# Developer Impact And Reachability

> Answers Salesforce developer "what breaks if I change X / where is M reachable from / what does this method touch / is this dead code" questions. Cascades the v2.3 what-if composer family (`what_if_deactivate_flow`, `what_if_disable_trigger`, `what_if_change_method_signature`, `what_if_change_field_type`, `what_if_remove_picklist_value`, `what_if_make_field_required`, `what_if_merge_profiles`, `what_if_split_profile`) and the v2.7 deep code-understanding tools (`call_graph`, `downstream_effects`, `test_coverage_for_method`, `method_reachability`, `meaningful_test_audit`). Discloses the v2.3 / v2.7 boundary axes verbatim: class-granularity (not method); dynamic-dispatch and reflective-invocation invisibility; method-name echo (`method_name` surfaced verbatim, not subsetted); cross-class transitive analysis not available.

- Skill: `pranavnagrecha/developer-impact-and-reachability` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add pranavnagrecha/developer-impact-and-reachability`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pranavnagrecha/developer-impact-and-reachability/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: PranavNagrecha (https://skillmd.com/u/pranavnagrecha)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pranavnagrecha/developer-impact-and-reachability

---


# Developer impact and reachability

## Overview

This skill is the developer persona's companion to v2.3's what-if
composer family and v2.7's deep code-understanding tools. The
developer's first-line question is one of five shapes:

1. **"What breaks if I change X?"** — for a specific component +
   change kind, the answer is a structured `WhatIfImpactItem[]`
   list grouped by category (`metadata-blocker`,
   `code-needs-update`, `integration-touch`, `test-class-update`,
   `invisible-risk`, `configuration-only`). v2.3 composers.
2. **"Where is method M reachable from?"** — `sfi.call_graph` with
   `direction: 'both'` walks `callsApex` edges in both directions
   from a root class.
3. **"What does this method touch downstream?"** —
   `sfi.downstream_effects` walks downstream `callsApex` and
   surfaces side effects (field writes, async dispatches, emails).
4. **"What tests cover this method?"** —
   `sfi.test_coverage_for_method` walks upstream `callsApex` from
   the target and filters to `isTest === true` classes.
5. **"Is this code dead / where does this Apex actually run from?"**
   — `sfi.method_reachability` walks upstream `callsApex` against
   the entry-point taxonomy and returns one of three verdicts.

Plus a sixth shape:

6. **"Does this test actually assert anything?"** —
   `sfi.meaningful_test_audit` ranks every `@isTest` class by
   fake-assertion count and assertion density.

The boundary that matters for developers: **v2.7 ships
CLASS-level granularity.** A call from `ApexClass:A.foo()` to
`ApexClass:B.bar()` produces ONE `A → B` `callsApex` edge with no
method partition. The `methodName` input parameter on
`sfi.test_coverage_for_method` is ACCEPTED and ECHOED verbatim into
the response so callers can pipeline through a future v2.7.1
method-scoped resolution — but v2.7 does NOT subset coverage by
method. Surface this verbatim.

`sfi.method_reachability`, `sfi.call_graph` and
`sfi.test_coverage_for_method` carry a `soundness` envelope
(`complete` / `blindSpots[]` / `staticCoverage`) with two blind-spot
kinds. `dynamic-apex`: the analyzed class uses dynamic Apex, so a
reflective caller can make a reachability verdict wrong and a
test→method mapping incomplete. `unwalked-edge-type`: the walk
traversed a strict SUBSET of the usage edge types, so a component
reachable only through an un-walked type is absent from the result —
it carries `walkedEdgeTypes` and `unwalkedEdgeTypes` by name. This is
why `sfi.call_graph` (a deliberate `callsApex`-only walk) is never
`complete: true`, while `sfi.method_reachability` (which walks the
whole usage set) can be. Treat `complete: false` as "verify by reading
the source", and never present it as a full picture.

The v2.3 composer boundary: **the composers project, not
predict.** Each what-if composer reads the v2.2-vintage vault state,
applies its own per-tool rule set, and returns a
structured impact list. Runtime evaluation, dataflow analysis,
cross-class transitive analysis, and dynamic Apex are all invisible.
Each finding's `confidence` is the worst confidence on the walk path
(`heuristic` < `parsed` < `declared`).

## When to fire

Fire this skill on what-if / reachability / call-graph phrasing.
Concrete triggers:

### What-if shape

- **"What breaks if I deactivate this Flow?"** — Use
  `sfi.what_if_deactivate_flow`.
- **"What breaks if I disable this trigger?"** — Use
  `sfi.what_if_disable_trigger`.
- **"What breaks if I change `processOrder`'s signature?"** — Use
  `sfi.what_if_change_method_signature`.
- **"What breaks if I change `Industry__c` from Text to
  Picklist?"** — Use `sfi.what_if_change_field_type`.
- **"What breaks if I remove the `Tier 1` picklist value?"** — Use
  `sfi.what_if_remove_picklist_value`.
- **"What breaks if I make `Industry__c` required?"** — Use
  `sfi.what_if_make_field_required`.
- **"What if I merge `Sales_Rep` and `Sales_Manager` profiles?"** —
  Use `sfi.what_if_merge_profiles`.
- **"How would I split `Sales_Rep` into per-team perm sets?"** —
  Use `sfi.what_if_split_profile`.

