Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 开发

scenario-war-room(情景作战室)

scenario-war-room 用于处理 GitHub 仓库、Issue、Pull Request 和代码协作信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要围绕仓库状态、代码变更或协作事项进行整理时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

scenario-war-room 是开发类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为权限未标注;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在开发类的 21,746 个 Skill 里排第 12,429。

总安装 1,294周安装 55GitHub Stars 103下载 453核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:scenario-war-room(情景作战室)
来源仓库:https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills
仓库路径:skills/scenario-war-room
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill scenario-war-room
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill scenario-war-room

这个 Skill 是做什么的

开发类 Skill 面向写代码、改代码和排查问题,一般会读写仓库文件,部分还会执行构建或测试命令。

scenario-war-room 模拟复合风险下的业务连锁反应,识别中断点与应对措施。支持多威胁叠加分析,输出可执行的 hedges 与责任人分配。适用于高概率高影响风险的预案设计与压力测试场景构建。结果需结合实际情况调整,不可直接作为唯一应对策略。

适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

来源仓库内路径:skills/scenario-war-room

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill scenario-war-roo…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    权限没有明确标注,第一次使用时只给一个无关紧要的任务,观察它到底读了哪些文件和网络。

常见问题

6 条

scenario-war-room 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/claude-skills --skill scenario-war-room。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

scenario-war-room 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

scenario-war-room 需要什么权限?

权限级别没有明确标注。第一次使用时建议只给无关紧要的任务,观察它实际读写了哪些内容。

scenario-war-room 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

scenario-war-room 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,294 次,近一周安装 55 次,下载 453 次,GitHub 103 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

scenario-war-room 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理开发类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

开发类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
skill-vetter

技能审查员 · OpenClaw

8,779,018986操作浏览器MIT-0通过
ontology

本体论 · OpenClaw

6,636,960576只读MIT-0通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

6,631,872764接触敏感数据未明确通过
entra-app-registration

内部应用程序注册 · Codex、Claude

3,757,680201接触敏感数据未明确通过
nano-banana-pro

纳米香蕉专业版 · OpenClaw

3,526,898364接触敏感数据MIT-0有提醒
scenario-war-room

情景作战室 · 本页

1,294103权限未标注未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Scenario War Room

Tier: POWERFUL Category: C-Level Advisory Tags: scenario planning, war room, risk modeling, cascade effects, contingency planning, pre-mortem, crisis simulation

Overview

The Scenario War Room models cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests -- compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next, and where the cascade can be interrupted. Every scenario produces concrete hedges with costs, owners, and deadlines.


When to Use

  • A major risk has probability above 15% and impact above 20% of ARR
  • Two or more threats could plausibly co-occur
  • A strategic decision has significant downside if wrong
  • Board or investors are asking "what's the worst case?"
  • Pre-mortem before a major commitment (fundraise, acquisition, market entry)
  • Quarterly risk review for leadership team

When NOT to Use

  • Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing)
  • Routine project risk assessment (use project management risk frameworks)
  • Technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning)

The 6-Step Cascade Model

Step 1: Define Scenario Variables (Maximum 3)

More than 3 variables creates analysis paralysis, not insight. Choose the 3 that actually keep leadership awake at night.

For each variable, specify:

FieldDescriptionExample
What changesSpecific, quantified"Top customer (28% of ARR) gives 60-day termination notice"
ProbabilityYour best estimate15%
TimelineWhen it could hitWithin 90 days
Detection signalHow you would know it is happeningSponsor goes dark, usage drops 25% MoM

Variable Template:

Variable A: [Specific change]
  Probability: [X]%  |  Timeline: [When]
  Detection: [Early warning signal]
  First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]

Variable B: [Specific change]
  Probability: [X]%  |  Timeline: [When]
  Detection: [Early warning signal]
  First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]

Variable C: [Specific change]
  Probability: [X]%  |  Timeline: [When]
  Detection: [Early warning signal]
  First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]

Step 2: Domain Impact Mapping

For each variable, assess impact across every business function:

