Risk Register Skill
This skill produces a complete risk register for a project, programme, or product. Output follows standard risk management practice with likelihood × impact scoring, RAG status, a risk heat map, and specific mitigation and contingency plans. Ready to share with a project board, steering committee, or programme office.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Project or product name
- Project stage (discovery / delivery / launch / live / programme-level)
- Key objectives — what is the project trying to achieve?
- Known risks — anything already on the team's radar (even informal concerns count)
- Key dependencies — external vendors, teams, systems, or regulatory approvals
- Deadline or milestone sensitivity — are there hard dates that cannot move?
- Audience — who will read this? (internal team / executive steering / external board / regulator)
Output Structure
Risk Register: [Project / Product Name]
Project stage: [Discovery / Delivery / Launch / Live / Programme]
Version: [1.0]
Owner: [PM / Programme Manager / Risk Lead]
Last reviewed: [Date]
Next review: [Date — recommend weekly during delivery, monthly during discovery]
Status: [Active / Archived]
1. Risk Scoring Framework
Likelihood (L)
| Score |
Label |
Definition |
| 5 |
Almost certain |
>80% probability of occurring |
| 4 |
Likely |
60–80% probability |
| 3 |
Possible |
40–60% probability |
| 2 |
Unlikely |
20–40% probability |
| 1 |
Rare |
<20% probability |
Impact (I)
| Score |
Label |
Definition |
| 5 |
Critical |
Programme failure, regulatory breach, major financial loss, safety event |
| 4 |
High |
Significant schedule delay (>4 weeks), scope reduction, reputational damage |
| 3 |
Medium |
Moderate delay (1–4 weeks), cost overrun, reduced quality |
| 2 |
Low |
Minor delay (<1 week), manageable cost increase |
| 1 |
Negligible |
Minimal impact, easily absorbed |
Risk Score = L × I
| Score |
RAG |
Action |
| 20–25 |
🔴 Critical |
Immediate escalation; active management required |
| 12–19 |
🔴 High |
Owner-assigned mitigation; weekly review |
| 8–11 |
🟡 Medium |
Mitigation planned; fortnightly review |
| 4–7 |
🟡 Low |
Monitor; monthly review |
| 1–3 |
🟢 Negligible |
Accept; review if context changes |
2. Risk Register
| ID |
Risk |
Category |
L |
I |
Score |
RAG |
Owner |
Status |
Mitigation |
Contingency |
Review date |
| R01 |
[Risk description — be specific: "Third-party API may not support required volume, causing X to fail"] |
[Schedule / Technical / Resource / Commercial / Compliance / External] |
[1–5] |
[1–5] |
[L×I] |
🔴/🟡/🟢 |
[Name] |
[Open / Mitigating / Closed] |
[What are we doing to reduce likelihood or impact?] |
[What do we do if it happens?] |
[Date] |
| R02 |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
[...] |
3. Risk Categories — Common Risks by Type
Use these to prompt risk identification. Add, remove, or customise for your project.