### Reachability / call-graph shape

- **"Where is `OpportunityService.processOpp` called from?"** /
  **"What calls this method?"** — Use `sfi.call_graph` with
  `direction: 'upstream'`.
- **"What does `processOpp` call?"** / **"What does this method
  invoke downstream?"** — Use `sfi.call_graph` with
  `direction: 'downstream'`.
- **"Map the full call chain around `OpportunityService`."** — Use
  `sfi.call_graph` with `direction: 'both'`, `maxDepth: 3`.
- **"What side effects does `processOpp` have downstream?"** — Use
  `sfi.downstream_effects` (field writes, async dispatches, email
  sends).
- **"What tests cover `OpportunityService`?"** — Use
  `sfi.test_coverage_for_method`.
- **"Is `OpportunityService` dead code? / Where is this class
  actually reached from?"** — Use `sfi.method_reachability`.

### Test-quality shape

- **"Does `OpportunityServiceTest` actually assert anything?"** /
  **"What tests are fake?"** — Use `sfi.meaningful_test_audit`.

## When NOT to fire

Defer to another skill when:

- **The user asks "where is `OpportunityService` used in source code?"**
  That's a code-reference question. Defer to
  `developer-apex-refactor` → `sfi.find_code_usages`.
- **The user asks "what fields does Opportunity have?"** Schema
  lookup; defer to `answering-org-questions`.
- **The user asks "audit my Apex for quality issues."** Defer to
  `developer-code-quality` → `sfi.code_quality_audit`.
- **The user asks "what's the convention for status fields?"**
  Pattern recognition; defer to `recognizing-naming-conventions`.
- **The user wants the full cross-component dependency report**
  ("what depends on this field?"). That's
  `architect-impact-analysis` → `sfi.get_impact` (BFS over every
  edge type, not just `callsApex`).
- **The user wants live coverage percentages.** v2.7 surfaces test
  REACHABILITY, not Apex Test Run's actual coverage percentage.
  v2.7 is offline; tell the user to run `sf apex test run` for the
  runtime numbers.
- **The user wants the recognizer to WRITE the refactor.** v2.3 is
  read-only; it surfaces impact but never generates the deploy
  package.

## The cascade

The 16 tools split by question shape. Pick the right entry point.

### Category A — What-if change projection (v2.3, 11 composers)

Each composer reads the v2.2-vintage vault state, applies its own rule
set, and returns:

- `impacts: WhatIfImpactItem[]` — one entry per affected component.
  (The key is `impacts`, NOT `findings`; no what-if tool emits a
  `findings` array.)
- `summary` — per-tool aggregations (the profile composers only).
- `disclosure: string` — the tool's verbatim boundary paragraph. It is
  a single string, NOT a `boundaries: string[]`. Surface it verbatim.

Each `WhatIfImpactItem` carries `category`, `componentId`,
`componentType`, `apiName`, `confidence` and `explanation`. The
category vocabulary is per tool: the shared six are
`metadata-blocker` | `code-needs-update` | `integration-touch` |
`test-class-update` | `invisible-risk` | `configuration-only`, plus
`input-only` (a dependency the component CONSUMES — deliberately
excluded from the verdict) and, on `what_if_deactivate_flow`,
`broken-caller` (a parent Flow invoking this Flow as a subflow) and
`embedded-caller` (a FlexiPage whose Flow component embeds this Flow).

**Two verdict axes, not one.** `what_if_deactivate_flow` and
`what_if_disable_trigger` return BOTH `structuralVerdict` — what the
dependency structure says, in practice `safe` / `review` / `risky` /
`blocking` — and the headline `verdict`. The shared `Verdict` union is
`safe | review | risky | blocking | unknown | already-inactive`, and
`already-inactive` is the headline whenever the component does not run
today, whatever the structure says. It is never downgraded by
coverage, and it is deliberately NOT folded into `safe`: `safe` means
"no impacts at all", so reusing it would make an inactive-but-heavily-
depended-on component read identically to a genuinely inert one.
`runtimeState`
{`status`, `currentlyRunning`, `note`} carries the runs-today axis on
its own, and `currentlyRunning: null` means UNKNOWN — not inactive.
`entryPoints[]` (where the runtime hands control TO the component) is
reported separately from `impacts` and is not a dependent.
`notProvenHarmless` appears exactly when no verdict-bearing impact was
found; render it with the `safe`.

