Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to shelizi/coding-tools-mcp. 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/shelizi/coding-tools-mcp/main/.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/shelizi/coding-tools-mcpWrote 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/shelizi/coding-tools-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/shelizi/coding-tools-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/shelizi/coding-tools-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00050 | $0.00755 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00025 | $0.00378 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00151 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00076 |
Grade A, and why
gitnexus-impact-analysis 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 6d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to gitnexus-impact-analysis — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 98 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Impact Analysis with GitNexus
When to Use
- "Is it safe to change this function?"
- "What will break if I modify X?"
- "Show me the blast radius"
- "Who uses this code?"
- Before making non-trivial code changes
- Before committing — to understand what your changes affect
Workflow
1. impact({target: "X", direction: "upstream"}) → What depends on this
2. READ gitnexus://repo/{name}/processes → Check affected execution flows
3. detect_changes() → Map current git changes to affected flows
4. Assess risk and report to user
If "Index is stale" → run
node .gitnexus/run.cjs analyzein terminal.
Checklist
- [ ] impact({target, direction: "upstream"}) to find dependents
- [ ] Review d=1 items first (these WILL BREAK)
- [ ] Check high-confidence (>0.8) dependencies
- [ ] READ processes to check affected execution flows
- [ ] detect_changes() for pre-commit check
- [ ] Assess risk level and report to user
Understanding Output
| Depth | Risk Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| d=1 | WILL BREAK | Direct callers/importers |
| d=2 | LIKELY AFFECTED | Indirect dependencies |
| d=3 | MAY NEED TESTING | Transitive effects |
Risk Assessment
| Affected | Risk |
|---|---|
| <5 symbols, few processes | LOW |
| 5-15 symbols, 2-5 processes | MEDIUM |
| >15 symbols or many processes | HIGH |
| Critical path (auth, payments) | CRITICAL |
Tools
impact — the primary tool for symbol blast radius:
impact({
target: "validateUser",
direction: "upstream",
minConfidence: 0.8,
maxDepth: 3
})
→ d=1 (WILL BREAK):
- loginHandler (src/auth/login.ts:42) [CALLS, 100%]
- apiMiddleware (src/api/middleware.ts:15) [CALLS, 100%]
→ d=2 (LIKELY AFFECTED):
- authRouter (src/routes/auth.ts:22) [CALLS, 95%]
detect_changes — git-diff based impact 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.
- 6d ago First seen · 98 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 09e529505da1
gitnexus-impact-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository shelizi/coding-tools-mcp (0 stars, last pushed 14d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 755 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to gitnexus-impact-analysis, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
autoreview
Pre-commit/ship code review: Codex default; optional Claude or Pi.
rework-rate
Measure and interpret PR rework rate — the emerging 5th DORA metric.
omh-code-review
This is a Hermes-native code-review workflow skill.
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"…
code-reviewer
Code review specialist focused on patterns, bugs, security, and performance.
full-repo-review
Comprehensive four-wave review of all repo source files, producing a prioritized issue backlog.