ix-impact

name	ix-impact
description	Change risk analysis — blast radius, affected systems, and what to test. Depth scales with risk level; low-risk targets stop early.

Goal

Answer: what breaks if this changes, and is it safe to proceed? Stop as early as the risk level allows.

If the Ix runtime is unavailable, ix_status will report this; estimate impact from available context.

Preferred path — unified query

For most cases:

ix_query({ mode: "impact", targets: [$ARGUMENTS] })

Use the returned preview_markdown as the primary answer. Supplement below if risk classification needs detail.

Phase 1 — Risk score (always)

Call: ix_impact({ target: $ARGUMENTS })

Immediately classify on risk_level and dependents:

Risk level	Action
low + < 3 dependents	STOP — safe to proceed. Report and suggest verification targets.
medium OR 3-10 dependents	Go to Phase 2
high or critical OR > 10 dependents	Go to Phase 2 + 3

Phase 2 — Callers and dependents (medium/high/critical)

Call in parallel:

• ix_callers({ symbol: $ARGUMENTS })
• ix_depends({ symbol: $ARGUMENTS, depth: 2 })

Stop here if risk is medium.

Phase 3 — Import chain and subsystem spread (high/critical only)

Call: ix_imported_by({ symbol: $ARGUMENTS })

Cross-reference callers + dependents + importers to identify subsystems in the blast radius.

Output

## Impact: [target]

**Risk level:** <critical | high | medium | low>
**Verdict:** <SAFE TO PROCEED | REVIEW CALLERS FIRST | NEEDS CHANGE PLAN>

**Blast radius:**
- Direct dependents: N
- Transitive (depth 2): M
- Subsystems affected: [list — only if phase 3 ran]

**Key callers:** [top 5, with subsystem label]
**At-risk behaviors:** [from ix_impact at_risk_behavior field]

**Recommended action:**
- low: proceed, verify [specific callers]
- medium: test [caller list] after change
- high/critical: run `ix-plan $ARGUMENTS` before editing

Never read source code in this skill.