Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add theagenticguy/opencodehub --skill codehub-impact-analysisgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/theagenticguy/opencodehubWrote 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/theagenticguy/opencodehub/codehub-impact-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/codehub-impact-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/codehub-impact-analysis/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/theagenticguy/opencodehub/codehub-impact-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/theagenticguy/opencodehub/codehub-impact-analysis.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 | $0.00058 | $0.01529 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00023 | $0.00612 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00306 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00153 |
Grade A, and why
codehub-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 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.
This is a copy
97% identical to opencodehub-impact-analysis — 2 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 — 152 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Impact Analysis with OpenCodeHub
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 committing or merging a non-trivial change.
Decision Tree
Is the target a symbol (function, class, method, property)?
└─ yes → mcp__codehub__impact
Is the target an HTTP route or API endpoint?
└─ yes → mcp__codehub__api_impact + mcp__codehub__route_map
Is the change a response-shape edit on a route?
└─ yes → mcp__codehub__shape_check (find consumer key-access mismatches)
Is the target a dependency version bump?
└─ yes → mcp__codehub__dependencies + mcp__codehub__license_audit
Want to see what the working tree currently touches?
└─ yes → mcp__codehub__detect_changes
Workflow
1. mcp__codehub__impact({ name, direction: "upstream", repo }) → Dependents of the target
2. Read confidenceBreakdown → Trust the confirmed count
3. If HTTP-adjacent: mcp__codehub__api_impact + shape_check → Route + shape mismatches
4. mcp__codehub__detect_changes → Map the current diff to flows
5. Assess risk tier and write the summary
If the context envelope warns the index is stale, run
codehub analyzefirst — stale impact results are worse than no impact results.
Checklist
- [ ] mcp__codehub__impact({ name, direction: "upstream", repo })
- [ ] Review byDepth.d1 first — these WILL BREAK
- [ ] Read confidenceBreakdown; demand confirmed >= heuristic for destructive calls
- [ ] Filter to confidence >= 0.9 if the target is load-bearing (auth, payments, data integrity)
- [ ] If target is a Route: mcp__codehub__api_impact + mcp__codehub__shape_check
- [ ] mcp__codehub__detect_changes to map the current diff to affected processes
- [ ] Produce a risk tier and a one-paragraph summary
Understanding impact output
Risk levels map to blast-radius tiers:
| Depth | Risk Level | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| d=1 | WILL BREAK | Direct callers / importers / overrides |
| d=2 | LIKELY AFFECTED | One hop through d=1 |
| d=3 | MAY NEED TESTING | Two hops — transitive effects |
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 · 152 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 42916cf960c0
codehub-impact-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository theagenticguy/opencodehub (3 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 1,529 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to opencodehub-impact-analysis, differing in 2 lines, and is treated as a copy.
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…