merge-risk

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Use when assessing the risk of merging a PR

9installs

Sourcewarpdotdev/common-skills

Added on2026-10-19

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add warpdotdev/common-skills merge-risk

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

Output format:

**Merge risk: <low-medium-high>**

**<category>:** <verdict>
<list gaps that increase risk. Use bullets, keep succinct. Include links to relevant files as needed>

<...list all categories>

These are the categories and verdicts that affect risk, with descriptions of what "low risk" means:

Alignment (poor ⚠️ / decent 👀 / good ✅): Code aligns with the description and source issue, when present. Behavior assumptions and drive-bys must be documented.
Impact (large ⚠️ / medium 👀 / small ✅): Scope is contained and away from sensitive code paths.
- Consider blast radius: potential impact or scope of the changes introduced by this PR. Consider all possibilities. Examples are layout shift, breakages for consumers, mobile responsiveness, etc.
- Sensitive areas carry outsized risk regardless of diff size: auth, permissions, payments, PII, secrets, data migrations, dependency bumps, and infra or config changes. Flag any that are touched, and call out anything that widens access, weakens validation, or logs sensitive data.
Verification (poor ⚠️ / decent 👀 / good ✅): Behavior is verified, where applicable.
- Changes to the user experience need end-to-end proof as screenshots or recordings. Changes that could meaningfully affect performance need profiling. Prefer before-and-after evidence to standalone proof. When this coverage is lacking, it's a failure.
- Edge cases must be tested, or documented when they aren't; review the code closely and link the user to relevant code when only documentation is present.
Rollback cost (high ⚠️ / medium 👀 / low ✅): The code is reversible once merged. Consider one-way vs. two-way doors. You can walk back through two-way doors, but not one-way doors. A PR that is cheap to roll back is lower risk. Changes that involve destructive actions or hard-to-reverse decisions are one-way doors.
Error detection (poor ⚠️ / decent 👀 / good ✅ / N/A ✅): If applicable, critical flows should be monitored; If this breaks in production, someone should find out before users report it. Look for swallowed errors or fallbacks that hide breakage.

Generate a risk score for merging this PR on a scale of low - medium - high.

Verdicts:

⚠️ = 3
👀 = 2
✅ = 1

Weights:

Impact = 2x
Verification = 2x
Rollback cost = 1.5x
Error detection = 1x
Alignment = 1x

Score = Σ(score × weight) / Σ(weights).

low: < 1.5
medium: 1.5 – < 2.25
high: ≥ 2.25

merge-risk

NPX Install

Tags

SKILL.md Content