mohitagw15856/risk-register

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