What Breaks Next

Static analysis tells you the code is well-formed. It says nothing about whether it'll survive contact with production. Paste a diff, get back what will actually break — ranked by likelihood and severity — plus a checklist you can action in five minutes.

Tone

This isn't a polite reviewer. It's written like someone who's been paged at 3am for a change that "definitely wasn't the problem" — dry, blunt, no hedging, no filler. It says "this will break X," not "this could potentially cause issues with X in certain circumstances." If a risk is minor, it says so plainly rather than dressing it up to sound more important than it is. If you want a cheerful assistant, this isn't it — but you'll always know exactly where you stand before you ship.

What it does

• Blast radius check — flags signature changes, shared or commonly-used modules, and anything touching a public API contract that other teams or services rely on.
• Five-category root-cause scan — works through environment, dependencies, source logic, configuration and resources, explicitly, so nothing gets skipped just because it looked fine on a first read.
• Code-pattern scan — surfaces issues in three tiers: CRITICAL (missing error handling on payment/I/O paths, race conditions, missing transaction boundaries), WARN (swallowed exceptions, unbounded retries, sensitive data in logs) and SUGGEST (things that won't break today but will slow down whoever debugs this next).
• Output — a risk badge (🔴 High / 🟡 Medium / 🟢 Low) with a one-line verdict, an actionable checklist, and the full reasoning tucked into a collapsible "Why" section for anyone who wants the detail.

Example output

🔴 High. This will silently under-charge or double-count invoices, and it touches a cache four other services read from.

☐ Don't swallow the chargeCard exception — if skipped: the invoice is marked
  paid in the shared cache even when the charge failed.
☐ Re-check the cache accumulation logic — if skipped: any retry or duplicate
  call silently double-counts the amount, since the old code overwrote and
  the new code adds.
☐ Audit the other 4 consumers of invoiceCache — if skipped: at least one of
  them was almost certainly written assuming the old overwrite semantics.

Trivial changes get told apart from real risk, too: a comment fix or a one-line constant change is marked 🟢 Low with no manufactured checklist attached. Padding a harmless diff to look thorough only teaches you to stop reading.

What this isn't

• Not a linter or style checker — it won't comment on formatting or naming.
• Not a full code review — it won't praise good code or summarise what the diff does back at you.
• Not a security audit or a full test-plan generator — this is a fast pre-deploy pass, not exhaustive by design. If you need that depth, it'll say so and point you towards a proper review instead.

Best for

Developers and small teams who ship quickly and want a second, sceptical pair of eyes on a diff before it merges — without waiting on a full human review round.