DomainKey QuestionsTypical Impact Areas
Finance (CFO)Burn impact? Runway change? Bridge options?Cash, runway, covenant triggers
Revenue (CRO)ARR gap? Churn cascade? Pipeline affected?NRR, expansion, new logo risk
Product (CPO)Roadmap derailed? PMF at risk? Customer need shift?Delivery timeline, feature priority
Engineering (CTO)Velocity hit? Key person risk? Technical debt impact?Capacity, architecture, hiring
People (CHRO)Attrition cascade? Hiring freeze? Morale impact?Retention, culture, bench strength
Operations (COO)Capacity affected? Process breaks? OKR impact?SLAs, efficiency, scale
Market (CMO)CAC affected? Competitive exposure? Brand risk?Pipeline generation, positioning
Legal/ComplianceRegulatory timeline risk? Contract exposure?Obligations, deadlines, penalties

Step 3: Cascade Mapping (The Core)

This is the most valuable step. Map how Variable A triggers consequences that amplify Variable B.

Cascade Diagram:

TRIGGER: Customer churn ($560K ARR)
  │
  ├──▶ CFO: Runway drops 14 → 8 months
  │     │
  │     └──▶ CHRO: Hiring freeze imposed
  │           │
  │           └──▶ CTO: 3 open engineering reqs frozen, roadmap slips 2 months
  │                 │
  │                 └──▶ CPO: Q4 feature launch delayed → 2 more customers at risk
  │                       │
  │                       └──▶ CRO: NRR drops → additional churn risk (DEATH SPIRAL ENTRY)
  │
  └──▶ CRO: Revenue concentration increases (next largest = 22%)
        │
        └──▶ Investors: Concentration risk flagged → Series A terms worsen

Name the cascades explicitly. Common cascade patterns:

Cascade PatternDescriptionInterruption Point
Revenue-to-Runway Death SpiralCustomer churn → lower runway → hiring freeze → slower product → more churnEmergency revenue diversification
Key Person CascadeStar leaves → team morale drops → followers leave → velocity collapsesRetention bonuses before departure
Market SqueezeCompetitor raises → price war → margins compress → can't invest in productDifferentiation, not price matching
Trust CascadeIncident → customer concern → churn → press → more churnSwift, transparent communication
Fundraise-Burn SpiralMiss target → raise delayed → bridge at bad terms → burn cuts → team lossParallel fundraise tracks

Step 4: Severity Matrix

Model three scenarios with increasing severity:

ScenarioVariables HitDefinitionRecovery Difficulty
Base1 of 3Single shock, others don't materializeManageable with prepared response
Stress2 of 3Compound shock, cascade beginsRequires significant pivot, board involvement
SevereAll 3Full cascade, existential territoryRequires emergency action, may need board intervention

For each severity level, quantify:

BASE SCENARIO (Variable A only):
  Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
  ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
  Headcount impact: [freeze / reduction / none]
  Timeline to critical: [X] months
  Recovery plan: [specific actions]

STRESS SCENARIO (Variables A + B):
  Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
  ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
  Headcount impact: [specifics]
  Timeline to critical: [X] months
  Recovery plan: [specific actions]

SEVERE SCENARIO (All three):
  Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
  ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
  Headcount impact: [specifics]
  Timeline to critical: [X] months
  Existential: [yes/no]
  Emergency plan: [specific actions requiring board approval]

Step 5: Early Warning Signals (Trigger Points)

Define measurable signals that tell you a scenario is unfolding BEFORE it is confirmed. The value of this exercise is acting early, not reacting late.

Signal Design Criteria:

  • Observable (you can actually measure it)
  • Leading (appears before the full impact)
  • Specific (not just "things feel off")
  • Actionable (triggers a specific response)
VariableSignalThresholdResponse
Customer churnSponsor stops responding> 3 weeks silenceExec escalation, QBR request
Customer churnUsage drops> 25% MoM declineCS outreach, value review
Fundraise delayTerm sheets< 3 after 60 days in processParallel bridge conversations
Fundraise delayInvestor requests> 30 day DD extensionReduce burn, extend runway
Key person departureMarket compensationCounter-offer required in last 90 daysRetention package, succession plan
Key person departureExternal engagementEngineer presenting at conferences for competitorsDirect conversation, role expansion

Step 6: Hedging Strategies

For each scenario: actions to take NOW (before the scenario materializes) that reduce impact if it does. Hedges have costs -- the goal is cheap insurance, not paranoia.

