syncable-dev Overview
Pre-change risk assessment workflow. Before modifying code, this workflow maps the full blast radius, identifies affected processes, checks recent change history for instability signals, checks Cortex decision memory for recorded decisions/bans/contracts, and produces a risk-rated change plan.
Use this workflow when the change spans multiple symbols or needs a risk-rated plan. For a quick raw upstream/downstream radius around one known symbol, call get_impact directly.
Steps
1. Identify what's being changed
Find the target symbol(s):
- Use
find_symbolif the user named specific functions/classes - Use
find_codeif the user described behaviour ("the authentication middleware")
Collect symbol names (name, scope_path, file_path) for all targets — graph tools use names, not internal IDs.
2. Get 360° context for each target
For each symbol, call get_symbol_context (repo_id, symbol, file_path):
- Direct callers and callees
- Community membership (which module is this in?)
- Process membership (which execution flows does this participate in?)
- Cross-repo API callers (is this an endpoint called by other services?)
Decision: If cross-repo API callers exist, this change requires coordination with other teams. Flag this immediately.
3. Compute blast radius
For each target, call get_impact (repo_id, target) with direction: "both", depth: 5:
- Upstream impact: what depends on this symbol
- Downstream impact: what this symbol depends on
- Risk rating: Low / Medium / High / Critical
Decision:
| Risk | Action |
|---|---|
| Low | Proceed with standard testing |
| Medium | Review all direct callers; test affected processes |
| High | Plan incremental migration; consider feature flags |
| Critical | Full migration strategy; backward-compatible changes required |
4. Check Cortex decision memory
For each target or subsystem, call recall_decision("<target/subsystem/approach>").
If the graph result exposes a numeric symbol_id, also call
why_is_this_here(symbol_id) and governing_contracts(symbol_id).
- Matching decision/ban/convention → include it in the plan before recommending a change.
- Decision you intend to rely on → run
verify_intent(decision_id)first. - CannotProve → record "no decision proven"; do not treat it as approval.
5. Check temporal stability
Call get_evolution (repo_id, from: "30d ago", mode: "compound"), then get_timeline on each target symbol (requires scope_path + file_path from find_symbol):
- Sparse timeline history + you're about to change it → structurally surprising; extra scrutiny warranted.
- Target appears in
top_touched_symbols→ high churn + high impact = volatile hotspot.
6. Map affected execution flows
From step 2, you already know which processes are affected. For critical changes, use analyze_relationships (repo_id, target) with query_type: "find_callers" at depth: 3 to trace the full transitive caller chain.
depth: 3 is a JSON number, not a string — the validator rejects "3".
Full parameter spec for every Memtrace tool: references/mcp-parameters.md (bundled at the memtrace-skills plugin root).
7. Produce the risk assessment
Synthesize into a change plan:
- Target(s) — what's being changed and where
- Blast Radius — number of direct/transitive dependents, risk rating
- Affected Processes — which execution flows will be impacted
- Cross-Service Impact — any external callers or consumers
- Stability Signal — sparse
get_timelinehistory (stable) vs frequent appearance intop_touched_symbols(volatile) - Decision Memory — relevant decisions/bans/contracts, or CannotProve as unknown
- Recommended Approach — based on risk and decision constraints: direct change, incremental migration, or backward-compatible evolution
- Test Coverage — which callers/processes to verify after the change
Decision Points
| Condition | Action |
|---|---|
| Risk = Critical | Recommend backward-compatible change + deprecation path |
| Cross-repo callers exist | Flag as requiring multi-service coordination |
| Symbol has sparse timeline but high impact | Extra review — this rarely changes; make sure the change is intentional |
| Multiple processes affected | List each affected flow; recommend testing each one |
| Symbol is a bridge point | Change may disconnect parts of the architecture — verify alternative paths exist |
| Cortex returns a held ban/contract | Do not recommend contradicting it without explicit user sign-off |
Output
The workflow's artifact is the step-6 risk-rated change plan. Compact example:
Target: AuthService::validateToken (src/auth/service.ts)
Blast Radius: 4 direct / 23 transitive dependents — Risk: High
Affected Processes: login-flow, session-refresh
Cross-Service Impact: 2 cross-repo API callers — needs multi-service coordination
Stability Signal: appears in top_touched_symbols (volatile hotspot)
Recommended Approach: incremental migration behind a feature flag
Test Coverage: all 4 direct callers + both affected processes