#### `sfi.what_if_deactivate_flow`

Walks every outgoing edge from the Flow: `triggersOn` (the object
listened to), `readsFrom`/`writesTo` (record lookups + DML),
`callsApex` (Apex action calls), `sendsEmail` (email templates), and
the subflows THIS Flow invokes (`references` / `referenceKind:
'subflow'`). Each becomes a `WhatIfImpactItem`. **R6-02 — the incoming
side:** parent Flows that invoke THIS Flow as a subflow are BROKEN
CALLERS on deactivation, surfaced as a distinct `broken-caller`
category, and FlexiPages whose Flow component EMBEDS this Flow
(`references` / `referenceKind: 'embeddedFlow'`) are EMBEDDED CALLERS,
surfaced as a distinct `embedded-caller` category — the embed is an
active invocation at render time, not passive access (this used to be
excluded on the "access, not usage" theory; it no longer is).
`structuralVerdict`: `safe` (no verdict-bearing impact) / `risky`
(callsApex only, or broken callers that are all inactive
Draft/Obsolete) / `blocking` (record write, trigger, email-send, or
subflow-invocation impact; any broken caller that is an ACTIVE parent
Flow; or ANY embedded-caller — a FlexiPage embed forces `blocking`
UNCONDITIONALLY, because this vault cannot tell whether that page is
assigned to an active app / profile / record page layout).
`triggersOn` / `listensTo` are NOT impacts: they are the Flow's own
`entryPoints[]`. The headline `verdict` is `already-inactive` whenever
the Flow does not run today, whatever the structure says — do not
report "deactivating this changes nothing" from an inactive Flow's
empty impact list; report that it is already off and what still
depends on it. `referenceKind: 'subflow'` and `referenceKind:
'embeddedFlow'` are the only incoming edges that count as dependents;
every other incoming `references` kind, plus `grantedBy` / `parentOf`,
stays excluded as passive access/structure.

```json
{ "flowId": "Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner" }
```

#### `sfi.what_if_disable_trigger`

Similar walk for `ApexTrigger:`. Handler classes via outgoing
`callsApex`; async dispatches via outgoing `dispatchesAsync`. The
`callsApex` handler edges come from the default-on Apex AST pass, so
most `code-needs-update` findings carry `confidence: parsed`; the
`dispatchesAsync` async edges remain `heuristic` (that async-dispatch
recognizer is still scanner-based). Cite each finding's own
confidence.

#### `sfi.what_if_change_method_signature`

Identifies callers via the default-on Apex AST call-site index (the
recall scanner backfills files the AST could not parse). The tool
reports each finding at its own edge confidence. Caller types:
- **Apex static caller** — `OpportunityService.processOpp(...)`
  pattern. `code-needs-update`; `parsed` for AST-resolved call-sites,
  `heuristic` for scanner-backfill edges.
- **Apex instance caller** — `obj.processOpp(...)` where `obj` is
  typed as `OpportunityService`. Same (the AST resolves the receiver
  type through the symbol table).
- **Apex test caller** — an incoming `callsApex` edge from a class
  whose `properties.isTest` is true. `test-class-update`; `parsed`
  / `heuristic` as above. The tool ALSO walks a `coversTest` edge,
  but that edge has no producer anywhere in the product, so it
  contributes nothing on a real vault — see the disclosure below.
- **Flow caller** (when target is `@InvocableMethod`) — `callsApex`
  edge + matching `<actionName>`. `code-needs-update`, `declared`.

Surface the verbatim Q105 disclosure:

> Callers are identified via the default-on Apex AST call-site
> index and surface at `parsed` confidence; the recall scanner
> backfills files the AST could not parse at `heuristic`. Cite
> each caller's own confidence. Dynamic dispatch via
> Type.forName + invoke is invisible to both. Test classes are
> identified in ONE way that actually works: an incoming
> `callsApex` edge from a class whose `properties.isTest` is
> true. The `coversTest` edge this tool ALSO walks is declared
> in the contract but is emitted by NO extractor, graph-build
> mint, or enricher in this product, so on a real vault that
> walk ALWAYS returns nothing — Salesforce does not declare
> test-to-class coverage anywhere in the metadata source format
> (coverage is a RUNTIME artifact of a test run, readable only
> from the Tooling API's ApexCodeCoverage). Read an empty
> `testClassesNeedingUpdate` as "test-coverage mapping
> UNAVAILABLE for this class", NEVER as "no tests cover this
> class": a test class that exercises the target only
> indirectly — through a helper, a trigger, or dynamic
> dispatch — has no `callsApex` edge to it and is invisible
> here.

#### `sfi.what_if_change_field_type`

Driven by a fixed field-type compatibility matrix. For each
transition `[c]` (forward-compatible), `[l]` (lossy), or `[b]`
(breaking), emits findings only for references that are type-
sensitive. Categories typically spread across `metadata-blocker`
(formulas, validation rules), `code-needs-update` (Apex, LWC),
`integration-touch` (integration schemas), `configuration-only`
(layouts).

#### `sfi.what_if_remove_picklist_value`

The most dependency-heavy v2.3 tool. Composes over:
- Dependent picklist detection (`properties.controllingField`).
- Formula reference detection (re-tokenize each formula source).
- Flow decision detection (v2.0a `firesWhen` →
  `ConditionalContext` → search for `== 'value'` /
  `!= 'value'` patterns).
- Apex string-literal detection (conjunction: ApexClass has the
  literal AND has an incoming `readsFrom`/`writesTo` edge to the
  target field).

The hard dependency on v2.0a: without `firesWhen` edges and
`ConditionalContext` extraction, Flow decisions keyed on the value
would be invisible. The composer surfaces an error if the vault
is missing v2.0a extraction.