Hedge Evaluation Criteria:

CriterionQuestion
CostWhat does this hedge cost to implement?
ReversibilityCan we undo it if the scenario doesn't happen?
Lead timeHow long to implement? (Must be shorter than detection-to-impact window)
CoverageWhich scenarios does this hedge protect against?
Side effectsDoes this hedge cause other problems?

Hedge Table Template:

HedgeCostProtects AgainstOwnerDeadlineStatus
Establish $500K credit line$5K/yearRunway shortfall (Base + Stress)CFO60 daysNot started
12-month retention bonus for 3 key engineers$90KKey person departure (all scenarios)CHRO30 daysIn progress
Diversify to <20% revenue per customerSales effort (6 months)Single-customer dependencyCRO2 quartersPlanning
Start parallel fundraise trackCEO time (10 hrs/week)Fundraise delay (Stress + Severe)CEOImmediateNot started
Pre-negotiate bridge terms with existing investors2 board conversationsRunway crisis (Severe)CFO + CEO45 daysNot started
Document architecture for bus factor reduction2 engineering weeksKey person departureCTO30 daysNot started

Output Format

Every war room session produces this structured output:

SCENARIO: [Name]
DATE: [Date of analysis]
PARTICIPANTS: [Who was involved]

VARIABLES:
  A: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
  B: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
  C: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]

MOST LIKELY PATH: [Which combination actually plays out, with reasoning]

SEVERITY LEVELS:
  Base (A only):  Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
    Recovery: [2-3 specific actions]
  Stress (A+B):   Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
    Recovery: [3-4 specific actions]
  Severe (A+B+C): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
    Existential: [yes/no]
    Emergency: [actions requiring board approval]

CASCADE MAP:
  [A] → [domain impact] → [triggers B amplification] → [domain impact] → [end state]
  Interruption points: [where cascade can be broken]

EARLY WARNING SIGNALS:
  1. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
  2. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
  3. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]

HEDGES (implement now):
  1. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
  2. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
  3. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]

RECOMMENDED DECISION:
  [One paragraph: what to do, in what order, and why]

REVIEW DATE: [When to re-run this analysis — typically 90 days or after any variable shifts]

Common Scenarios by Company Stage

Seed Stage

  • Co-founder departure + product misses launch deadline
  • Runway runs out + bridge terms are predatory
  • Key technical hire falls through + competitor ships first

Series A

  • Miss ARR target + fundraise delayed
  • Top customer churns + competitor raises large round
  • Key engineer leaves + critical feature deadline

Series B+

  • Market contraction + burn multiple spikes above 3x
  • Lead investor wants strategic pivot + team resists
  • Regulatory change + product requires rearchitecture

War Room Ground Rules

  1. Maximum 3 variables per scenario. More is noise. Model the ones that actually matter.
  2. Quantify or estimate. "Revenue drops" is not useful. "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is. Use ranges if uncertain.
  3. Don't stop at first-order effects. The real damage is always in the cascade.
  4. Model recovery, not just impact. Every scenario must have a "what we do" path.
  5. Separate base case from sensitivity. Don't conflate "what probably happens" with "what could happen."
  6. 3-4 scenarios per planning cycle. More creates analysis paralysis.
  7. Review every 90 days. Probabilities and variables change. Stale scenarios give false comfort.
  8. No judgment-free zone. People must feel safe naming ugly scenarios.

Related Skills

SkillUse When
ceo-advisorStrategic decisions that scenarios inform
cfo-advisorFinancial modeling for scenario impacts
coo-advisorOperational contingency planning
internal-narrativeCommunicating scenario outcomes to stakeholders
cs-onboardCompany context that feeds scenario variables

