From grc-lead
Conduct a risk assessment — identify, analyse, and evaluate risks with quantified likelihood, impact, and treatment plans.
npx claudepluginhub hpsgd/turtlestack --plugin grc-leadThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
Conduct a risk assessment for $ARGUMENTS.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Analyzes BMad project state from catalog CSV, configs, artifacts, and query to recommend next skills or answer questions. Useful for help requests, 'what next', or starting BMad.
Conduct a risk assessment for $ARGUMENTS.
Define what is being assessed. A risk assessment without boundaries is a worry list.
Systematically identify risks across ALL categories. Do not skip a category because you think it does not apply — document "no identified risks" with reasoning.
| Category | What to look for |
|---|---|
| Regulatory | Non-compliance with GDPR, Privacy Act, SOC 2, ISO 27001, industry-specific regulations |
| Operational | Process failures, key person dependency, system outages, supply chain disruption |
| AI/ML | Bias, hallucination, privacy leakage, prompt injection, model dependency, cost spikes |
| Data | Breach, loss, corruption, unauthorised access, inadequate retention/deletion |
| Financial | Budget overruns, vendor lock-in, uncontrolled AI spend, licensing costs |
| Reputational | Customer trust, public incidents, regulatory action, negative media |
| Vendor/Third-party | Provider outage, security posture, contract terms, data residency |
For each risk identified, assign a unique ID (e.g., R-001).
Quantify every risk. "There is a data breach risk" is not useful. "Likelihood: Medium (25%), Impact: Critical" enables decisions.
Likelihood:
| Level | Probability | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Low | < 10% | Unlikely under current conditions |
| Medium | 10–40% | Plausible given known conditions |
| High | 40–70% | Probable given current trends or known weaknesses |
| Very High | > 70% | Expected to occur without intervention |
Impact:
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| Low | Minimal disruption, no data exposure, cosmetic or informational |
| Medium | Limited data exposure, feature degradation, contained impact |
| High | Significant data exposure, major feature compromise, reputational damage, regulatory scrutiny |
| Critical | Data breach, financial loss, complete service compromise, regulatory violation, legal action |
Risk matrix:
| Low Impact | Medium Impact | High Impact | Critical Impact | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Very High likelihood | Medium | High | Critical | Critical |
| High likelihood | Low | Medium | High | Critical |
| Medium likelihood | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
| Low likelihood | Low | Low | Medium | Medium |
For each risk, document what mitigations are already in place:
| Question | Evidence to check |
|---|---|
| What controls exist? | Grep for auth middleware, encryption config, access controls, monitoring, CI gates |
| Are controls automated or manual? | Automated controls are reliable. Manual controls are aspirational until audited |
| When were controls last verified? | A control that was verified 2 years ago is a control that might not work |
| Are controls documented? | Undocumented controls are invisible to new team members |
Residual risk = inherent risk after existing controls are applied.
For each risk:
If residual risk is still High or Critical, the risk needs additional treatment.
Every risk needs a treatment decision. "We'll deal with it later" is not a treatment.
| Treatment | When to use | Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Residual risk is Low or Medium AND cost of mitigation exceeds impact | Owner, justification, review date (maximum 6 months), conditions for re-evaluation |
| Mitigate | Controls can reduce risk to acceptable level | Action plan with owner, timeline, success criteria, verification method |
| Transfer | Risk can be shifted to a third party | Insurance, contractual indemnity, or SLA with penalties. Verify the transfer is real |
| Avoid | Risk is unacceptable and no mitigation is sufficient | Change plans to eliminate the risk source entirely |
Acceptance rules:
Compile all findings into the risk register format.
# Risk Assessment: [subject]
## Scope
- **Subject:** [what is being assessed]
- **Boundaries:** [what is included]
- **Exclusions:** [what is out of scope]
- **Time horizon:** [when risks materialise]
- **Assessment date:** [date]
- **Assessor:** [who performed this assessment]
## Risk Register
### R-001: [descriptive name]
- **Category:** [Regulatory / Operational / AI / Data / Financial / Reputational / Vendor]
- **Description:** [what could happen — specific, not generic]
- **Likelihood:** [Low / Medium / High / Very High] ([percentage estimate])
- **Impact:** [Low / Medium / High / Critical]
- **Inherent risk:** [Low / Medium / High / Critical] (from matrix)
- **Current controls:** [what mitigations exist today]
- **Control effectiveness:** [Full / Partial / None]
- **Residual risk:** [Low / Medium / High / Critical]
- **Treatment:** [Accept / Mitigate / Transfer / Avoid]
- **Treatment detail:** [specific action or justification]
- **Owner:** [person accountable]
- **Review date:** [when to reassess — maximum 6 months]
## Risk Summary
| Risk | Category | Inherent | Residual | Treatment | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-001 | [cat] | [level] | [level] | [action] | [person] |
## Prioritised Actions
1. [Critical/High residual risks — immediate action required]
2. [Medium residual risks — planned mitigation]
3. [Accepted risks — monitoring schedule]
## Review Schedule
- **Next review:** [date]
- **Review triggers:** [system changes, incidents, regulatory updates, 6-month maximum]
/grc-lead:compliance-audit — when risks have regulatory exposure, audit compliance against the relevant framework./grc-lead:ai-governance-review — when AI/ML risks are identified, run a specialised governance review.