Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 运维和基础设施

project-risk-register(项目风险登记册)

project-risk-register 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。

project-risk-register 是运维和基础设施类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证为 MIT,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在运维和基础设施类的 2,449 个 Skill 里排第 912。

总安装 1,236周安装 51GitHub Stars 87下载 404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
MIT

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:project-risk-register(项目风险登记册)
来源仓库:https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude
仓库路径:skills/project-risk-register
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill project-risk-register
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。不同来源提供的安装方式可能略有差异;本站展示可直接复制的安装命令,安装前请核对来源页面。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/lyndonkl/claude --skill project-risk-register

这个 Skill 是做什么的

运维和基础设施类 Skill 处理部署、监控、日志和云资源,多数需要较高的执行权限。

project-risk-register 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。它支持对仓库状态、代码变更及协作事项进行梳理与分析。

可通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装并使用。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。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/project-risk-register

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/lyndonkl/claude --skill project-risk-register;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

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

project-risk-register 怎么安装?

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

project-risk-register 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。

project-risk-register 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

project-risk-register 是免费的吗?

来源标注的许可证是 MIT。本站不代收任何费用,也不托管安装包;能否商用、要不要署名,以许可证原文为准。

project-risk-register 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 1,236 次,近一周安装 51 次,下载 404 次,GitHub 87 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。

project-risk-register 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。
  • 3 个目录同时收录,说明这个 Skill 流传比较广。
  • 许可证明确为 MIT,商用和分发边界好判断。
  • 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

  • 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。
  • 需要处理运维和基础设施类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 需要许可证清楚、并且有第三方扫描结果的团队项目。

不太适合

  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

运维和基础设施类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
brainstorming

头脑风暴 · Codex、Claude

3,148,776173,131操作浏览器MIT通过
copywriting

文案写作 · Codex、Claude

1,996,72425,583需要联网MIT通过
openclaw-secure-linux-cloud

OpenClaw secure linux cloud 命令行 · Codex、Claude

1,853,08840接触敏感数据未明确未通过
xget

xget 命令行 · Codex、Claude

1,799,28040执行命令未明确未通过
requesting-code-review

代码审查请求 · Codex、Claude

1,590,144173,103权限未标注MIT通过
project-risk-register

项目风险登记册 · 本页

1,23687操作浏览器MIT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

Project Risk Register

Table of Contents

  1. Workflow
  2. Common Patterns
  3. Risk Scoring Framework
  4. Guardrails
  5. Quick Reference

Risk Matrix (5×5 Probability×Impact):

Impact →     1         2         3         4         5
Prob ↓    Minimal   Minor   Moderate  Major   Severe

5 High   │ Medium │ Medium │  High  │  High  │ Critical│
         │   5    │   10   │   15   │   20   │   25    │
4        │  Low   │ Medium │ Medium │  High  │  High   │
         │   4    │    8   │   12   │   16   │   20    │
3 Medium │  Low   │  Low   │ Medium │ Medium │  High   │
         │   3    │    6   │    9   │   12   │   15    │
2        │  Low   │  Low   │  Low   │ Medium │ Medium  │
         │   2    │    4   │    6   │    8   │   10    │
1 Low    │  Low   │  Low   │  Low   │  Low   │ Medium  │
         │   1    │    2   │    3   │    4   │    5    │

Risk Thresholds:

  • Critical (≥20): Escalate to exec, immediate mitigation required
  • High (12-19): Active management, weekly review, documented mitigation
  • Medium (6-11): Monitor closely, monthly review, contingency plan
  • Low (1-5): Accept or minimal mitigation, quarterly review

Example: Software Migration Project

Risk IDRiskProbImpactScoreOwnerMitigationContingency
R-001Third-party API deprecated mid-project3412 (Medium)Eng LeadContact vendor for deprecation timelineBuild abstraction layer for quick swap
R-002Key engineer leaves during critical phase2510 (Medium)EMKnowledge sharing, pair programmingContract backup engineer
R-003Data migration takes 3× longer than estimated4416 (High)Data LeadPilot migration on 10% data firstExtend timeline, reduce scope

Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

Risk Register Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Identify risks across categories
- [ ] Step 2: Assess probability and impact
- [ ] Step 3: Calculate risk scores and prioritize
- [ ] Step 4: Assign owners and define responses
- [ ] Step 5: Monitor and update regularly

Step 1: Identify risks across categories

Brainstorm what could go wrong using structured categories (technical, schedule, resource, external, scope). See Common Patterns for category checklists. Use resources/template.md for register structure.

Step 2: Assess probability and impact

Score each risk on probability (1-5: rare to almost certain) and impact (1-5: minimal to severe). Involve subject matter experts for accuracy. See Risk Scoring Framework for definitions.

