Mohit
affae033fe
Propagates Anti-Patterns sections, description rewrites, Required Inputs additions, and Quality Checks format fixes from skills/ to matching plugin SKILL.md copies. https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt
220 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
220 lines
9.6 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
name: risk-register
|
||
description: "Build and maintain a project or product risk register. Use when asked to create a risk register, identify project risks, build a risk matrix, or document risks and mitigations for a programme. Produces a complete risk register with likelihood/impact scoring, RAG status, ownership, and prioritised mitigations."
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Risk Register Skill
|
||
|
||
This skill produces a complete risk register for a project, programme, or product. Output follows standard risk management practice with likelihood × impact scoring, RAG status, a risk heat map, and specific mitigation and contingency plans. Ready to share with a project board, steering committee, or programme office.
|
||
|
||
## Required Inputs
|
||
|
||
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
||
- **Project or product name**
|
||
- **Project stage** (discovery / delivery / launch / live / programme-level)
|
||
- **Key objectives** — what is the project trying to achieve?
|
||
- **Known risks** — anything already on the team's radar (even informal concerns count)
|
||
- **Key dependencies** — external vendors, teams, systems, or regulatory approvals
|
||
- **Deadline or milestone sensitivity** — are there hard dates that cannot move?
|
||
- **Audience** — who will read this? (internal team / executive steering / external board / regulator)
|
||
|
||
## Output Structure
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# Risk Register: [Project / Product Name]
|
||
|
||
**Project stage:** [Discovery / Delivery / Launch / Live / Programme]
|
||
**Version:** [1.0]
|
||
**Owner:** [PM / Programme Manager / Risk Lead]
|
||
**Last reviewed:** [Date]
|
||
**Next review:** [Date — recommend weekly during delivery, monthly during discovery]
|
||
**Status:** [Active / Archived]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 1. Risk Scoring Framework
|
||
|
||
**Likelihood (L)**
|
||
|
||
| Score | Label | Definition |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 5 | Almost certain | >80% probability of occurring |
|
||
| 4 | Likely | 60–80% probability |
|
||
| 3 | Possible | 40–60% probability |
|
||
| 2 | Unlikely | 20–40% probability |
|
||
| 1 | Rare | <20% probability |
|
||
|
||
**Impact (I)**
|
||
|
||
| Score | Label | Definition |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 5 | Critical | Programme failure, regulatory breach, major financial loss, safety event |
|
||
| 4 | High | Significant schedule delay (>4 weeks), scope reduction, reputational damage |
|
||
| 3 | Medium | Moderate delay (1–4 weeks), cost overrun, reduced quality |
|
||
| 2 | Low | Minor delay (<1 week), manageable cost increase |
|
||
| 1 | Negligible | Minimal impact, easily absorbed |
|
||
|
||
**Risk Score = L × I**
|
||
|
||
| Score | RAG | Action |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| 20–25 | 🔴 Critical | Immediate escalation; active management required |
|
||
| 12–19 | 🔴 High | Owner-assigned mitigation; weekly review |
|
||
| 8–11 | 🟡 Medium | Mitigation planned; fortnightly review |
|
||
| 4–7 | 🟡 Low | Monitor; monthly review |
|
||
| 1–3 | 🟢 Negligible | Accept; review if context changes |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 2. Risk Register
|
||
|
||
| ID | Risk | Category | L | I | Score | RAG | Owner | Status | Mitigation | Contingency | Review date |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| R01 | [Risk description — be specific: "Third-party API may not support required volume, causing X to fail"] | [Schedule / Technical / Resource / Commercial / Compliance / External] | [1–5] | [1–5] | [L×I] | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [Name] | [Open / Mitigating / Closed] | [What are we doing to reduce likelihood or impact?] | [What do we do if it happens?] | [Date] |
|
||
| R02 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 3. Risk Categories — Common Risks by Type
|
||
|
||
Use these to prompt risk identification. Add, remove, or customise for your project.
