[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6AE83ZEFXZ4G29WZ92JMF52":3,"skill-same:01M6AE83ZEFXZ4G29WZ92JMF52":84},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":28,"publishedAt":55,"linkOnly":56,"markdownContent":57,"markdownBody":58,"frontMatter":59,"refName":60,"commitSha":61,"skillDirectory":62,"forksCount":63,"repositoryHtmlUrl":64,"repositoryHomepageUrl":65,"ownerHtmlUrl":66,"ownerBlogUrl":67,"ownerDescription":68,"updatedAt":69,"install":70,"resources":83},"01M6AE83ZEFXZ4G29WZ92JMF52","sql-object-impact-analysis",null,"Before modifying a table, column, stored procedure, view, or trigger in a legacy codebase, trace every place that references it — across other SQL objects (procs, views, triggers) AND application code (C#, Angular\u002FTypeScript, JS, or any language in the repo) — and produce a structured blast-radius report so you know what breaks before you change it. Use when the user asks 'what uses this column\u002Ftable\u002Fprocedure', 'is it safe to change X', 'what depends on this', 'impact of renaming\u002Fdropping X', or before any schema\u002Fproc modification in an unfamiliar or legacy codebase. Not for privacy\u002FPII exposure analysis (see data-breach-blast-radius) or query performance tuning (see sql-optimization).","github\u002Fawesome-copilot","github","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F9919?v=4","01M6AC83DS133TPXFSP1DHNCC6","GitHub","01M6AD3PBDYPK7NVFJNJ66Y8RS",41081,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsql-object-impact-analysis\u002FSKILL.md",[18,23],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000010","后端与接口","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":24,"categoryName":25,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54],"object","sql","impact","sql object impact analysis","impact analysis","analysis","pii","when","blast-radius","you","across","query","objects","references","data-breach","safe","angular","data","privacy","Optimization","produce","report","code","change","performance","typescript","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: sql-object-impact-analysis\ndescription: \"Before modifying a table, column, stored procedure, view, or trigger in a legacy codebase, trace every place that references it — across other SQL objects (procs, views, triggers) AND application code (C#, Angular\u002FTypeScript, JS, or any language in the repo) — and produce a structured blast-radius report so you know what breaks before you change it. Use when the user asks 'what uses this column\u002Ftable\u002Fprocedure', 'is it safe to change X', 'what depends on this', 'impact of renaming\u002Fdropping X', or before any schema\u002Fproc modification in an unfamiliar or legacy codebase. Not for privacy\u002FPII exposure analysis (see data-breach-blast-radius) or query performance tuning (see sql-optimization).\"\n---\n\n# SQL Object Impact Analysis\n\nYou are performing a **pre-change dependency trace** for a database object (table, column, stored procedure, view, function, or trigger) inside a legacy or unfamiliar codebase. The goal is a single, trustworthy answer to: *\"If I change this, what else is affected?\"*\n\n## When to use this\n\nTrigger when the user:\n- Names a specific table, column, stored procedure, view, or trigger and asks what uses it, what depends on it, or whether it's safe to change\u002Frename\u002Fdrop\n- Is about to modify a schema element in a codebase with no ORM, or a mixed legacy stack (raw SQL + stored procs + hand-written data access code)\n- Asks for a \"blast radius,\" \"impact analysis,\" or \"dependency trace\" of a specific DB object\n\nDo not use this for:\n- General SQL performance tuning (use `sql-optimization`)\n- SQL code quality\u002Fsecurity review (use `sql-code-review`)\n- Privacy\u002FPII exposure analysis (use `data-breach-blast-radius`)\n- Architecture-level documentation of an entire codebase (use `doc-and-modernize`)\n\n## Process\n\n1. **Confirm the target object and its exact name(s).** Ask if ambiguous (e.g., multiple tables with similar names, or the user says \"the customer table\" without specifying schema). Get the precise identifier before searching.\n\n2. **Search the SQL layer first:**\n   - Search all `.sql` files, stored procedure definitions, views, functions, and triggers in the repo\u002Fdatabase scripts folder for direct references to the object name\n   - For a column: check every proc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger that selects, inserts, updates, or filters on it\n   - For a table: check every proc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger that references it, plus foreign key relationships to\u002Ffrom other tables\n   - For a stored procedure: check every other proc that calls it, and every scheduled job\u002Fagent step that invokes it\n   - Note indirect references too — dynamic SQL (`EXEC(@sql)`), synonyms, and views built on views\n\n3. **Search the application layer:**\n   - Search all application code (C#, Java, JS\u002FTS, Angular, whatever the repo contains) for:\n     - Direct SQL strings referencing the object name\n     - ORM\u002Fdata-access-layer method or class names that map to it (e.g., a repository method calling the stored procedure)\n     - API endpoint handlers that ultimately call into the affected data path\n   - Trace one layer further where reasonable: does a frontend component consume an endpoint that touches this object? Note it, but don't chase every UI consumer exhaustively — flag \"further downstream consumers likely exist\" if the trail runs cold rather than guessing.