#### `sfi.what_if_change_field_value`

The Data-Steward / Identity lens: what breaks if a field's stored
VALUE changes — NOT its schema (that is `change_field_type`).
Returns impact buckets (identity / integration-key / uniqueness /
automation / save-pipeline / display), an overall severity, and
recommended pre-change checks. Identity / key / uniqueness verdicts
come from the field's OWN metadata (`externalId` / `unique` /
`idLookup`, identity catalog), so a value change is flagged even on
a field with ZERO references (e.g. a SAML federation key). Derived
fields (formula / roll-up / auto-number) return `mutable: false`
and re-route to their source. Optional `newValue` adds a targeted
collision/acceptance check.

Surface verbatim: the vault cannot see external upsert systems, the
IdP side of SSO, or dynamic / managed-package code; automation
buckets surface only declarative value-literal couplings — Apex
literal comparisons remain invisible. For the portfolio version
across many fields on an object, use `sfi.value_change_audit`.

#### `sfi.what_if_make_field_required`

Walks the parent object's write paths:
- **Layout coverage** — layouts without the field display →
  `configuration-only`.
- **Flow create coverage** — Flow `<recordCreates>` without the
  field in `<inputAssignments>` → `metadata-blocker`, `parsed`.
- **Integration write coverage** — `ExternalService` /
  `ExternalDataSource` not declaring the field →
  `integration-touch`, `declared`.
- **Apex create coverage** — NOT WALKED (deferred to dataflow
  analysis).

Surface the verbatim Apex-invisible disclosure:

> The analysis checks layouts (UI input paths), Flow create paths,
> and integration write surfaces. Apex `insert acc;` sites that
> may or may not set the field are invisible — determining whether
> `acc.Industry__c` was assigned before the insert requires
> dataflow analysis. If your org has Apex create paths, verify
> the field is set before making required.

#### `sfi.what_if_merge_profiles`

Takes exactly two profiles; groups grants by `(settingType,
settingKey)` and emits one `WhatIfImpactItem` per conflict.
Conflict shape depends on setting type. Default
`conflictResolution: 'manual-only'` surfaces every conflict with
`suggestedResolution: 'manual'`. Optional `'max'` / `'min'` for
starting-point recommendations.

Multi-profile merge (3+) is not supported in v2.3.

#### `sfi.what_if_split_profile`

Greedy heuristic: each grant goes to the best-keyword-match perm
set (API-name token matching), then domain-cluster fallback, then
default target. No backtracking. Optimal partitioning is deferred
to a future milestone.

Surface verbatim: greedy + fail-conservative; per-org
optimal-partitioning override is not supported.

#### `sfi.what_if_assign_permset`

The NET access a user would GAIN by assigning a target permission
set (or PSG). Give the target (`permissionSetId` — a
`PermissionSet:` / `PermissionSetGroup:` id or bare name) and a
`baseline` container (`{ profileId?, permissionSetIds?[] }` — the
user's current profile + already-assigned sets). It runs the SAME
effective-permissions engine as `sfi.effective_permissions` TWICE
(baseline WITH vs WITHOUT the target) and diffs the max-wins,
muting-applied EFFECTIVE grant sets. NET-CHANGE CORRECTNESS is the
whole value: a permission the baseline already holds via its
profile or another set cancels out and is NOT counted as gained.
Delta classes: `objectPermissions`, `fieldPermissions`,
`systemPermissions`, `customPermissions`, `recordTypeVisibilities`.
Verdict `safe` on a no-op, else `review`.

Surface verbatim: the delta is the NET change under max-wins; this
is a hypothetical READ (nothing is assigned); grants are `declared`
metadata; object permission is not record access (visibility still
depends on OWD + sharing).

#### `sfi.what_if_revoke_permset`

The mirror of `assign_permset`: the NET access a user would LOSE by
revoking a target set whose baseline SHOULD include it. Same twice-
run effective-permissions diff; a permission ALSO granted by the
profile or another assigned set is NOT counted as lost (the user
keeps it). Revoking a set not in the baseline is a disclosed no-op
(`targetInBaseline: false`). Verdict `safe` on a no-op, else
`review`. Same honesty surface as `assign_permset`.

### Category B — Reachability (v2.7, 5 tools)

#### `sfi.call_graph`

BFS over `callsApex` edges from a root ApexClass / ApexTrigger.
Direction: `'upstream'` (incoming — who calls me), `'downstream'`
(outgoing — what do I call), or `'both'`. Default `maxDepth: 3`.

```json
{ "rootId": "ApexClass:OpportunityService", "direction": "both", "maxDepth": 3 }
```

Class-granularity is the v2.7 honesty boundary. State it.

Input key is **`rootId`** (or the `componentId` alias) — it is
REQUIRED. There is no `classApiName` alias on this tool, unlike
`method_reachability` / `explain_apex_method`, so a call naming one is
an `invalid-query`. `maxDepth` is bounded at **5**; `edgeTypes` widens
the walk beyond `callsApex`.

