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 yeaight7/agent-powerups --skill metric-impact-analyzergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/yeaight7/agent-powerupsWrote 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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/metric-impact-analyzer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/metric-impact-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/metric-impact-analyzer/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/yeaight7/agent-powerups/metric-impact-analyzer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/yeaight7/agent-powerups/metric-impact-analyzer.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 | $0.00039 | $0.00637 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00016 | $0.00255 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00008 | $0.00127 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00064 |
Grade A, and why
metric-impact-analyzer 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 1mo 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Metric Impact Analyzer
Use this skill when a change may affect metrics, semantic models, dashboards, reporting, or stakeholder-facing KPIs.
Goals
- Detect whether a technical change also changes business meaning.
- Identify likely downstream breakage in BI tooling and dashboards.
- Separate harmless refactors from definition-level changes.
What to Inspect
- Metric definitions and calculation logic.
- Semantic model changes (dimensions, measures, relationships).
- Renamed or removed fields referenced by saved queries or dashboards.
- Changed filters, time windows, or default values.
- Changed joins, granularity, or fanout.
- Contract-breaking field type changes (e.g., INT → FLOAT, nullable → NOT NULL).
Change Classification
| Change type | Risk level | Action required |
|---|---|---|
| Column rename with alias preserved | Low | Validate alias propagation |
| Description or label change | Low | Confirm no tooling parses descriptions |
| New optional field added | Low | No action unless it changes defaults |
| Filter condition tightened | Medium | Validate that the new filter matches intent |
| Metric formula changed | High | Stakeholder review required |
| Grain changed (e.g., day → week) | High | All downstream rollups must be revalidated |
| Dimension removed | Breaking | Cannot ship without migration plan |
| Join path changed | Breaking | All dependent metrics may be affected |
Analysis Steps
- Summarize what changed technically (field names, types, logic, joins).
- Classify each change using the table above.
- Infer what may have changed semantically — ask: "will this metric return a different number for the same time period?"
- Identify who or what downstream may break: dashboards, saved queries, alerts, exports, downstream dbt models, BI tool semantic layers.
- Flag whether stakeholder sign-off is required before the change is promoted.
Output Format
- Technical change summary — what exactly changed, at the field/model level.
- Business meaning impact — does this change what the number means to a business user?
- Likely reporting or dashboard breakage — specific assets at risk.
- Required validation — what must be confirmed before shipping.
- Stakeholder confirmation needed? yes / no / depends — with reason.
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 62 lines · 39 tokens per session scan A 9d9b1a57c706
metric-impact-analyzer is a skill published in the GitHub repository yeaight7/agent-powerups (6 stars, last pushed 19d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 39 tokens to every session and 637 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-14.
Other skills, from other repositories
github-code-review
Review PRs: diffs, inline comments via gh or REST.
requesting-code-review
Pre-commit review: security scan, quality gates, auto-fix.
simplify-code
Sequential 3-lens cleanup of recent code changes.
kodama-constraints
Enforce non-negotiable safety, scope, security, and quality constraints for implementation and review work.
hqe
Comprehensive codebase health auditing, remediation, and verification skill based on the canonical HQE Protocol v5.0.0.
adk-review
Reviews the uncommitted changes in an adk-python working tree and reports correctness, design, public-API stability, test, sample and documentation gaps as a prioritized findings report, fixing them only when asked. Use when the user asks to review local changes, wants a self-review before opening a pull request, asks…