|
||
|
||
### Schedule & Delivery
|
||
- Key milestone depends on a dependency that has not confirmed availability
|
||
- Team capacity reduced by planned or unplanned absence during critical period
|
||
- Technical complexity is underestimated — story points consistently overrun
|
||
- External approval (regulator, legal, procurement) takes longer than planned
|
||
|
||
### Technical
|
||
- Integration with a third-party system not yet prototyped or agreed
|
||
- Existing technical debt makes the change harder or riskier than estimated
|
||
- Security or compliance review required before launch has not been scoped
|
||
- Performance under production load untested
|
||
- Key technical knowledge held by one person (single point of failure)
|
||
|
||
### Resource & People
|
||
- Key SME or engineer leaving or unavailable during critical phase
|
||
- Budget not confirmed for Phase 2 of the project
|
||
- Stakeholder sponsor changes role or leaves the organisation
|
||
- Team not yet at full capacity (hiring lag, access issues, onboarding time)
|
||
|
||
### Commercial & Financial
|
||
- Vendor or partner contract not yet signed
|
||
- Cost estimate based on assumptions that have not been validated
|
||
- Revenue or savings case depends on assumptions outside the team's control
|
||
- Currency exposure or exchange rate risk for international projects
|
||
|
||
### Compliance & Regulatory
|
||
- Data privacy impact assessment (DPIA) not yet complete
|
||
- Regulatory approval required and timeline is uncertain
|
||
- GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, or sector-specific compliance requirement not yet mapped
|
||
- Legal review of terms of service or contracts pending
|
||
|
||
### Stakeholder & Adoption
|
||
- Key user group has low awareness or motivation to adopt the change
|
||
- Internal resistance from a team that will be affected by the change
|
||
- Executive sponsor not consistently engaged — decisions are slow
|
||
- Communications plan not yet agreed with change management team
|
||
|
||
### External
|
||
- Market or competitive change could undermine the business case
|
||
- Macroeconomic conditions affect budget or priority
|
||
- Supplier or infrastructure provider risk (e.g. cloud provider, hardware)
|
||
- Geopolitical or regulatory environment change
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 4. Risk Heat Map
|
||
|
||
Plot risks by likelihood (Y axis) and impact (X axis):
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
│ Low Medium High Critical
|
||
│ (1) (2-3) (4) (5)
|
||
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
|
||
Almost │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴
|
||
certain │
|
||
(5) │
|
||
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
|
||
Likely │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴
|
||
(4) │
|
||
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
|
||
Possible │ 🟢 🟡 🟡 🔴
|
||
(3) │
|
||
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
|
||
Unlikely │ 🟢 🟢 🟡 🟡
|
||
(2) │
|
||
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
|
||
Rare │ 🟢 🟢 🟢 🟡
|
||
(1) │
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
[Plot each risk ID on this grid — e.g. R01 lands at L4/I5 = 🔴 Critical]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 5. Top Risks — Executive Summary
|
||
|
||
For steering committee or board-level reporting:
|
||
|
||
| Rank | Risk | Score | RAG | Owner | Mitigation status |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 | [Most critical risk — plain English description] | [X] | 🔴 | [Owner] | [Active / Planned / Not started] |
|
||
| 2 | [...] | [...] | 🔴 | [...] | [...] |
|
||
| 3 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |
|
||
| 4 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |
|
||
| 5 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |
|
||
|
||
**Decisions required from steering:**
|
||
- [Any risk that requires budget, scope, or timeline decision to mitigate]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 6. Risk Changes Since Last Review
|
||
|
||
| Risk ID | Change | Detail |
|
||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| [R03] | Score increased | [L moved from 2 → 4 — vendor confirmed delay in API availability] |
|
||
| [R07] | Risk closed | [Legal sign-off received on 12 May] |
|
||
| [NEW] | New risk identified | [R09 — budget freeze announcement affects Phase 2 funding] |
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## 7. Risk Closure Criteria
|
||
|
||
A risk is closed when:
|
||
- The risk event can no longer occur (e.g. milestone passed, contract signed), OR
|
||
- The residual risk score drops to Negligible (1–3) AND the team formally accepts it, OR
|
||
- The risk has materialised and transitioned to an **issue** (tracked separately)
|
||
|
||
**Issues log:** [Link to issues log — risks that have materialised and are now active problems being managed]
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## Quality Checks
|
||
|
||
- [ ] Every risk has a specific owner — not "the team" or "TBD"
|
||
- [ ] Mitigations describe what is actively being done — not "monitor and review"
|
||
- [ ] Contingency plans exist for all Critical and High risks
|
||
- [ ] Risk descriptions are specific — "vendor may be late" is not specific enough; name the vendor and the dependency
|
||
- [ ] Register has been reviewed in the last [X] days
|
||
- [ ] Closed risks are archived, not deleted — they provide audit trail
|
||
- [ ] Risks are distinguished from issues — a risk is something that might happen; an issue is something that has happened
|
||
|
||
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
||
|
||
- "Build a risk register for our product launch"
|
||
- "Create a risk matrix for [project name]"
|
||
- "What risks should I document for a data migration project?"
|
||
- "Generate a risk register for our steering committee"
|
||
- "Help me identify and score risks for our Q3 delivery plan"
|
||
|
||
## Anti-Patterns
|
||
|
||
- [ ] Do not assign risks to "the team" or "TBD" — every risk must have a named individual owner
|
||
- [ ] Do not write mitigations as "monitor and review" — mitigations must describe what is actively being done to reduce likelihood or impact
|
||
- [ ] Do not delete closed risks — they provide an audit trail; archive them instead
|
||
- [ ] Do not confuse risks with issues — a risk is something that might happen; an issue is something that has already happened
|
||
- [ ] Do not leave Critical or High risks without a contingency plan — what happens if the mitigation fails must be documented
|