The response carries:
- `nodes[]` — every reached class.
- `edges[]` — every `callsApex` edge walked.
- `cycleDetected: boolean` — whether the BFS observed any back-edge.
- `otherUsageInEdges` {`count`, `byType`} — ALWAYS present. The
  incoming usage edges this walk did NOT follow. This is what stops
  `edges: []` reading as "no callers": a `count` of 0 is a CHECKED
  zero; a non-zero count names exactly what was left unfollowed.
  Surface it whenever the call list is empty.
- `soundness` — `complete: false` with an `unwalked-edge-type` blind
  spot naming the usage edge types (e.g. `references`,
  `dispatchesAsync`) the default `callsApex`-only walk skipped.
- `disclosure` — the verbatim class-granularity disclosure.

#### `sfi.downstream_effects`

Composes `sfi.call_graph` downstream then, for every reachable
class, lists outgoing `writesTo` (field-write effects),
`dispatchesAsync` (async dispatch effects), and `sendsEmail`
(email effects). Returns `DownstreamEffect[]` categorized by
edgeType.

Callouts are NOT a separate v2.7 edge type (no `Apex.Http.send`
extractor yet); the disclosure surfaces this gap explicitly.

#### `sfi.test_coverage_for_method`

BFS upstream over `callsApex` from the target, filtered to nodes
with `properties.isTest === true`. Returns `coveringTestClasses[]`
sorted by id.

The `methodName` parameter is ACCEPTED and echoed verbatim into
the response — but v2.7 does NOT subset coverage by method. The
class-granularity honesty boundary is verbatim. Method-level
granularity is deferred to v2.7.1.

#### `sfi.method_reachability`

Walks upstream **USAGE** edges from the target — every `EdgeType`
EXCEPT `parentOf` (structural containment) and `grantedBy` (an access
grant is not a use). It is a DENY-list, not the `['callsApex']`
allow-list it used to be: an allow-list can never learn about an edge
type added after it (`dispatchesAsync`, the Apex scanner's
`references`), and it is wrong in the direction that calls live code
dead.

ONE walk does both jobs. It classifies each reached node against the
entry-point taxonomy:
- `ApexTrigger:*` (any).
- `ApexClass` with `properties.isRestResource === true`.
- `ApexClass` with `properties.hasAuraEnabledMethod === true`.
- `ApexClass` with `properties.hasInvocableMethod === true`.
- `ApexClass` with any of `properties.isQueueable` /
  `isBatchable` / `isSchedulable`.
- the ROOT itself when `properties.isTest === true` — the test
  RUNNER is a test class's entry point. Depth 0 ONLY: a test class
  UPSTREAM of the root is coverage, not an entry point, so
  `test-only-reachable` survives.
- a class reached by a `references` edge from a VisualforcePage /
  VisualforceComponent / AuraDefinitionBundle — the `controller=`
  binding, derived from the EDGE rather than a node property.
- **unproven dynamic registration** — a class whose `superclass` is
  dotted (another namespace's framework instantiates its own
  subclasses) or that declares the `Callable` interface. These fire at
  ANY depth, are floored at `heuristic` confidence, and establish only
  that the class is BUILT to be invoked from outside this vault —
  never that the registration is live.

The same walk marks reached `properties.isTest === true` classes as
test coverage. There is no second walk.

Combined verdict:
- `entry-point-reachable` — at least one entry point reaches.
- `test-only-reachable` — no entry point reaches but at least one
  test class does.
- `likely-dead-code` — neither reaches within the depth cap.

Surface the response's own `disclosure` verbatim rather than
paraphrasing it. It states the v2.7 class granularity, the depth-3 BFS
cap, and that dynamic dispatch (`Type.forName`), reflective invocation
and framework wiring are invisible. Two conditional suffixes matter:
- on `likely-dead-code` it adds that this is NOT the org's dead-code
  verdict — `sfi.find_dead_code` runs an additional whole-word source
  re-check and may downgrade the same class to `uncertain`. Run it
  before concluding.
- when the ONLY entry points found are unproven registrations it says
  so, so a bare `entry-point-reachable` is never read as proof.

#### `sfi.meaningful_test_audit`

For every `isTest === true` ApexClass, computes:
- `assertionCount` — invocations of `System.assert*` per v2.1.
- `fakeAssertionCount` — `qualityIssues[]` entries with
  `rule === 'fake-assertion'`.
- `density` — `assertionCount / max(1, sourceBytes / 1000)`.

Sorts by `fakeAssertionCount DESC, density ASC`. Top-of-list test
classes are most likely candidates for a meaningfulness audit.

Verbatim disclosure: the heuristic recognizes direct
`System.assert*` tokens; helper methods
(`MyTestHelper.assertField(record, ...)`) and framework wrappers
are invisible.

## Honesty axes

### v2.7 class-granularity boundary (surface on every reachability response — summarised here; quote the response's own `disclosure`)

> v2.7 ships CLASS-level granularity. A call from `ApexClass:A.foo()`
> to `ApexClass:B.bar()` produces ONE `A → B` `callsApex` edge
> with no method partition. The `methodName` input is accepted and
> echoed into the response so callers can pipeline through future
> method-scoped resolution — but v2.7 does NOT subset coverage,
> reachability, or downstream effects by method. Method-level edge
> resolution is deferred to v2.7.1.

