Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to dixus/claudeframework. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dixus/claudeframework/main/.claude/skills/impact/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/dixus/claudeframeworkWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/dixus/claudeframework/impact)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dixus/claudeframework/impact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dixus/claudeframework/impact/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/dixus/claudeframework/impact"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/dixus/claudeframework/impact.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00032 | $0.00688 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00013 | $0.00275 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00138 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00069 |
Grade A, and why
impact scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
Analyze the blast radius of changing a function, method, class, or file before making the change.
$ARGUMENTS is the target to analyze. Can be:
- A function name:
enqueue_email - A file path:
src/modules/documents/services.py - A class:
SupplierInvitation - A method:
Tender.clone
Steps
-
Resolve the target — find the definition:
- Use Grep to locate the function/class/method definition
- Read the file to understand its signature (params, return type)
- Note any recent signature changes (new optional params, changed return type)
-
Find all call sites — everywhere the target is used:
- Grep for the function/class name across the entire codebase
- Group results by module: API services, routes, worker tasks, tests, frontend hooks
- For each call site, note whether it passes all current params or relies on defaults
-
Find all test mocks — tests that patch or mock the target:
- Grep for
patch("...target_name"),mock_target_name,AsyncMockreferences - Grep for
vi.mockandvi.fnin frontend test files that reference the endpoint - Note which mock factories would need updating if the signature changes
- Grep for
-
Find frontend consumers (if the target is a route or service behind a route):
- Identify the API endpoint(s) that call this function
- Grep frontend
hooks/andlib/for the endpoint path - Check TypeScript types in
types/api.tsthat would need updating
-
Find downstream dependencies — other functions that depend on the target's return value:
- If the target returns an ORM object or dict, find code that accesses specific fields of that return value
- If the target writes to DB, find queries that read from the same table
-
Report — print a structured summary:
## Impact Analysis: `<target>`
### Definition
- File: <path>:<line>
- Signature: <current signature>
### Call Sites (<count>)
| File | Line | Passes all params? |
|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ✅ / ❌ missing: param_x, param_y |
### Test Mocks (<count>)
| Test file | Mock pattern | Needs update? |
|---|---|---|
### Frontend Consumers (<count>)
| File | Hook/Function | Endpoint |
|---|---|---|
### Downstream Dependencies
- <any functions that consume this target's return value>
### Risk Assessment
- **Blast radius**: small (≤3 files) / medium (4-10 files) / large (>10 files)
- **Recommended approach**: <one-line suggestion>
Do NOT make any code changes. This skill is read-only analysis.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 2mo ago First seen · 76 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 790e889db13b
impact is a skill published in the GitHub repository dixus/claudeframework (10 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 688 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Structured code review through the shared OpenClaw agent-skills installation.
omh-code-review
This is an OMH code-review workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).
revdiff-plan
Review the last Codex assistant message (plan, analysis, or proposal) with inline annotations in a TUI overlay. Extracts the most recent response from Codex rollout files and opens it in revdiff for review and annotation. Activates on "revdiff-plan", "review plan with revdiff", "annotate plan", "review last response"…
explore-unknowns
Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when a request is ambiguous or underspecified, the…
re0-merge
Review and land an external contribution the way this suite does: gate it against the thesis, land it with the author's credit intact, complete a new skill rather than merging it raw, then approve, credit, and explain before closing. Use when reviewing a pull request, as any collaborator or maintainer, not only the…
asplos-writing-style
Use when drafting or revising ASPLOS prose — engineering the first two pages that rapid review actually reads, stating the cross-layer insight as one quotable sentence, structuring per-layer mechanism sections, writing bounded claims, and fitting everything into 11 self-contained pages that include figures and…