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseResolution
Scenarios feel too abstract to act onVariables not specific or quantified enoughRequire dollar amounts, percentages, and timelines for every variable; "revenue drops" is not actionable, "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is
Team generates only obvious, low-probability scenariosConformity bias; not applying Shell scenario planning method of challenging mental modelsUse inversion technique: "What would guarantee our failure?"; bring in external perspective; reference industry-specific historical precedents
Cascade mapping stops at first-order effectsFacilitator not pushing past immediate consequencesRequire minimum 3 levels of cascade for each variable; use "and then what?" prompting for each domain impact
Hedges identified but never implementedNo ownership, deadline, or cost attachedEvery hedge must have: cost estimate, owner name, deadline, and status tracking; review in weekly leadership meeting
War room sessions take too long (> 4 hours)Too many variables or trying to model every scenarioEnforce maximum 3 variables and 3-4 scenarios per session; use severity matrix to focus on highest-impact combinations
Early warning signals not being monitoredSignals assigned but not integrated into existing reportingAdd signals to existing dashboards and weekly scorecards; assign specific person to monitor each signal
Participants reluctant to name worst-case scenariosFear of being seen as negative or alarmistEstablish ground rules explicitly; cite Shell's experience: "the value is in surfacing what others won't say"; reward naming hard truths

Success Criteria

  • Each scenario session produces exactly 3 variables, 3 severity levels, and a cascade map with interruption points identified
  • Early warning signals are specific enough to be monitored: observable, leading, and actionable with defined thresholds
  • Hedges are costed, owned, and have deadlines within 7 days of the war room session
  • At least one hedge per scenario is implemented (not just planned) within 30 days
  • Scenario review conducted every 90 days with probability updates based on new information
  • When an early warning signal fires, the pre-planned response is executed within the defined timeline
  • War room output is concise enough for board consumption: one-page summary per scenario

Scope & Limitations

  • In scope: Multi-variable scenario construction, cascade modeling across all business functions, severity matrix analysis, early warning signal design, hedge strategy with cost-benefit analysis, scenario review cadence
  • Out of scope: Single-variable financial sensitivity analysis (use CFO Advisor stress testing); technical failure mode analysis (use engineering incident planning); routine project risk assessment (use project management frameworks); insurance and risk transfer (use specialized broker)
  • Limitation: Scenario probabilities are subjective estimates, not actuarial calculations; value is in preparedness, not prediction accuracy
  • Limitation: Framework assumes scenarios are independent or correlated; black swan events by definition are not modelable
  • Limitation: Cascade mapping is based on common organizational patterns; unique company structures may have different cascade paths
  • Limitation: Maximum 3 variables per scenario is a deliberate constraint; more variables create analysis paralysis, not better insight

Integration Points

SkillIntegrationData Flow
ceo-advisorStrategic decisions informed by scenario analysisWar room scenarios → CEO decision inputs
cfo-advisorFinancial modeling for scenario impacts and hedge costsWar room financial impacts → CFO stress test models
coo-advisorOperational contingency planning and cascade interruptionWar room cascade map → COO contingency plans
executive-mentorPre-mortem failure modes feed into scenario variablesMentor failure modes → War room variables
internal-narrativeCrisis scenarios require pre-built communication plansWar room crisis scenarios → Narrative crisis templates
org-health-diagnosticHealth dimension scores surface scenario variablesHealth red flags → War room variable candidates
strategic-alignmentScenario outcomes may require strategic realignmentWar room outcomes → Alignment reassessment

Python Tools

ToolPurposeUsage
scripts/scenario_builder.pyBuild structured scenarios with variables, probabilities, detection signals, and severity levelspython scripts/scenario_builder.py --name "Customer Concentration Risk" --variable "Top customer churns" --probability 20 --impact 500000 --timeline 90 --json
scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.pyCalculate compound impact across multiple variables with severity matrix and cascade risk scoringpython scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py --variables "churn:500000:0.2" "fundraise_delay:0:0.3" "key_departure:0:0.15" --arr 2000000 --runway-months 14 --json
scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.pyBuild and evaluate decision trees with expected value calculations for strategic optionspython scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py --decision "Enter Japan market" --option "Direct:0.6:2000000:-500000" --option "Partnership:0.75:1000000:-200000" --option "Wait:1.0:0:0" --json

平台分布

Codex

34.98%
按下载量换算158

Claude

32.28%
按下载量换算146

Cursor

17.69%
按下载量换算80

Gemini CLI

9.92%
按下载量换算45

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

权限未标注

当前来源未能明确判断权限范围,默认进入异常复核队列。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills