本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

ehs-and-workplace-safety

Runs environment, health and safety on an operating site — hazard controls in order of effectiveness, incident recording and reporting obligations, and safety measurement that does not reward silence. Use this to build or audit a safety program, decide what controls a hazard actually needs, work out whether an injury is recordable or reportable, investigate an incident, or fix safety metrics that have stopped producing reports.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Environment, health and safety

Safety on an operating site is a legal obligation with clocks attached, not a value statement. The difference matters at the moment something happens, because the obligations start running whether or not anyone has decided what to do.

Controls in order of effectiveness

The hierarchy is not advice about preference. It is a ranking by how much the control depends on a person behaving correctly under pressure, and everything below the third rung does.

  1. Elimination — the hazard is not there. The task is designed out, or done elsewhere.
  2. Substitution — a less hazardous material, process or energy source.
  3. Engineering — guards, interlocks, ventilation, barriers. The hazard remains; reaching it does not depend on judgment.
  4. Administrative — procedure, training, signage, permits, rotation.
  5. Personal protective equipment — the last line, worn by the person the hazard is nearest to.

Most programs that look thorough are stacked at rungs 4 and 5, because those are cheap to add and produce documents. A new procedure and a toolbox talk in response to an injury is the default answer, and it leaves the hazard exactly where it was.

The test for a proposed control: if the most rushed person on the worst shift skips a step, does the hazard reach them? If yes, the control is at rung 4 or below whatever it is called.

Energy control is the one to get right first

Most severe injuries on production equipment happen during maintenance, cleaning or clearing a jam — work done with guards removed, by someone who has done it a hundred times, on a machine that was believed to be off.

Isolation of hazardous energy has to be procedural per machine rather than generic per plant, and must account for stored energy — pressure, springs, gravity, capacitance — which is what "off" fails to address. Verification is the step that gets dropped: attempting the start after isolating is what turns a belief into a fact.

Where an outside contractor works on the site, the isolation procedure is theirs to follow and yours to specify. Coordination is the usual gap.

Recordable, reportable and the clocks

These are three different thresholds and they are routinely conflated:

  • First aid — treated and logged, not recorded.
  • Recordable — medical treatment beyond first aid, restricted duty, days away, loss of consciousness, or a significant diagnosed condition. It goes on the log.
  • Reportable — the serious subset that must be told to the regulator within a fixed window, measured in hours for a fatality and in a small number of days for an in-patient hospitalization, amputation or eye loss.

The failure is almost never refusal. It is that nobody knew the clock had started, because the event was being managed as a medical matter while the reporting window ran. Name in advance who decides recordability, who notifies, and what happens when that person is unreachable at 2am — which is when it will happen. legal-risk:regulatory-compliance holds the wider obligation-tracking method.

Environmental releases carry their own thresholds and their own clocks, usually shorter. A site with permits should know its reportable quantities before it needs them.

Measure what precedes the injury

A recordable injury rate is a lagging measure on a small denominator. A site can go a year without a recordable and still be one guard away from a serious event, and a site can record two minor injuries in a strong year and look worse.

Worse, attaching the rate to bonuses or site rankings reliably suppresses reporting rather than injuries. The first thing lost is the near-miss, which is the only free information the system produces.

Measure ahead of the event instead: near-misses reported per period, with a rising count read as the program working; hazards identified and closed, with age; time to close a corrective action; and audit findings on the controls that matter, weighted toward rungs 1 to 3. Pair any lagging rate with a severity-potential measure, because frequency and severity move independently and a program tuned on frequency alone optimizes for paper cuts.

Tooling

EHS management systems — Intelex, Cority, VelocityEHS, Enablon, Benchmark Gensuite and similar — carry the incident log, corrective actions, training records and regulator-facing reports in one auditable place, which is what an inspection asks for. The determining factor is whether reporting is easy enough on the floor that near-misses actually arrive; a system only supervisors can reach records incidents and nothing that precedes them.

Regulatory recordkeeping has a required form and a required posting period. Whatever the system, confirm it produces the log in the form the regulator expects rather than an export someone reformats each year.

Below that scale, a shared log with a fixed set of fields and a named owner per open item covers most of the value. What cannot be substituted is the review — an incident system nobody reads is a liability record rather than a safety program.

Never

  • Answer an incident with a procedure and a briefing while the hazard stays reachable.
  • Let the recordability decision wait on the medical outcome while a reporting clock runs.
  • Tie a site bonus to an injury rate, which buys silence rather than safety.
  • Isolate a machine without verifying the isolation by attempting a start.
  • Treat a near-miss report as a problem with the reporter.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0282026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する