\n\n4. **Classify each finding by confidence:**\n   - **Direct** — object name found verbatim in code\u002FSQL\n   - **Indirect** — reached via a proc call chain, ORM mapping, or dynamic SQL that couldn't be fully resolved statically\n   - **Uncertain** — plausible but unverified (e.g., dynamic SQL construction that couldn't be traced to a literal object name)\n   - Never present an Uncertain finding as if it were Direct — flag it clearly so the reader knows to verify manually\n\n5. **Produce the report** (see Output Format below).\n\n## Output Format\n\nAlways structure the report as:\n\n1. **Target Object** — exact name, type (table\u002Fcolumn\u002Fproc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger), and schema\n2. **Direct SQL Dependents** — list of procs\u002Fviews\u002Ftriggers\u002Ffunctions that reference it directly, grouped by object type\n3. **Application Code Dependents** — list of files\u002Fclasses\u002Fmethods that reference it, grouped by layer (data access, API\u002Fservice, frontend), with file paths\n4. **Indirect \u002F Dynamic References** — anything found via dynamic SQL, synonyms, or call chains that couldn't be fully resolved — labeled clearly as needing manual verification\n5. **Risk Summary** — one paragraph: is this object narrowly used (low risk) or widely fanned-out (high risk)? Call out anything that touches a scheduled job, external integration, or reporting layer specifically, since those often get missed\n6. **Suggested Verification Steps** — concrete next actions before making the change (e.g., \"run these two procs against staging data first,\" \"check if the ReportingService endpoint at X depends on this column\")\n\n## Guidelines\n\n- Never claim a dependency is complete or exhaustive — static text search cannot catch every dynamic SQL construction or reflection-based ORM mapping. State the search method used and its limits explicitly in the report.\n- Never fabricate a file path, proc name, or line reference. If you searched and found nothing, say \"no references found via text search\" — not silence, and not an invented result.\n- If the codebase is large enough that a full trace isn't feasible in one pass, say so and propose scoping (e.g., \"search only the `Orders` module first\") rather than silently producing a partial report as if it were complete.\n- Keep the report scannable — this is a pre-change safety check someone will read in a few minutes before making a decision, not a full architecture document.","# SQL Object Impact Analysis\n\nYou are performing a **pre-change dependency trace** for a database object (table, column, stored procedure, view, function, or trigger) inside a legacy or unfamiliar codebase. The goal is a single, trustworthy answer to: *\"If I change this, what else is affected?\"*\n\n## When to use this\n\nTrigger when the user:\n- Names a specific table, column, stored procedure, view, or trigger and asks what uses it, what depends on it, or whether it's safe to change\u002Frename\u002Fdrop\n- Is about to modify a schema element in a codebase with no ORM, or a mixed legacy stack (raw SQL + stored procs + hand-written data access code)\n- Asks for a \"blast radius,\" \"impact analysis,\" or \"dependency trace\" of a specific DB object\n\nDo not use this for:\n- General SQL performance tuning (use `sql-optimization`)\n- SQL code quality\u002Fsecurity review (use `sql-code-review`)\n- Privacy\u002FPII exposure analysis (use `data-breach-blast-radius`)\n- Architecture-level documentation of an entire codebase (use `doc-and-modernize`)\n\n## Process\n\n1. **Confirm the target object and its exact name(s).** Ask if ambiguous (e.g., multiple tables with similar names, or the user says \"the customer table\" without specifying schema). Get the precise identifier before searching.\n\n2. **Search the SQL layer first:**\n   - Search all `.sql` files, stored procedure definitions, views, functions, and triggers in the repo\u002Fdatabase scripts folder for direct references to the object name\n   - For a column: check every proc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger that selects, inserts, updates, or filters on it\n   - For a table: check every proc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger that references it, plus foreign key relationships to\u002Ffrom other tables\n   - For a stored procedure: check every other proc that calls it, and every scheduled job\u002Fagent step that invokes it\n   - Note indirect references too — dynamic SQL (`EXEC(@sql)`), synonyms, and views built on views\n\n3. **Search the application layer:**\n   - Search all application code (C#, Java, JS\u002FTS, Angular, whatever the repo contains) for:\n     - Direct SQL strings referencing the object name\n     - ORM\u002Fdata-access-layer method or class names that map to it (e.g., a repository method calling the stored procedure)\n     - API endpoint handlers that ultimately call into the affected data path\n   - Trace one layer further where reasonable: does a frontend component consume an endpoint that touches this object? Note it, but don't chase every UI consumer exhaustively — flag \"further downstream consumers likely exist\" if the trail runs cold rather than guessing.