CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

merge-risk

Use when assessing the risk of merging a PR

60

Quality

75%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./.agents/skills/merge-risk/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

Repository

warpdotdev/common-skills

Path

.agents/skills/merge-risk/SKILL.md

Last updated
First committed

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.