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 ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit --skill blast-radiusgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkitWrote 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/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/blast-radius)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/blast-radius"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit/blast-radius.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 | $0.00061 | $0.01190 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00030 | $0.00595 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00238 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00119 |
Grade A, and why
blast-radius 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 8d 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
94% identical to blast-radius — 33 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 — 82 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Blast radius
Find what a change breaks somewhere else, before it ships. Use for "blast radius of X", "what could this break", or reviewing a small diff you don't trust yet.
Companion to how and why. how tells you what the code does. why tells you why it's shaped that way. Blast radius tells you what it breaks somewhere else.
Listing the callers is not the job. The agent can grep those in a second. The job is the breakage grep won't show you.
Don't trust your own writeup
A blast-radius writeup that sounds right is worthless. It reads as convincing whether or not it's true, and that is the trap you are walking into. So don't hand back the writeup. Find the one or two facts the whole thing depends on and prove them by running code. Words are where you start, not what you ship.
How sure are you
For each fact the change's safety depends on, get it as far down this list as is cheap, and say where it stopped.
- You said so. Worthless on its own.
- You pointed at the line. A real
file:line, or the library's own source. - You showed the bad case can't happen. You walked the failure step by step and it doesn't reach.
- You ran it. A script or test that calls the real code and fails loud if you're wrong.
- You reproduced it in the running app.
Any safety fact you can't get to step 4, say so out loud. Don't write it up as settled. Step 4 is usually one small script that imports the same library the app ships and calls the exact function you're worried about.
Steps
- Read the change. The diff, the symbols it adds, changes, and deletes, and what it now does differently, including the part the diff doesn't spell out. Use
whystep 2 to pull the PR and commits. - Find the one fact it's safe because of. Most changes that look scary are safe because of a single fact, like "this call only drops already-dead cache entries and does nothing else". Find that fact. If it holds, most of the scary cases die at once. Spend your time here, not on a long list of maybes.
- Look where grep stops. Read the source of the library you call, and check its pinned version and any local patch. Work out when things run: microtasks, unmount and teardown, Solid versus React. Follow what a symbol search misses: the JSON an API returns, a DB column, a wire format, another language reading the same bytes, a feature flag, code three hops downstream.
- Be honest about each risk. Give it a real chance of happening and a real cost if it does. Keep the risks you confirmed; list the ones you checked and cleared separately. Same rules as
why. Cite a realfile:line, a search that finds nothing is still an answer, and never make up a caller or an API. - Prove the one fact. Write a script or test that runs the real code, run it, and paste what happened. If you can't prove it cheaply, mark it unproven. Don't round up.
- For a big or wide change, run it as an
arena. Ask several models the same question and merge the answers. Different models catch different real bugs.
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.
- 8d ago First seen · 82 lines · 61 tokens per session scan A 6ada7029300f
blast-radius is a skill published in the GitHub repository ulises-jeremias/agent-toolkit (16 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 61 tokens to every session and 1,190 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 94% identical to blast-radius, differing in 33 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
audit
Audits recent work against its Definition of Done and project patterns. Runs the test suite, compares code against the spec, and reports PASS / PARTIAL / FAIL. Also runs the Critical Gate — a safety scan of the diff for destructive or dangerous operations. Generates an incremental prompt pack for any gaps found. With…
pr-alignment-loop
Iterate a PR to its final form by running two opposing reviewer droids (reviewer-robustness and reviewer-minimalist) in a bounded back-and-forth loop. The main orchestrator synthesizes their feedback, makes edits, runs tests, and stops when both approve, on stagnation, or after 3 rounds. Use when the user asks to…
review-all
Use when the user asks for a deep review, full review, comprehensive review, production readiness assessment, full audit, multi-domain audit, "security and reliability and code review", or "review everything". Also use when the user explicitly requests performance review alongside the comprehensive request (e.g.…
active-review
Use when the user wants to prepare for a manual PR code review and asks for help targeting it — a terse PR summary, ranked files to read first, and paste-ready inline comment drafts with GitHub deep-links. Triggers: "active review this PR", "walk me through this PR", "help me review this", "give me inline comments to…
review-api-compat
Use when the user asks for an API compatibility review, breaking change review, proto breaking change review, buf breaking review, OpenAPI compatibility check, gRPC backwards compatibility audit, "are these API changes breaking", "did we break the wire", contract evolution review, or backwards-compatibility audit on…
review-documentation
Review documentation quality and sync with implementation across Go doc comments, proto comments, OpenAPI specs, markdown files, and example tests. Use when the user asks for a documentation review, doc audit, or wants to check that docs are in sync with code.