\n\n4. **Classify each finding by confidence:**\n   - **Direct** — object name found verbatim in code\u002FSQL\n   - **Indirect** — reached via a proc call chain, ORM mapping, or dynamic SQL that couldn't be fully resolved statically\n   - **Uncertain** — plausible but unverified (e.g., dynamic SQL construction that couldn't be traced to a literal object name)\n   - Never present an Uncertain finding as if it were Direct — flag it clearly so the reader knows to verify manually\n\n5. **Produce the report** (see Output Format below).\n\n## Output Format\n\nAlways structure the report as:\n\n1. **Target Object** — exact name, type (table\u002Fcolumn\u002Fproc\u002Fview\u002Ftrigger), and schema\n2. **Direct SQL Dependents** — list of procs\u002Fviews\u002Ftriggers\u002Ffunctions that reference it directly, grouped by object type\n3. **Application Code Dependents** — list of files\u002Fclasses\u002Fmethods that reference it, grouped by layer (data access, API\u002Fservice, frontend), with file paths\n4. **Indirect \u002F Dynamic References** — anything found via dynamic SQL, synonyms, or call chains that couldn't be fully resolved — labeled clearly as needing manual verification\n5. **Risk Summary** — one paragraph: is this object narrowly used (low risk) or widely fanned-out (high risk)? Call out anything that touches a scheduled job, external integration, or reporting layer specifically, since those often get missed\n6. **Suggested Verification Steps** — concrete next actions before making the change (e.g., \"run these two procs against staging data first,\" \"check if the ReportingService endpoint at X depends on this column\")\n\n## Guidelines\n\n- Never claim a dependency is complete or exhaustive — static text search cannot catch every dynamic SQL construction or reflection-based ORM mapping. State the search method used and its limits explicitly in the report.\n- Never fabricate a file path, proc name, or line reference. If you searched and found nothing, say \"no references found via text search\" — not silence, and not an invented result.\n- If the codebase is large enough that a full trace isn't feasible in one pass, say so and propose scoping (e.g., \"search only the `Orders` module first\") rather than silently producing a partial report as if it were complete.\n- Keep the report scannable — this is a pre-change safety check someone will read in a few minutes before making a decision, not a full architecture document.",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","5269f7ea2d6c3a9bfda5ed878b6726cf509121fd","skills\u002Fsql-object-impact-analysis",5344,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot","https:\u002F\u002Fawesome-copilot.github.com\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fabout","How people build software.","2026-11-13 02:05:36",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":71,"prompt":81,"zipAvailable":82},[72,75,78],{"tool":73,"command":74},"npx","npx skills add github\u002Fawesome-copilot --skill sql-object-impact-analysis",{"tool":76,"command":77},"bunx","bunx skills add github\u002Fawesome-copilot --skill sql-object-impact-analysis",{"tool":79,"command":80},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add github\u002Fawesome-copilot --skill sql-object-impact-analysis","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsql-object-impact-analysis\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[85,116,144,171,203,220],{"skillNo":86,"name":87,"nameZh":6,"description":88,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":89,"categories":90,"keywords":97,"publishedAt":55},"01M70KXZNX9ES38N2A8M58ZZMZ","supabase-rls-policies","Write, review, and test Supabase Row Level Security (RLS) policies so that one user cannot read or change another user's rows. Use when creating or changing tables, policies, views, or security definer functions in a Supabase project, when reviewing a migration that touches RLS, or when asked to prove user isolation with pgTAP tests that sign in as two users.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fsupabase-rls-policies\u002FSKILL.md",[91,94],{"categoryNo":92,"categoryName":93,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[98,99,100,101,102,36,103,52,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115],"supabase","rls","supabase rls","supabase rls policies","project","review","read","write","security","isolation","tables","as","tests","prove","use","users","functions","with",{"skillNo":117,"name":118,"nameZh":6,"description":119,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":120,"categories":121,"keywords":123,"publishedAt":55},"01M70KWA5YWXDV6V8DZ19E3T2Y","skill-distribution-audit","Audit a skill collection before release or investigate installer omissions, archived\u002Ftemplate leakage, duplicate identities, and manifest drift. Reconcile the intended public source set, distribution manifest, and actual discovery output for a specified consumer version. Includes a deterministic set-comparison helper.