skills: Add a "change risk" axis to /review-uncommitted.

.claude/skills/review-uncommitted/SKILL.md

@@ -1,26 +1,25 @@
 ---
 name: review-uncommitted
-description: Review the working tree's uncommitted changes along two axes — repo standards and spec fidelity — using parallel sub-agents.
+description: Review the working tree's uncommitted changes along three axes — change risk, repo standards, and spec fidelity — using parallel sub-agents.
 ---
 
-Two-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and the working tree:
+Three-axis review of the diff between `HEAD` and the working tree:
 
+- **Risk** — how much attention does this change warrant, from low to high?
 - **Standards** — does the code conform to this repo's documented coding standards?
 - **Spec** — does the code faithfully implement the originating PRD or task file?
 
-Both axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then
-this skill aggregates their findings.
+All three axes run as **parallel sub-agents** so they don't pollute each other's context, then this skill aggregates their findings.
 
 ## Process
 
 ### 1. Capture the diff
 
-The diff command is `git diff HEAD` — everything uncommitted, staged or not. New files
-must already be tracked (`git add`ed) to show up; this skill doesn't scan for untracked
-files, so that's the caller's responsibility.
+The diff command is `git diff HEAD` — everything uncommitted, staged or not.
+New files must already be tracked (`git add`ed) to show up; this skill doesn't scan for untracked files, so that's the caller's responsibility.
 
-Confirm the diff is non-empty before going further. An empty diff should fail here — not
-inside two parallel sub-agents.
+Confirm the diff is non-empty before going further.
+An empty diff should fail here — not inside three parallel sub-agents.
 
 ### 2. Identify the spec source
 
@@ -28,96 +27,121 @@ Look for the originating spec, in this order:
 
 1. A path the user passed as an argument.
 2. A spec file matching the branch name or feature — `.claude/spec/<feature-slug>.md`.
-3. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is. If they say there isn't one, the
-   **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
+3. If nothing is found, ask the user where the spec is.
+   If they say there isn't one, the **Spec** sub-agent will skip and report "no spec available".
 
 ### 3. Identify the standards sources
 
-Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as
-`CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
+Anything in the repo that documents how code should be written, such as `CODING_STANDARDS.md` or `CONTRIBUTING.md`.
 
-On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell
-baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies
-even when a repo documents nothing. Two rules bind it:
+On top of whatever the repo documents, the Standards axis always carries the **smell baseline** below — a fixed set of Fowler code smells (_Refactoring_, ch.3) that applies even when a repo documents nothing.
+Two rules bind it:
 
-- **The repo overrides.** A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses
-  something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
-- **Always a judgement call.** Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature
-  Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling
-  already enforces.
+- **The repo overrides.**
+  A documented repo standard always wins; where it endorses something the baseline would flag, suppress the smell.
+- **Always a judgement call.**
+  Each smell is a labelled heuristic ("possible Feature Envy"), never a hard violation — and, like any standard here, skip anything tooling already enforces.
 
 Each smell reads *what it is* → *how to fix*; match it against the diff:
 
-- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it
-  does or holds. → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
-- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the
-  change. → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
+- **Mysterious Name** — a function, variable, or type whose name doesn't reveal what it does or holds.
+  → rename it; if no honest name comes, the design's murky.
+- **Duplicated Code** — the same logic shape appears in more than one hunk or file in the change.
+  → extract the shared shape, call it from both.
 - **Feature Envy** — a method that reaches into another object's data more than its own.
   → move the method onto the data it envies.
-- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type
-  wanting to be born). → bundle them into one type, pass that.
-- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that
-  deserves its own type. → give the concept its own small type.
-- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across
-  the change. → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
-- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in
-  the diff. → gather what changes together into one module.
+- **Data Clumps** — the same few fields or params keep travelling together (a type wanting to be born).
+  → bundle them into one type, pass that.
+- **Primitive Obsession** — a primitive or string standing in for a domain concept that deserves its own type.
+  → give the concept its own small type.
+- **Repeated Switches** — the same `switch`/`if`-cascade on the same type recurs across the change.
+  → replace with polymorphism, or one map both sites share.
+- **Shotgun Surgery** — one logical change forces scattered edits across many files in the diff.
+  → gather what changes together into one module.
 - **Divergent Change** — one file or module is edited for several unrelated reasons.
   → split so each module changes for one reason.
-- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec
-  doesn't have. → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
+- **Speculative Generality** — abstraction, parameters, or hooks added for needs the spec doesn't have.
+  → delete it; inline back until a real need shows.
 - **Message Chains** — long `a.b().c().d()` navigation the caller shouldn't depend on.
   → hide the walk behind one method on the first object.
-- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward. → cut it, call
-  the real target direct.
-- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what
-  it inherits. → drop the inheritance, use composition.
+- **Middle Man** — a class or function that mostly just delegates onward.
+  → cut it, call the real target direct.
+- **Refused Bequest** — a subclass or implementer that ignores or overrides most of what it inherits.
+  → drop the inheritance, use composition.
 