### v2.7 invisible-dispatch boundary (surface on every reachability response — the response's own `disclosure` string is the authoritative wording; this is a summary of it, not a quotation)

> Dynamic dispatch (`Type.forName('...').newInstance().method(...)`),
> reflective invocation, same-namespace framework wiring
> (TriggerHandler / fflib base classes), and managed-package callers
> are INVISIBLE to the graph edges these tools walk. A class genuinely
> invoked at runtime via one of these mechanisms will surface as
> `likely-dead-code` or with an empty `coveringTestClasses[]`. Verify
> before treating as the answer.

Two dynamic-registration shapes are the exception: a class extending a
base class from ANOTHER namespace (a dotted `superclass`) and a class
declaring `Callable` are now recognised as `framework-subclass` /
`callable-dispatch` entry points at `heuristic` confidence. They keep
such a class OFF `likely-dead-code` and map it to `uncertain` in
`sfi.find_dead_code` — but they prove only that the class is BUILT for
outside invocation, never that the registration is live. Do not read
either as "reachable"; read it as "not dead, unproven".

### v2.3 confidence-floor rule

For each finding, `confidence` is the worst confidence on the walk
path from the changing component to the affected component. The
order is: `heuristic` (worst) < `parsed` < `declared` (best).

| Walk path | Confidence |
|---|---|
| Profile FLS, layout placement, XML-declared condition | `declared` |
| Apex AST field reads/writes + cross-class calls (default-on), formula tokenizer, Flow walker, integration schema parser | `parsed` |
| Apex recall scanner (parse-failure/gap backfill), `dispatchesAsync` async-dispatch recognizer, LWC/Aura/VF frontend scanner | `heuristic` |

State the per-finding confidence explicitly; don't paraphrase
`heuristic` as "likely".

### v2.3 per-tool boundaries (selected verbatim phrases)

| Tool | Verbatim phrase |
|---|---|
| `what_if_change_field_type` | "Lookup → Text and MasterDetail → Text are structurally compatible but lose foreign-key semantics. Roll-up summary fields, sharing-by-parent, and cascade-delete behavior change." |
| `what_if_remove_picklist_value` | "Apex variable-based comparisons (`if (account.Industry__c == myVar)`) are invisible. Dynamic SOQL filters by picklist value are invisible. Reports / Dashboards / List Views filtered by this value are NOT extracted." |
| `what_if_make_field_required` | "Apex `insert acc;` sites that may or may not set the field are invisible — dataflow analysis required." |
| `what_if_deactivate_flow` | "Deactivation does NOT delete the Flow; its definition remains and a later reactivation restores every effect listed. Parent Flows invoking this Flow as a declared `<subflows>` call ARE modeled as broken callers (an Active parent forces `blocking`); Lightning pages whose Flow component EMBEDS this Flow (declared `embeddedFlow` references) ARE modeled as embedded callers and always force `blocking`. The STILL-invisible path is Apex that invokes the Flow via `Flow.Interview` or `@InvocableMethod` chains, plus non-metadata launch points (buttons, quick actions)." |
| `what_if_disable_trigger` | "Apex code that conditionally invokes the disabled trigger logic via a static utility wrapping the same handler is invisible. Test classes using `Test.startTest()` / `Test.stopTest()` semantics may depend on the trigger firing — review test setup before disabling." |
| `what_if_change_method_signature` | "Callers come from the default-on Apex AST call-site index (`parsed`), with the recall scanner backfilling parse-failure files (`heuristic`) — cite each caller's own confidence; dynamic dispatch via Type.forName + invoke is invisible to both. Test classes identified by @isTest + naming convention; non-convention test classes may be missed." |
| `what_if_merge_profiles` | "Multi-profile (3+) merge is not supported in v2.3 — exactly two profiles per call. Tie-break defaults to A wins for setting types where comparators are undefined." |
| `what_if_split_profile` | "Greedy heuristic with no backtracking. Optimal partitioning (minimum overlap, maximum coverage) requires graph clustering; deferred to future milestone." |

### v2.7 v2.1 inheritance — meaningful_test_audit

- **`@isTest` recognition tied to v1.4 extraction.** A test class
  identified ONLY by naming convention (`MyClassTest` with no
  `@isTest` annotation) WILL NOT have `isTest: true`. The audit
  scope is `properties.isTest === true` set.
- **Custom assertion helpers invisible.** A test class with all
  assertions via a `MyTestHelper.expectField(record, ...)` helper
  will surface with `assertionCount: 0` and rank near the top of
  the suspicious list — a false positive. Verify before treating
  as a real concern.