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fskill-distribution-audit\u002FSKILL.md",[122],{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143],"distribution","skill distribution audit","audit","SET","deterministic","installer","for","discovery","comparison","helper","manifest","version","collection","drift","output","investigate","duplicate","template","release","reconcile",{"skillNo":145,"name":146,"nameZh":6,"description":147,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":148,"sourceHtmlUrl":149,"categories":150,"keywords":154,"publishedAt":55},"01M70KCJPFVW7PPQ49CC5R8JGK","logicapps-custom-code-net10-migration","Migrate Azure Logic Apps Standard local-function custom-code projects from .NET 8 to .NET 10. Use for legacy Logic Apps custom-code workspace upgrades, project\u002Fpackage configuration, custom-worker settings, publication, and integrated VS Code debugging. Not for ordinary .NET applications, standalone Azure Functions, Consumption workflows, or cloud deployment.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Flogicapps-custom-code-net10-migration\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Flogicapps-custom-code-net10-migration\u002FSKILL.md",[151],{"categoryNo":152,"categoryName":153,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师",[155,51,156,157,158,159,130,102,160,161,162,163,164,165,166,112,167,168,169,170],"custom","logicapps custom code net10 migration","migration","projects","standalone","deployment","applications","local","azure","worker","upgrades","package","apps","Legacy","debugging","workflows",{"skillNo":172,"name":173,"nameZh":6,"description":174,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":175,"sourceHtmlUrl":176,"categories":177,"keywords":180,"publishedAt":55},"01M6AEBN37RQMXJ3298PEY7PG1","winmd-api-search","Find and explore Windows desktop APIs. Use when building features that need platform capabilities — camera, file access, notifications, UI controls, AI\u002FML, sensors, networking, etc. Discovers the right API for a task and retrieves full type details (methods, properties, events, enumeration values).","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwinmd-api-search\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fwinmd-api-search\u002FSKILL.md",[178,179],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":152,"categoryName":153,"taxonomyType":26,"taxonomyTypeDesc":27},[181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,36,196,197,198,199,200,130,201,202],"winmd api search","search","api","windows","desktop","file access","enumeration","ui","ml","file","networking","capabilities","notifications","explore","access","features","full","camera","events","platform","methods","controls",{"skillNo":204,"name":205,"nameZh":6,"description":206,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":207,"licenseFileUrl":208,"sourceHtmlUrl":209,"categories":210,"keywords":216,"publishedAt":55},"01M6AE571R3SC1ZGE202B3NB5S","resemble-detect","Deepfake detection and media safety — detect AI-generated audio, images, video, and text, trace synthesis sources, apply watermarks, verify speaker identity, and analyze media intelligence using Resemble AI","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fresemble-detect\u002FLICENSE","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fresemble-detect\u002FSKILL.md",[211,212,215],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":213,"categoryName":214,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000016","图像与多媒体",{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[217,127,190,218,219],"resemble detect","https","identity",{"skillNo":221,"name":222,"nameZh":6,"description":223,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":207,"licenseFileUrl":224,"sourceHtmlUrl":225,"categories":226,"keywords":231,"publishedAt":55},"01M6AE30BSK2HCY4TQQ22Z8JRD","quality-playbook","Run a complete quality engineering audit on any codebase. Derives behavioral requirements from the code, generates spec-traced functional tests, runs a three-pass code review with regression tests, executes a multi-model spec audit (Council of Three), and produces a consolidated bug report with TDD-verified patches. Finds the 35% of real defects that structural code review alone cannot catch. Works with any language. Trigger on 'quality playbook', 'spec audit', 'Council of Three', 'fitness-to-purpose', or 'coverage theater'.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fquality-playbook\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fgithub\u002Fawesome-copilot\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fskills\u002Fquality-playbook\u002FSKILL.md",[227,230],{"categoryNo":228,"categoryName":229,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000007","代码审查",{"categoryNo":95,"categoryName":96,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[232,233,234,235,51,103,9,126,236,237,218,50,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,110,248,249,250,251],"playbook","quality playbook","quality","code review","tdd","run","spec","bug report","council","engineering","functional","spec audit","bug","verified","multi-model","three","coverage","model","regression","structural"]