Schedule & Delivery
- Key milestone depends on a dependency that has not confirmed availability
- Team capacity reduced by planned or unplanned absence during critical period
- Technical complexity is underestimated — story points consistently overrun
- External approval (regulator, legal, procurement) takes longer than planned
Technical
- Integration with a third-party system not yet prototyped or agreed
- Existing technical debt makes the change harder or riskier than estimated
- Security or compliance review required before launch has not been scoped
- Performance under production load untested
- Key technical knowledge held by one person (single point of failure)
Resource & People
- Key SME or engineer leaving or unavailable during critical phase
- Budget not confirmed for Phase 2 of the project
- Stakeholder sponsor changes role or leaves the organisation
- Team not yet at full capacity (hiring lag, access issues, onboarding time)
Commercial & Financial
- Vendor or partner contract not yet signed
- Cost estimate based on assumptions that have not been validated
- Revenue or savings case depends on assumptions outside the team's control
- Currency exposure or exchange rate risk for international projects
Compliance & Regulatory
- Data privacy impact assessment (DPIA) not yet complete
- Regulatory approval required and timeline is uncertain
- GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, or sector-specific compliance requirement not yet mapped
- Legal review of terms of service or contracts pending
Stakeholder & Adoption
- Key user group has low awareness or motivation to adopt the change
- Internal resistance from a team that will be affected by the change
- Executive sponsor not consistently engaged — decisions are slow
- Communications plan not yet agreed with change management team
External
- Market or competitive change could undermine the business case
- Macroeconomic conditions affect budget or priority
- Supplier or infrastructure provider risk (e.g. cloud provider, hardware)
- Geopolitical or regulatory environment change
4. Risk Heat Map
Plot risks by likelihood (Y axis) and impact (X axis):
│ Low Medium High Critical
│ (1) (2-3) (4) (5)
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
Almost │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴
certain │
(5) │
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
Likely │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴
(4) │
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
Possible │ 🟢 🟡 🟡 🔴
(3) │
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
Unlikely │ 🟢 🟢 🟡 🟡
(2) │
─────────┼────────────────────────────────────
Rare │ 🟢 🟢 🟢 🟡
(1) │
[Plot each risk ID on this grid — e.g. R01 lands at L4/I5 = 🔴 Critical]
5. Top Risks — Executive Summary
For steering committee or board-level reporting:
| Rank |
Risk |
Score |
RAG |
Owner |
Mitigation status |
| 1 |
[Most critical risk — plain English description] |
[X] |
🔴 |
[Owner] |
[Active / Planned / Not started] |
| 2 |
[...] |
[...] |
🔴 |
[...] |
[...] |
| 3 |
[...] |
[...] |
🟡 |
[...] |
[...] |
| 4 |
[...] |
[...] |
🟡 |
[...] |
[...] |
| 5 |
[...] |
[...] |
🟡 |
[...] |
[...] |
Decisions required from steering:
- [Any risk that requires budget, scope, or timeline decision to mitigate]
6. Risk Changes Since Last Review
| Risk ID |
Change |
Detail |
| [R03] |
Score increased |
[L moved from 2 → 4 — vendor confirmed delay in API availability] |
| [R07] |
Risk closed |
[Legal sign-off received on 12 May] |
| [NEW] |
New risk identified |
[R09 — budget freeze announcement affects Phase 2 funding] |
7. Risk Closure Criteria
A risk is closed when:
- The risk event can no longer occur (e.g. milestone passed, contract signed), OR
- The residual risk score drops to Negligible (1–3) AND the team formally accepts it, OR
- The risk has materialised and transitioned to an issue (tracked separately)
Issues log: [Link to issues log — risks that have materialised and are now active problems being managed]
Quality Checks
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Build a risk register for our product launch"
- "Create a risk matrix for [project name]"
- "What risks should I document for a data migration project?"