## Worked example

User: *"What breaks if I deactivate `Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner`?"*

Claude's flow:

1. **Classify** → what-if shape, deactivate-Flow.
2. **Fire** `sfi.run_analysis` with `{ "name": "sfi.what_if_deactivate_flow", "args": { … } }` with
   `{ "flowId": "Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner" }`.
3. **Receive** (illustrative):

```json
{
  "data": {
    "appliedScope": { "component": "Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner", "mode": "component" },
    "flowId": "Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner",
    "apiName": "Set_Opportunity_Owner",
    "status": "Active",
    "runtimeState": { "status": "Active", "currentlyRunning": true, "note": "…" },
    "verdict": "blocking",
    "structuralVerdict": "blocking",
    "entryPoints": [
      { "kind": "triggersOn", "componentId": "CustomObject:Opportunity", "note": "Where the runtime hands control TO this Flow — not a dependent." }
    ],
    "impacts": [
      { "componentId": "CustomField:Opportunity.Owner", "componentType": "CustomField", "apiName": "Opportunity.Owner", "category": "metadata-blocker", "confidence": "parsed", "explanation": "Flow writes to Owner via recordUpdate element 'assign_owner'." },
      { "componentId": "ApexClass:OwnerAssignmentService", "componentType": "ApexClass", "apiName": "OwnerAssignmentService", "category": "code-needs-update", "confidence": "declared", "explanation": "Flow calls OwnerAssignmentService.assign via Apex action." }
    ],
    "firingConditions": [
      { "conditionContextId": "ConditionalContext:Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner.condition-0", "expression": "RecordType.DeveloperName == 'Standard_Opportunity' AND Owner == null" }
    ],
    "trust": { "…": "…" },
    "disclosure": "v2.3 what-if analysis is composition over the v2.2 vault state. …"
  }
}
```

Keys to hold onto: it is `impacts`, not `findings`; `disclosure` is
ONE string, not a `boundaries` array; an impact row carries
`componentType` and `explanation` (there is no `type`, `location` or
`suggestedAction`); a firing condition carries `conditionContextId`
and `expression` and nothing else; and `triggersOn` sits in
`entryPoints`, not in `impacts`.

4. **Respond:**

> Deactivating `Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner` — verdict: **blocking**
> (structural verdict `blocking`; the Flow is Active, so it runs
> today). Two impacts:
>
> **Metadata blockers (1)**
> - `CustomField:Opportunity.Owner` — the Flow writes Owner via
>   `recordUpdate` element `assign_owner`. Records saved without
>   another owner-assignment surface will be created with no
>   Owner. (`parsed`)
>
> **Code needs update (1)**
> - `ApexClass:OwnerAssignmentService` — the Flow calls
>   `OwnerAssignmentService.assign` via an Apex action.
>   Deactivating the Flow means this Apex action is no longer
>   invoked from this path; if the class is used elsewhere it
>   continues to function. (`declared`)
>
> **Entry point (not an impact)**
> - `CustomObject:Opportunity` — where the runtime hands control TO
>   this Flow. Deactivation silences that trigger, but the object is
>   not something the Flow breaks.
>
> **Firing conditions silenced**
> - `ConditionalContext:Flow:Set_Opportunity_Owner.condition-0`
>   — `RecordType.DeveloperName == 'Standard_Opportunity' AND
>   Owner == null`. Records matching this condition will no longer
>   be auto-assigned.
>
> Suggested next checks:
>
> 1. Confirm no other automation (Apex Trigger, Workflow Rule)
>    writes Opportunity Owner on save. Run
>    `sfi.find_field_anywhere` on
>    `CustomField:Opportunity.Owner` filtered to `writesTo`
>    edges.
> 2. Verify `OwnerAssignmentService.assign` is not the ONLY
>    caller of downstream Apex via incoming `callsApex` edges.
>    Run `sfi.run_analysis` with `{ "name": "sfi.call_graph", "args": { … } }` with
>    `direction: 'downstream', rootId: 'ApexClass:OwnerAssignmentService'`.
>
> Boundaries — quote the response's `disclosure` string VERBATIM
> (it is one paragraph, not a list). It states that deactivation does
> NOT delete the Flow, that `input-only` rows are dependencies the
> Flow consumes rather than downstream effects, that `entryPoints`
> names where the Flow starts, that an ACTIVE parent Flow's subflow
> call forces `blocking`, and that Apex invoking the Flow via
> `Flow.Interview` / `@InvocableMethod` chains and non-metadata launch
> points (quick actions, buttons, screen-flow entry) remain invisible.

The response leads with the `blocking` verdict, organizes by
category, cites canonical IDs + edge confidence, surfaces the
firing conditions (the actual gating logic the deactivation
silences), suggests concrete next steps, and appends the
verbatim v2.3 disclosure.

