lmiranda
2d51df7a42
Phase 1b: Rename all ~94 commands across 12 plugins to /<noun> <action> sub-command pattern. Git-flow consolidated from 8→5 commands (commit variants absorbed into --push/--merge/--sync flags). Dispatch files, name: frontmatter, and cross-reference updates for all plugins. Phase 2: Design documents for 8 new plugins in docs/designs/. Phase 3: Scaffold 8 new plugins — saas-api-platform, saas-db-migrate, saas-react-platform, saas-test-pilot, data-seed, ops-release-manager, ops-deploy-pipeline, debug-mcp. Each with plugin.json, commands, agents, skills, README, and claude-md-integration. Marketplace grows from 12→20. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
100 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
100 lines
2.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
description: Workflow for previewing changes safely before applying them
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Dry Run Workflow Skill
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
Dry run mode analyzes code and shows proposed changes without modifying files. Essential for reviewing impact before committing to changes.
|
|
|
|
## Opportunity Scoring
|
|
|
|
Rate each refactoring opportunity on three dimensions:
|
|
|
|
### Impact Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Major improvement | Cyclomatic complexity 15 -> 3 |
|
|
| 4 | Significant improvement | Function 50 lines -> 15 lines |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate improvement | Better naming, clearer structure |
|
|
| 2 | Minor improvement | Code style modernization |
|
|
| 1 | Cosmetic only | Formatting changes |
|
|
|
|
### Risk Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Very high risk | Changes to core business logic |
|
|
| 4 | High risk | Modifies shared utilities |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate risk | Changes function signatures |
|
|
| 2 | Low risk | Internal implementation only |
|
|
| 1 | Minimal risk | Pure functions, no side effects |
|
|
|
|
### Effort Score (1-5)
|
|
| Score | Meaning | Example |
|
|
|-------|---------|---------|
|
|
| 5 | Major effort | Requires architecture changes |
|
|
| 4 | Significant effort | Many files affected |
|
|
| 3 | Moderate effort | Multiple related changes |
|
|
| 2 | Low effort | Single file, clear scope |
|
|
| 1 | Trivial | Automated transformation |
|
|
|
|
## Priority Calculation
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
Priority = (Impact * 2) - Risk - (Effort * 0.5)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
| Priority Range | Recommendation |
|
|
|---------------|----------------|
|
|
| > 5 | Recommended - do it |
|
|
| 3-5 | Optional - consider it |
|
|
| < 3 | Skip - not worth it |
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
### Recommended Section
|
|
High impact, low risk opportunities:
|
|
```
|
|
1. **pattern-name** at file:lines
|
|
- Description of the change
|
|
- Impact: High/Medium/Low (specific metric improvement)
|
|
- Risk: Low/Medium/High (why)
|
|
- Run: `/sentinel refactor <target> --pattern=<pattern>`
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Optional Section
|
|
Lower priority opportunities grouped by type.
|
|
|
|
### Summary
|
|
- Count of recommended vs optional
|
|
- Estimated overall improvement percentage
|
|
- Any blockers or dependencies
|
|
|
|
## Dependency Detection
|
|
|
|
Before recommending changes, check for:
|
|
|
|
1. **Test Coverage** - Does this code have tests?
|
|
2. **Usage Scope** - Is it used elsewhere?
|
|
3. **Side Effects** - Does it modify external state?
|
|
4. **Breaking Changes** - Will it change public API?
|
|
|
|
Flag dependencies in output:
|
|
```
|
|
Note: This refactoring requires updating 3 callers:
|
|
- src/api/handlers.py:45
|
|
- src/cli/commands.py:78
|
|
- tests/test_handlers.py:23
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Safety Checklist
|
|
|
|
Before recommending any change:
|
|
|
|
- [ ] All affected code locations identified
|
|
- [ ] No breaking API changes without flag
|
|
- [ ] Test coverage assessed
|
|
- [ ] Side effects documented
|
|
- [ ] Rollback path clear (git)
|