القائمة
Use when assessing how risky it is to modify X++ AX 2009 code before making changes — identifies callers, dependencies, regression surface, business flow impact, and safest change strategy.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
Use when analyzing X++ AX 2009 profiler traces, code stack traces, or execution paths to identify performance bottlenecks — repeated call chains, quadratic loops, expensive constructor+calc combos, excessive tax/totals recalculation, or deep framework cascades.
Use when reviewing X++ or general ERP source code for architectural weaknesses, design gaps, fragile sequencing, responsibility mismatches, technical debt, or structural risks — not just syntax or performance issues.
Use when given any X++ AX 2009 artifact — stack trace, method, class, form XPO, posting code, or table — and you need a full structured multi-skill analysis applied automatically based on artifact type.
Use when proposing X++ AX 2009 code fixes for identified performance bottlenecks or behavioral bugs — minimal, production-safe changes that preserve business logic and fit ERP team review standards.
Use for all XppAI AX 2009 tasks as the canonical core baseline (architecture, language, lifecycle, hard constraints, and evidence labels).
Use when deep AX 2009 analysis is required (performance, posting, totals/tax, framework patterns, customization safety, and architecture judgment).
| name | xppai-risk |
| description | Use when assessing how risky it is to modify X++ AX 2009 code before making changes — identifies callers, dependencies, regression surface, business flow impact, and safest change strategy. |
Required background: xppai-core + xppai-domain
XPO input: run xppai-intake once
Use canonical evidence labels: Confirmed | Likely | Hypothesis | Unknown.
Return only:
Omit sections that would be empty, N/A, or filler.