## Anti-patterns

| Mistake | Why it's wrong |
|---|---|
| Subsetting `sfi.test_coverage_for_method` results by the user-supplied `methodName`. | The class-granularity boundary is verbatim: v2.7 does NOT subset by method. The `methodName` is echoed for caller-pipelining only. Surface every covering test class for the target CLASS, with the verbatim disclosure. |
| Treating a `likely-dead-code` verdict from `sfi.method_reachability` as "this class is safe to delete." | Dynamic dispatch, reflective invocation, framework wiring, and managed-package callers are invisible. The verdict means "no usage in-edge and no entry-point classifier within depth-3"; verify with `sfi.find_dead_code` (adds a whole-word source re-check that can downgrade the class to `uncertain`) and `sfi.find_code_usages` before deletion. |
| Surfacing a what-if finding without its `confidence`. | The confidence is the developer's verification axis. A `heuristic` finding is a candidate for false positive; a `declared` finding is metadata-sourced. State both. |
| Subsetting `sfi.what_if_change_field_type` results to only `metadata-blocker` (hiding `configuration-only`). | The configuration-only findings (layouts, perm-set assignments) are the developer's "fix this before deploy" surface even though they won't break the deploy. Surface them; group by category, don't drop. |
| Calling `sfi.what_if_remove_picklist_value` against a vault missing v2.0a extraction. | The composer surfaces an error in this case (Flow decisions keyed on the value would be invisible without `firesWhen` edges + `ConditionalContext` nodes). Recover with the v2.0a-not-extracted message; suggest `/sfi-refresh`. |
| Calling `sfi.call_graph` with `maxDepth: 10`. | `maxDepth` is bounded at **5**, so 10 is a rejected `invalid-query`, not a deep walk. The class-granularity boundary collapses methods together anyway; long chains rarely surface useful structure. Default `maxDepth: 3`; raise it to at most 5, and only when the user asks for an exhaustive walk. |
| Treating `cycleDetected: true` in `sfi.call_graph` as "the architecture is broken." | A queueable class enqueueing itself is the textbook chunking pattern, NOT a bug. Mention the cycle but distinguish self-enqueue from genuine call-graph cycles. |
| Skipping the dynamic-dispatch boundary on `sfi.test_coverage_for_method` results. | A class genuinely tested via `Type.forName(...)` will surface with an empty `coveringTestClasses[]`. State the boundary even when results are non-empty; the user may have OTHER tests that aren't surfacing. |
| Recommending a profile split with `sfi.what_if_split_profile` as the deployable answer. | The split tool's greedy heuristic produces a STARTING POINT, not the optimal partition. Surface the per-assignment `reason` so the developer reviews each grant before committing. |
| Treating `meaningful_test_audit`'s `fake-assertion` ranking as "these tests are bad". | Custom assertion helpers and framework wrappers are invisible. A class with all assertions via a `MyTestHelper.expectField(record, ...)` helper ranks at the top of the suspicious list but may be genuinely thorough. Verify by reading the test source. |

## See also

- `developer-apex-refactor` — for code-reference questions ("where
  is `OpportunityService` used in source"). The Apex tier is the
  default-on parser-grade AST (`parsed`) plus a heuristic recall
  scanner; the frontend LWC/Aura/VF tier stays `heuristic`. What-if
  tools READ those graph edges as their composition input.
- `developer-code-quality` — for quality / hygiene questions over
  the same `qualityIssues[]` mirror. `sfi.meaningful_test_audit`
  here and `sfi.test_coverage_gaps` there share the same
  `fake-assertion` rule.
- `architect-impact-analysis` — for cross-component impact ("what
  depends on this field"). v0.2 `sfi.get_impact` walks every edge
  type; v2.3 composers narrow to a specific change kind.
- `architect-async-and-events` — for `sfi.async_chain_depth`
  (transitive `dispatchesAsync` walk). Adjacent to
  `sfi.call_graph` but specialized to async dispatch.
- `developer-field-deep-dive` — for v3.0 field synthesis
  (`sfi.field_360`, `sfi.field_lineage`) which COMPOSES this
  skill's per-method walks.

## Verification

Before sending a response, confirm:

- [ ] I classified the question into one of the three categories
      (what-if / reachability / test-quality) and fired the right
      tool.
- [ ] For reachability tools (`call_graph`, `downstream_effects`,
      `test_coverage_for_method`, `method_reachability`,
      `meaningful_test_audit`), I surfaced the class-granularity
      boundary verbatim and stated the dynamic-dispatch invisibility.
- [ ] For `test_coverage_for_method`, I did NOT subset by the
      user-supplied `methodName`; I echoed the methodName for
      caller-pipelining and reported coverage at class
      granularity.
- [ ] For `method_reachability`, I cited the verdict
      (`entry-point-reachable` / `test-only-reachable` /
      `likely-dead-code`) and stated which entry points reached the
      target (or that NO entry point reaches if the verdict is
      `likely-dead-code`).
- [ ] For what-if tools, I grouped findings by `category`
      (`metadata-blocker` / `code-needs-update` /
      `integration-touch` / `test-class-update` /
      `invisible-risk` / `configuration-only`) and cited per-
      finding `confidence`.
- [ ] For `what_if_make_field_required`, I surfaced the
      Apex-create-coverage invisibility verbatim.
- [ ] For `what_if_change_method_signature`, I surfaced the Q105
      dynamic-dispatch + test-class-naming-convention disclosure.
- [ ] For `what_if_remove_picklist_value`, I confirmed v2.0a
      extraction ran (the composer errors otherwise).
- [ ] For `meaningful_test_audit`, I cited the custom-assertion-
      helper invisibility verbatim.
- [ ] I did NOT recommend a destructive change (delete the class,
      remove the picklist value, change the field type) without
      naming the verification step.
- [ ] I cited every canonical id in backticks.

---

**Grounding 

…(truncated)