risk-playbooks

I noticed you're tackling operational risk management through structured playbooks—that's a solid approach to making chaos predictable. At 76 points, you've got the core foundations in place, but there are some gaps in how developers would actually navigate and extend these playbooks that we should dig into.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 76/100, which lands you in C territory—adequate with some meaningful gaps. This is based on Anthropic's skills best practices. Your Spec Compliance is rock solid at 12/15, but Progressive Disclosure Architecture (22/30) and Utility (14/20) need work. The biggest opportunity? Making your templates and scoring logic concrete instead of conceptual.

What's Working Well

• Rock-solid metadata — Your frontmatter is valid YAML with all required fields, and the trigger descriptions clearly signal when to use this (pre-launch planning, mid-launch escalations, post-launch reviews).
• Consistent terminology throughout — "Tiers," "likelihood," "impact," "owners," "escalations" stay consistent, which makes the framework predictable.
• Practical structure — The five-category risk framework (capability, timeline, technical, resource, external) is lean and covers real launch scenarios without overthinking it.
• Clear section ordering — Your "When to Use" and "Execution Process" sections follow a logical progression that a developer could follow step-by-step.

The Big One: Missing Template Artifacts

Right now, you mention templates but don't provide them:

Templates
- Risk register (description, likelihood, impact, owner, mitigation, status).
- Escalation playbook (trigger, communication plan, action tree).

This hurts **Progressive Dis...