- "Generate a risk register for our steering committee"
- "Help me identify and score risks for our Q3 delivery plan"
Anti-Patterns
1---2name: risk-register-23description: Build and maintain a project or product risk register. Use when asked to create a risk register, identify project risks, build a risk matrix, or document risks and mitigations for a programme. Produces a complete risk register with likelihood/impact scoring, RAG status, ownership, and prioritised mitigations.4---56# Risk Register Skill78This skill produces a complete risk register for a project, programme, or product. Output follows standard risk management practice with likelihood × impact scoring, RAG status, a risk heat map, and specific mitigation and contingency plans. Ready to share with a project board, steering committee, or programme office.910## Required Inputs1112Ask the user for these if not provided:13- **Project or product name**14- **Project stage** (discovery / delivery / launch / live / programme-level)15- **Key objectives** — what is the project trying to achieve?16- **Known risks** — anything already on the team's radar (even informal concerns count)17- **Key dependencies** — external vendors, teams, systems, or regulatory approvals18- **Deadline or milestone sensitivity** — are there hard dates that cannot move?19- **Audience** — who will read this? (internal team / executive steering / external board / regulator)2021## Output Structure2223---2425# Risk Register: [Project / Product Name]2627**Project stage:** [Discovery / Delivery / Launch / Live / Programme]28**Version:** [1.0]29**Owner:** [PM / Programme Manager / Risk Lead]30**Last reviewed:** [Date]31**Next review:** [Date — recommend weekly during delivery, monthly during discovery]32**Status:** [Active / Archived]3334---3536## 1. Risk Scoring Framework3738**Likelihood (L)**3940| Score | Label | Definition |41|---|---|---|42| 5 | Almost certain | >80% probability of occurring |43| 4 | Likely | 60–80% probability |44| 3 | Possible | 40–60% probability |45| 2 | Unlikely | 20–40% probability |46| 1 | Rare | <20% probability |4748**Impact (I)**4950| Score | Label | Definition |51|---|---|---|52| 5 | Critical | Programme failure, regulatory breach, major financial loss, safety event |53| 4 | High | Significant schedule delay (>4 weeks), scope reduction, reputational damage |54| 3 | Medium | Moderate delay (1–4 weeks), cost overrun, reduced quality |55| 2 | Low | Minor delay (<1 week), manageable cost increase |56| 1 | Negligible | Minimal impact, easily absorbed |5758**Risk Score = L × I**5960| Score | RAG | Action |61|---|---|---|62| 20–25 | 🔴 Critical | Immediate escalation; active management required |63| 12–19 | 🔴 High | Owner-assigned mitigation; weekly review |64| 8–11 | 🟡 Medium | Mitigation planned; fortnightly review |65| 4–7 | 🟡 Low | Monitor; monthly review |66| 1–3 | 🟢 Negligible | Accept; review if context changes |6768---6970## 2. Risk Register7172| ID | Risk | Category | L | I | Score | RAG | Owner | Status | Mitigation | Contingency | Review date |73|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|74| R01 | [Risk description — be specific: "Third-party API may not support required volume, causing X to fail"] | [Schedule / Technical / Resource / Commercial / Compliance / External] | [1–5] | [1–5] | [L×I] | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [Name] | [Open / Mitigating / Closed] | [What are we doing to reduce likelihood or impact?] | [What do we do if it happens?] | [Date] |75| R02 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |7677---7879## 3. Risk Categories — Common Risks by Type8081Use these to prompt risk identification. Add, remove, or customise for your project.8283### Schedule & Delivery84- Key milestone depends on a dependency that has not confirmed availability85- Team capacity reduced by planned or unplanned absence during critical period86- Technical complexity is underestimated — story points consistently overrun87- External approval (regulator, legal, procurement) takes longer than planned8889### Technical90- Integration with a third-party system not yet prototyped or agreed91- Existing technical debt makes the change harder or riskier than estimated92- Security or compliance review required before launch has not been scoped93- Performance under production load untested94- Key technical knowledge held by one person (single point of failure)9596### Resource & People97- Key SME or engineer leaving or unavailable during critical phase98- Budget not confirmed for Phase 2 of the project99- Stakeholder sponsor changes role or leaves the organisation100- Team not yet at full capacity (hiring lag, access issues, onboarding time)101102### Commercial & Financial103- Vendor or partner contract not