-### 4. Spawn both sub-agents in parallel
+### 4. Risk rubric
 
-Send a single message with two `Agent` tool calls. Use the `general-purpose` subagent for
-both.
+The Risk axis judges the diff alone — no repo-doc lookup, no input from the Standards or Spec sub-agents.
+It always runs; it only needs the diff from step 1.
+
+Rate each of these six factors **Low / Medium / High**, then take the single highest-rated factor as the overall rating (worst-factor-wins):
+
+- **Blast radius** — isolated change vs. ripples across many files, modules, or callers.
+- **Reversibility** — trivial rollback vs. hard to undo (migrations, deletions, published API/schema changes).
+- **Test coverage** — covered by tests in/around the diff vs. untested.
+- **Sensitive domain** — touches auth, security, payments, permissions, concurrency, or data migrations.
+- **Size & complexity** — large diff or tangled control flow vs. small/simple.
+- **Runtime criticality** — hot path/production-critical vs. internal or dev-only tooling.
+
+### 5. Spawn all three sub-agents in parallel
+
+Send a single message with three `Agent` tool calls.
+Use the `general-purpose` subagent for all three.
+
+**Risk sub-agent prompt** — include:
+
+- The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
+- The six risk factors from step 4, pasted in full.
+- The brief: "Rate each of the six factors Low/Medium/High with a one-clause reason, then give the overall rating as the highest of the six.
+  Report the overall rating first, then the six factor lines.
+  Under 200 words."
 
 **Standards sub-agent prompt** — include:
 
 - The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
-- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from
-  step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
-- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a
-  documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you
-  spot: name it and quote the hunk. Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls —
-  documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement
-  calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline. Skip anything tooling
-  enforces. Under 400 words."
+- The list of standards-source files you found in step 3, **plus the smell baseline from step 3** pasted in full — the sub-agent has no other access to it.
+- The brief: "Report — per file/hunk where relevant — (a) every place the diff violates a documented standard: cite the standard (file + the rule); and (b) any baseline smell you spot: name it and quote the hunk.
+  Distinguish hard violations from judgement calls — documented-standard breaches can be hard, but baseline smells are always judgement calls, and a documented repo standard overrides the baseline.
+  Skip anything tooling enforces.
+  Under 400 words."
 
 **Spec sub-agent prompt** — include:
 
 - The full diff (output of `git diff HEAD`).
 - The path or fetched contents of the spec.
-- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial;
-  (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that
-  look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong. Quote the spec line for each
-  finding. Under 400 words."
+- The brief: "Report: (a) requirements the spec asked for that are missing or partial; (b) behaviour in the diff that wasn't asked for (scope creep); (c) requirements that look implemented but where the implementation looks wrong.
+  Quote the spec line for each finding.
+  Under 400 words."
 
 If the spec is missing, skip the Spec sub-agent and note this in the final report.
 
-### 5. Aggregate
+### 6. Aggregate
 
-Present the two reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly
-cleaned. Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the two axes are deliberately separate
-(see _Why two axes_).
+Present the Risk report first, under a `## Risk` heading, with the overall rating bolded on its own line followed by the six factor lines:
 
-End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis, and the worst issue _within each
-axis_ (if any). Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the
-separation exists to prevent.
+```
+## Risk
+**Overall: HIGH**
+- Blast radius: ...
+- Reversibility: ...
+- Test coverage: ...
+- Sensitive domain: ...
+- Size & complexity: ...
+- Runtime criticality: ...
+```
 
-## Why two axes
+Then present the Standards and Spec reports under `## Standards` and `## Spec` headings, verbatim or lightly cleaned.
+Do **not** merge or rerank findings — the axes are deliberately separate (see _Why Standards and Spec stay separate_).
+
+End with a one-line summary: total findings per axis (Standards/Spec only), and the worst issue _within each axis_ (if any).
+Don't pick a single winner across axes — that's the reranking the separation exists to prevent.
+The risk rating isn't repeated here; it already leads the report.
+
+## Why Standards and Spec stay separate
 
 A change can pass one axis and fail the other:
 
-- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass,
-  Spec fail.**
-- Code that does exactly what the PRD or task asked but breaks the project's conventions
-  → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
+- Code that follows every standard but implements the wrong thing → **Standards pass, Spec fail.**
+- Code that does exactly what the PRD or task asked but breaks the project's conventions → **Spec pass, Standards fail.**
 
 Reporting them separately stops one axis from masking the other.