Cómo usar
- Copia el comando y revisa el paquete antes de instalarlo en tu entorno de agente.
- Consulta las herramientas, credenciales y entornos necesarios en el documento original.
- Describe las entradas y el resultado deseado; contrasta la salida con las fuentes.
npx skills add https://github.com/warpdotdev/common-skills --skill merge-riskAntes de empezar
- La instalación no incluye suscripción al modelo, cuota API ni permisos sobre tus archivos.
- Las estrellas e instalaciones reflejan actividad, no una prueba independiente de calidad o seguridad.
Documento original del Skill
Contenido del repositorio de origen con títulos, ejemplos, código, tablas, enlaces e imágenes preservados.
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
Keep the numerical score and its calculations internal; do not include them in the output.