yet signed104- Cost estimate based on assumptions that have not been validated105- Revenue or savings case depends on assumptions outside the team's control106- Currency exposure or exchange rate risk for international projects107108### Compliance & Regulatory109- Data privacy impact assessment (DPIA) not yet complete110- Regulatory approval required and timeline is uncertain111- GDPR, HIPAA, SOC 2, or sector-specific compliance requirement not yet mapped112- Legal review of terms of service or contracts pending113114### Stakeholder & Adoption115- Key user group has low awareness or motivation to adopt the change116- Internal resistance from a team that will be affected by the change117- Executive sponsor not consistently engaged — decisions are slow118- Communications plan not yet agreed with change management team119120### External121- Market or competitive change could undermine the business case122- Macroeconomic conditions affect budget or priority123- Supplier or infrastructure provider risk (e.g. cloud provider, hardware)124- Geopolitical or regulatory environment change125126---127128## 4. Risk Heat Map129130Plot risks by likelihood (Y axis) and impact (X axis):131132```133 │ Low Medium High Critical134 │ (1) (2-3) (4) (5)135─────────┼────────────────────────────────────136Almost │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴137certain │138(5) │139─────────┼────────────────────────────────────140Likely │ 🟡 🟡 🔴 🔴141(4) │142─────────┼────────────────────────────────────143Possible │ 🟢 🟡 🟡 🔴144(3) │145─────────┼────────────────────────────────────146Unlikely │ 🟢 🟢 🟡 🟡147(2) │148─────────┼────────────────────────────────────149Rare │ 🟢 🟢 🟢 🟡150(1) │151```152153[Plot each risk ID on this grid — e.g. R01 lands at L4/I5 = 🔴 Critical]154155---156157## 5. Top Risks — Executive Summary158159For steering committee or board-level reporting:160161| Rank | Risk | Score | RAG | Owner | Mitigation status |162|---|---|---|---|---|---|163| 1 | [Most critical risk — plain English description] | [X] | 🔴 | [Owner] | [Active / Planned / Not started] |164| 2 | [...] | [...] | 🔴 | [...] | [...] |165| 3 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |166| 4 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |167| 5 | [...] | [...] | 🟡 | [...] | [...] |168169**Decisions required from steering:**170- [Any risk that requires budget, scope, or timeline decision to mitigate]171172---173174## 6. Risk Changes Since Last Review175176| Risk ID | Change | Detail |177|---|---|---|178| [R03] | Score increased | [L moved from 2 → 4 — vendor confirmed delay in API availability] |179| [R07] | Risk closed | [Legal sign-off received on 12 May] |180| [NEW] | New risk identified | [R09 — budget freeze announcement affects Phase 2 funding] |181182---183184## 7. Risk Closure Criteria185186A risk is closed when:187- The risk event can no longer occur (e.g. milestone passed, contract signed), OR188- The residual risk score drops to Negligible (1–3) AND the team formally accepts it, OR189- The risk has materialised and transitioned to an **issue** (tracked separately)190191**Issues log:** [Link to issues log — risks that have materialised and are now active problems being managed]192193---194195## Quality Checks196197- [ ] Every risk has a specific owner — not "the team" or "TBD"198- [ ] Mitigations describe what is actively being done — not "monitor and review"199- [ ] Contingency plans exist for all Critical and High risks200- [ ] Risk descriptions are specific — "vendor may be late" is not specific enough; name the vendor and the dependency201- [ ] Register has been reviewed in the last [X] days202- [ ] Closed risks are archived, not deleted — they provide audit trail203- [ ] Risks are distinguished from issues — a risk is something that might happen; an issue is something that has happened204205## Example Trigger Phrases206207- "Build a risk register for our product launch"208- "Create a risk matrix for [project name]"209- "What risks should I document for a data migration project?"210- "Generate a risk register for our steering committee"211- "Help me identify and score risks for our Q3 delivery plan"212213## Anti-Patterns214215- [ ] Do not assign risks to "the team" or "TBD" — every risk must have a named individual owner216- [ ] Do not write mitigations as "monitor and review" — mitigations must describe what is actively being done to reduce likelihood or impact217- [ ] Do not delete closed risks — they provide an audit trail; archive them instead218- [ ] Do not confuse risks with issues — a risk is something that might happen; an issue is something that has already happened219- [ ] Do not leave Critical or High risks without a contingency plan — what happens if the mitigation fails must be documented