Step 3: Calculate risk scores and prioritize

Multiply Probability × Impact for each risk. Plot on risk matrix (5×5 grid) to visualize risk profile. Focus mitigation on Critical/High risks first. See resources/methodology.md for advanced techniques like Monte Carlo simulation.

Step 4: Assign owners and define responses

For each High/Critical risk, assign named owner (not "team"), define mitigation (reduce probability), contingency (reduce impact), and triggers (when to activate contingency). See resources/template.md for response planning structure.

Step 5: Monitor and update regularly

Review risk register weekly (active projects) or monthly (longer projects). Update probabilities/impacts as context changes, add new risks, retire closed risks, track mitigation progress. See Guardrails for monitoring cadence.

Common Patterns

Risk categories (use for brainstorming):

  • Technical risks: Technology failure, integration issues, performance problems, security vulnerabilities, technical debt, complexity underestimated
  • Schedule risks: Dependencies delayed, estimation errors, scope creep, resource unavailability, critical path blocked
  • Resource risks: Key person leaves, skill gaps, budget overrun, vendor/contractor issues, equipment unavailable
  • External risks: Regulatory changes, market shifts, competitor actions, economic downturn, natural disasters, vendor bankruptcy
  • Scope risks: Unclear requirements, changing priorities, stakeholder disagreement, gold-plating, mission creep
  • Organizational risks: Lack of executive support, competing priorities, insufficient funding, organizational change, political conflicts

By project type:

  • Software projects: Third-party API changes, dependency vulnerabilities, cloud provider outages, data migration issues, browser compatibility, scaling problems, security breaches
  • Construction projects: Weather delays, material shortages, permit issues, labor strikes, soil conditions, cost overruns, safety incidents
  • Product launches: Manufacturing delays, supply chain disruption, competitor launch, pricing miscalculation, market demand lower than expected, quality issues
  • Organizational change: Employee resistance, communication breakdown, training inadequate, budget cuts, leadership turnover, cultural misalignment

By risk response type:

  • Mitigate (reduce probability): Training, prototyping, process improvements, redundancy, quality checks, early testing
  • Contingency (reduce impact if occurs): Backup plans, insurance, reserves (time/budget), alternative suppliers, rollback procedures
  • Accept (do nothing): Low-score risks not worth mitigation cost, residual risks after mitigation
  • Transfer (shift to others): Insurance, outsourcing, contracts (penalty clauses), warranties

Typical risk profile evolution:

  • Project start: Many medium risks (uncertainty high), few critical (pre-mitigation)
  • Mid-project: Critical risks mitigated to medium/low, new risks emerge (dependencies, integration)
  • Near completion: Low risks dominate (most issues resolved), few high (last-minute surprises)
  • Red flag: Risk score increasing over time (mitigation not working, new issues emerging faster than resolution)

Risk Scoring Framework

Probability Scale (1-5):

  • 5 - Almost Certain (>80%): Expected to occur, historical data confirms, no mitigation in place
  • 4 - Likely (60-80%): Probably will occur, similar projects had this issue, weak mitigation
  • 3 - Possible (40-60%): May or may not occur, depends on circumstances, some mitigation in place
  • 2 - Unlikely (20-40%): Probably won't occur, mitigation in place, low historical precedent
  • 1 - Rare (<20%): Very unlikely, strong mitigation, no historical precedent

Impact Scale (1-5) - adjust dimensions for project context:

For Schedule Impact:

  • 5 - Severe: >20% delay (e.g., 3-month project delayed 3+ weeks), miss critical deadline, cascading delays
  • 4 - Major: 10-20% delay, miss milestone, affects dependent projects
  • 3 - Moderate: 5-10% delay, timeline buffer consumed, no external impact
  • 2 - Minor: <5% delay, absorbed within sprint/phase, minor schedule pressure
  • 1 - Minimal: <1% delay or no delay, negligible schedule impact

For Budget Impact:

  • 5 - Severe: >20% budget overrun, requires new funding approval, project viability threatened
  • 4 - Major: 10-20% overrun, contingency exhausted, scope cuts required
  • 3 - Moderate: 5-10% overrun, contingency partially used, no scope cuts
  • 2 - Minor: <5% overrun, absorbed within budget flexibility
  • 1 - Minimal: <1% overrun or no budget impact

For Scope/Quality Impact:

  • 5 - Severe: Core functionality lost, customer-facing quality issue, regulatory violation
  • 4 - Major: Important feature cut, significant quality degradation, customer complaints
  • 3 - Moderate: Nice-to-have feature cut, minor quality issue, internal workarounds needed
  • 2 - Minor: Edge case feature cut, cosmetic quality issue
  • 1 - Minimal: No scope or quality impact

Composite Impact (when multiple dimensions affected):

