Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to yangjh0127/openapi-docs-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/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/main/.claude/skills/gitnexus/gitnexus-impact-analysis/SKILL.mdgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-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/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/gitnexus-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/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/gitnexus-impact-analysis"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp/gitnexus-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 | $0.00050 | $0.00755 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00020 | $0.00302 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $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 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
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.
- 2mo ago First seen · 98 lines · 50 tokens per session scan A 09e529505da1
gitnexus-impact-analysis is a skill published in the GitHub repository yangjh0127/openapi-docs-mcp (1 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 50 tokens to every session and 755 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
docs-writing
Write, restructure, or review documentation — tutorials, how-to guides, reference pages, concept/explanation docs, API references, READMEs, changelogs, release notes, and troubleshooting guides. Distills documentation craft from Mintlify's guides (compiled from technical writers at Stripe, GitHub, Amplitude, and…
scalar-design-system
Scalar's design system — design tokens, theming (@scalar/themes), CSS variables, and the @scalar/components library. Use when designing or implementing Scalar UI, especially with Paper (code-to-design / design-to-code), so output matches real Scalar tokens, colors, typography, spacing, and components instead of…
printing-press-output-review
Internal sub-skill: agentic review of a printed CLI's sampled command output for plausibility issues that rule-based checks can't encode (substring-match relevance, format bugs, silent source drops, ranking failures). Invoked via the Skill tool by the main printing-press skill at Phase 4.85 and printing-press-polish…
nightly-audit-engineer-getting-started
A first-conversation guide for setting up a code-audit assistant. A code audit is a focused review of source code for defects or risky behavior, with the needed repository, scope, concerns, permissions, and schedule clarified first.
nightly-audit-engineer-ops
A workflow for reviewing code for reproducible quality problems and recording the evidence behind each finding. It follows data through inputs, permissions, storage, asynchronous work, and recovery, then suggests the smallest authorized fix.
nightly-audit-engineer-evidence
A small local checker that creates stable identifiers for code-audit findings and marks duplicates within the current batch or among previously seen findings. It processes supplied JSON with Python and does not infer whether a problem was fixed.