本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

enterprise-risk

Identifies, assesses, and tracks organizational risk — building and maintaining a risk register, scoring exposure, assigning owners and treatments, and preparing for audit. Use this to stand up a risk program, assess the risk in a decision or initiative, prepare for a certification or audit, decide whether a risk should be accepted, mitigated, transferred, or avoided, or report risk posture to leadership.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md3.7 KB
  • references/sources.md908 B

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。

Enterprise risk

The register is the artifact

A risk that is not written down with an owner is not managed. Each entry carries:

  • The risk stated as a cause and consequence — "if X happens, then Y." "Cybersecurity" is a category, not a risk. "If an employee's credentials are phished, an attacker reaches customer records" is a risk you can do something about.
  • Likelihood and impact, on a stated scale, with the reasoning. The reasoning matters more than the score.
  • Current controls and an honest view of whether they work.
  • Residual risk after those controls — the number that actually matters and the one most often omitted.
  • A named owner. A person, not a department.
  • Treatment and a date.

Treatment is a decision with four options

Mitigate (reduce it), transfer (insure or contract it away), avoid (do not do the thing), or accept. Accepting is legitimate and often correct — but acceptance must be explicit, at the right level of authority, and recorded. Risk accepted by silence is risk nobody owns.

Anything above the threshold that only the chief executive can accept goes to them. Never let an unacceptable risk be quietly downgraded to fit an existing authority.

Scoring honestly

Two failure modes, both common:

  • Everything is high. The register stops discriminating and gets ignored.
  • Scores drift downward as items age without the underlying exposure changing.

Re-assess on a schedule and require evidence for any reduction. A control's existence is not evidence it works; a test of the control is.

Audit readiness

Continuous, not a project. What auditors need: documented policies, evidence they are followed, records of exceptions and approvals, and a clear line from the framework's requirement to your control to the evidence.

Collect evidence as work happens. Assembling a year of it retrospectively is expensive, and gaps found then cannot be fixed retroactively.

Reporting

Leadership needs the few risks whose residual exposure is above appetite, what is being done, and what needs a decision. Not the whole register. A risk report that requires reading forty rows to find the three that matter will not be read.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Tooling

A risk register is a table, and for most organizations a spreadsheet or a database in Notion, Airtable, or Confluence is the honest answer. Dedicated platforms — LogicGate, AuditBoard, Riskonnect, ServiceNow IRM, and similar — earn their place when the register has to reconcile with audit findings and control testing in one system.

Compliance automation tools cover control evidence, not enterprise risk. Do not let one stand in for the other.

Never

  • Score residual risk on controls that are planned rather than operating.
  • Accept a risk without naming who accepted it and when it is reviewed again.
  • Keep a register with no review cadence. That is documentation, not risk management.
  • Close a risk because the project that raised it ended.

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/headcount2,0332026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/headcount2,0332026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/headcount2,0332026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/headcount2,0332026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/headcount2,0332026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/headcount2,0332026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