  • Use maximum of any single dimension (pessimistic, conservative)
  • OR use weighted average: Schedule 40%, Budget 30%, Scope/Quality 30%

Example Scoring:

Risk: "Key engineer leaves mid-project"

  • Probability: 2 (Unlikely - 20% based on tenure, satisfaction, retention rate)
  • Impact Schedule: 4 (Major - 3-week delay to onboard replacement, knowledge transfer)
  • Impact Budget: 2 (Minor - recruiter fees, some overtime)
  • Impact Scope: 3 (Moderate - may cut advanced features)
  • Composite Impact: 4 (take maximum: schedule impact is worst)
  • Risk Score: 2 × 4 = 8 (Medium)

Guardrails

Ensure quality:

  1. Identify risks proactively, not reactively: Run risk workshops before problems occur

- ✓ Brainstorm risks at project kickoff, use checklists (technical, schedule, resource, etc.) - ❌ Add risks only after incidents occur (reactive)

  1. Be specific, not vague: "Integration fails" is vague, "Vendor API rate limits block migration" is specific

- ✓ "Third-party payment gateway rejects 10% of transactions due to fraud rules" - ❌ "Payment issues"

  1. Separate probability and impact: Don't conflate "bad if it happens" with "likely to happen"

- ✓ Asteroid hits office: Prob=1 (rare), Impact=5 (severe), Score=5 (low priority) - ❌ Conflating: "This is really bad so it must be high priority" (ignoring low probability)

  1. Assign named owners, not teams: "Engineering team" is not accountable, "Sarah (Tech Lead)" is

- ✓ Owner: Sarah (Tech Lead), responsible for monitoring and activating contingency - ❌ Owner: Engineering Team (diffused responsibility)

  1. Define mitigation AND contingency: Mitigation reduces probability, contingency handles if it occurs anyway

- ✓ Mitigation: Prototype integration early (reduce prob). Contingency: Build abstraction layer for quick swap (reduce impact) - ❌ Only mitigation, no backup plan

  1. Update regularly: Stale risk register is worse than none (false confidence)

- ✓ Weekly review for active projects (High/Critical risks), monthly for longer projects - ❌ Create register at kickoff, never update (probabilities/impacts change as project progresses)

  1. Retire closed risks: Don't let register grow indefinitely, archive mitigated/irrelevant risks

- ✓ Mark risk "Closed" with resolution date, move to archive section - ❌ Keep all risks forever (signal-to-noise ratio degrades)

  1. Escalate critical risks immediately: Don't wait for weekly meeting if Critical risk emerges

- ✓ Prob=5 Impact=5 Score=25 → Escalate to exec same day, emergency mitigation - ❌ Wait for scheduled review (risk could materialize)

Quick Reference

Resources:

Success criteria:

  • ✓ Identified 15-30 risks across all categories (technical, schedule, resource, external, scope, org)
  • ✓ All High/Critical risks (score ≥12) have named owners, mitigation plans, and contingencies
  • ✓ Risk scores differentiated (not all scored 6-9; use full 1-25 range)
  • ✓ Mitigation and contingency plans are specific and actionable (not "monitor closely")
  • ✓ Triggers defined for when to activate contingencies (quantifiable thresholds)
  • ✓ Register updated regularly (weekly for active projects, monthly for longer projects)
  • ✓ Risk profile matches project phase (high uncertainty at start, decreasing over time)

Common mistakes:

  • ❌ Too few risks identified (<10) → incomplete risk picture, false confidence
  • ❌ All risks scored medium (6-9) → not differentiated, unclear prioritization
  • ❌ Vague risks ("things might not work") → not actionable
  • ❌ No risk owners assigned → diffused accountability, mitigation doesn't happen
  • ❌ Mitigation without contingency → no backup plan if mitigation fails
  • ❌ Created once, never updated → stale data, risks evolve
  • ❌ Only negative risks (threats) → missing opportunities (positive risks)
  • ❌ Risk register separate from project plan → not integrated into workflow

When to use alternatives:

  • Pre-mortem: When project hasn't started, want to imagine failure scenarios (complements risk register)
  • FMEA (Failure Mode Effects Analysis): Manufacturing/engineering projects needing detailed failure analysis
  • Monte Carlo simulation: When need probabilistic timeline/budget forecasting (use methodology.md)
  • Decision tree: When risks involve sequential decisions with branch points
  • Scenario planning: When risks are strategic/long-term (market shifts, competitor actions)

平台分布

Claude Code

26.67%
按下载量换算108

Gemini CLI

24.1%
按下载量换算97

Antigravity

19.25%
按下载量换算78

windsurf

12.05%
按下载量换算49

OpenCode

7.51%
按下载量换算30

github-copilot

3.26%
按下载量换算13

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

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。

继续浏览同类 Skills