; omit to use engine default
  # model:
  #   provider: anthropic
  #   name: claude-sonnet-4-6

cases:
  files:
    - evals/cases/basic-success.yaml
    - evals/cases/edge-incomplete-input.yaml
    - evals/cases/edge-risk-priority.yaml
    - evals/cases/phase-1-project-context.yaml
  defaults:
    timeout_seconds: 180
    max_turns: 8
    expect:
      exit_code: 0
      must_not_contain:
        - "TODO"
        - "I cannot"

report:
  formats: [json]
  • prompts
    • change-impact-analysis.md 3.8 KB 
      # Change Impact Analysis Prompt

Identify affected capabilities, regression scope, and release risk from code, configuration, data, and dependency changes and produce an artifact that can be executed, reviewed, and tracked directly.

## Role

You are a senior risk- and evidence-driven QA practitioner who controls conclusion boundaries when context is incomplete.

## Input

Prefer real materials supplied by the user:

- requirements and change notes
- code diff
- dependency graph
- configuration and schema changes
- defect history
- scope, environment, version, time budget, toolchain, and prohibited actions
- existing results, historical failures, monitoring evidence, and stakeholder concerns

If critical input is absent, list `Working Assumptions` and `Open Questions`, then still deliver a bounded first pass.

## What to do

1. Restate the objective, subject, and success criteria in one sentence.
2. Audit input completeness, credibility, recency, and comparability.
3. Build a risk or failure model and prioritize high-impact, likely, or hard-to-detect issues.
4. Convert analysis into concrete scenarios, assertions, verification steps, or decision gates.
5. Report residual risk, evidence gaps, and next actions without presenting hypotheses as facts.

## Execution Rules

- separate confirmed from inferred impact
- do not select tests only by changed files
- flag untraceable dependencies as risk
- Give an evidence basis for every important conclusion; label unsupported claims as `Hypothesis to Verify`.
- Each scenario must include preconditions, action or stimulus, expected behavior, and required evidence.
- Use P0/P1/P2/P3 or an equivalent scale and explain the ranking.
- Reuse the current toolchain and assets; avoid large code samples unless the user requests them.
- For production, security, or privacy work, default to least privilege, masked data, mocks, dry runs, or isolated environments.

## Minimum Coverage Checklist

Unless the user narrows the scope, cover at least:

- direct impact
- transitive impact
- data compatibility
- API contracts
- permissions
- runtime dependencies
- rollback
- observability
- confirmed facts, working assumptions, and open questions
- blockers for execution, release, or decision making
- residual risk and how it will be accepted, mitigated, or investigated

## Output

Language contract: respond in English unless the user explicitly requests another language. Keep the section labels in this prompt in English; do not mix Chinese headings into an English output.

Heading contract: even when input is incomplete, preserve these labels verbatim: `Working Assumptions`, `Open Questions`, `Next Actions`, and `evidence`. Do not replace them with synonyms. If evidence is missing, keep the labels and write `INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE` or `UNASSESSED` instead of omitting the section.

Use this order:

### 1. Task Understanding and Scope
- objective, subject, success criteria, inclusions, and exclusions

### 2. Input Audit
- confirmed facts, working assumptions, open questions, and evidence quality

### 3. Risks and Priorities
- P0/P1/P2/P3, impact, rationale, and sequence

### 4. Core Analysis and Execution Items
- change summary
- impact map
- risk ranking
- test recommendations
- release and rollback checks
- evidence gaps
- include preconditions, steps, expected result or decision criterion, and evidence for each item

### 5. Blockers and Residual Risk
- stop, escalation, rollback, or human-handoff conditions

### 6. Next Actions and Open Questions
- smallest verification actions, suggested owners, and missing materials

## Quality Bar

- Tailor the content to the input; do not merely rename a generic template.
- Make high-risk paths concrete with failure modes, expected behavior, and evidence.
- Never invent numbers, root causes, or system behavior.
- Let an executor act without guessing and a reviewer trace every important judgment.
  • SKILL.md 3.2 KB 
    ---
name: change-impact-analysis
description: Use this skill when you need to analyze how a code, configuration, or requirement change affects quality scope; triggers include change impact analysis.
---

# Change Impact Analysis

## When to Use

- Use this skill when you need to identify affected capabilities, regression scope, and release risk from code, configuration, data, and dependency changes.
- Use it to review an existing plan, result, or evidence set and produce actionable improvements.
- Use it when context is incomplete but a bounded first pass is still valuable.

## Output Format Options

- Default to Markdown for review, execution, and incremental refinement.
- When the user requests tables, CSV, JSON, or ticket fields, preserve risk, evidence, priority, and boundary information.
- For machine-consumed output, confirm the schema, enums, and required fields first.

## How to Use

1. Read and follow `prompts/change-impact-analysis.md`, including its input contract, execution rules, minimum coverage, and output order.
2. Add only context that changes the decision: scope, environment, version, constraints, evidence, and success criteria.
3. Audit the input, then separate confirmed facts, working assumptions, and open questions.
4. Rank by risk and evidence strength, and produce an artifact that can be executed or reviewed directly.
5. If information is missing, deliver a bounded first pass and state which conclusions remain unsupported.

## Reference Files

- Always read `prompts/change-impact-analysis.md`; it is the complete execution specification for this skill.
- For evaluation or regression, read `evals/eval.yaml` and the relevant cases under `evals/cases/`.
- Load `references/`, `examples/`, `scripts/`, or `output-formats.md` only when those directories exist and the task needs them.

## Core Constraints

- separate confirmed from inferred impact
- do not select tests only by changed files
- flag untraceable dependencies as risk
- Never invent system behavior, fields, data, metrics, or root causes absent from the evidence.
- Link important conclusions to evidence; mark unsupported conclusions as hypotheses with a verification method.
- Explain priority using business impact, likelihood, or detectability.

## Delivery Checklist

- [ ] Covered: direct impact, transitive impact, data compatibility, API contracts, permissions, runtime dependencies, rollback, observability.
- [ ] Separated facts, assumptions, gaps, and recommendations.
- [ ] Gave high-risk items a priority, evidence basis, owner or next action.
- [ ] Defined verifiable decision criteria instead of generic advice.
- [ ] Performed no unauthorized production writes or destructive actions.

## Common Pitfalls

- Listing checks without preconditions, expected outcomes, or evidence.
- Marking everything high priority and avoiding tradeoffs.
- Substituting tool names or generic theory for domain reasoning.
- Refusing incomplete input, or pretending incomplete evidence supports certainty.

## Best Practices

- Start with paths most likely to cause business loss, safety issues, or release blockage.
- Reduce uncertainty through the smallest verifiable experiment and record reproduction conditions.
- Make the artifact executable and independently reviewable by another engineer.

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related

Claude Prompt
Tighten-my-prose editing prompt
Claude Skill
Adversarial code-review skill for Claude
Claude Workflow
Deep-research workflow (fan-out + verify)
Claude Skill
Conventional-commit writer for Claude