| name | upgrading-dependencies |
| description | Use when bumping a dependency version — package.json, pyproject.toml, requirements, or lockfile changes — in an existing codebase. Classifies the bump, audits the usage surface from the code graph, and isolates the upgrade in its own proven commit. |
Upgrading Dependencies
A dependency upgrade is a behavior change you didn't write, applied to every call site at once. Treat it like any other brownfield change: know the blast radius before you bump, prove behavior with the existing suite, and never mix the upgrade with code changes that would hide which one broke the build.
The Iron Law
ONE DEPENDENCY UPGRADE PER COMMIT, PROVEN BY THE SUITE — NEVER MIXED WITH CODE CHANGES
Process
-
Classify the bump. Patch (x.y.Z) → proceed with suite proof. Minor (x.Y.z) → read the release notes first. Major (X.y.z) → full protocol below. A lockfile-only refresh that pulls many transitive bumps counts as one upgrade unit, proven the same way.
-
Read the changelog/release notes for the traversed range — not just the target version. Breaking changes, deprecations, and behavior changes (defaults flipping, stricter validation) accumulate across every version you skip. No changelog available → diff the library's source tags or treat the bump as major.
-
Map the usage surface. Grep the import name across the repo and check specs/brownfield/code-graph.json ext: edges for the package (when present) — every importing file is blast radius. For each breaking change in the notes, check whether any usage site hits it. Usage you cannot see (config-file conventions, plugin auto-discovery, peer-dependency contracts) is found by running the suite, which is why step 5 is not optional.
-
Security context. Run the ecosystem audit (npm audit / pip-audit) before and after — an upgrade motivated by a CVE must show the advisory cleared; an unrelated upgrade must not introduce new HIGH/CRITICAL advisories via transitive bumps.
-
Prove it. Full test suite + typecheck + lint on the bumped lockfile. If checking-coverage-before-change artifacts exist, also run the coverage-map oracle tests for the files in the usage surface. A green suite on an uncovered usage surface proves little — say so in the report rather than claiming safety you don't have.
-
Required code changes go in a follow-up commit. When a major bump forces call-site rewrites: first commit = version bump + the minimal mechanical adaptations to compile/import (suite green), labeled as the upgrade; subsequent commits = any refactoring or improvement the new version enables. If the mechanical adaptations are themselves large, do the inverse — ship compatibility shims first, then the bump, then remove the shims.
-
Stuck between versions? When the target version needs changes you cannot safely make yet (an unpinnable usage surface), pin the current version explicitly with a dated comment stating what blocks the upgrade, and surface it in the report — an undocumented stale pin is how 3-year-old CVEs happen.
Common Rationalizations
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|
| "It's just a patch bump" | Patch bumps ship behavior fixes — something changed, or there'd be no release. The suite run costs minutes. |
| "I'll upgrade five packages at once to save CI runs" | When the suite fails you now bisect five suspects. One unit per commit; the bisect is the saving. |
| "Tests pass, ship it" | Pass on what coverage? If the usage surface is uncovered, the green is vacuous — check before claiming safety. |
| "I'll clean up these deprecated calls while I'm here" | That's a second change hiding in the upgrade commit. Follow-up commit. |
| "The changelog is too long to read" | Then read the BREAKING CHANGES sections of each major heading in the traversed range. That part is never optional. |
