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 Disclosure and Utility because developers can't actually use these templates—they're just ideas. Here's the fix:

Create three reference files in your skill directory:

• references/risk-register-template.md — A simple markdown table with example rows (product risk, timeline risk, etc.)
• references/escalation-playbook-template.md — A decision tree showing when/how to escalate
• references/lessons-learned-template.md — A post-mortem checklist

Even one filled example per template would add +3 points and make this actually usable.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Vague scoring methodology — You say "likelihood + impact scoring" but no scale (1-5? 1-10?). Add: "Score likelihood (1-5) and impact (1-5). Priority = L × I. Escalate all ≥15 immediately." That's +2 points.

2. Missing validation checkpoints — Step 3 says "maintain real-time risk log" but doesn't say how you verify mitigations are working. Add a step: "3.5. Daily validation: check alerts, confirm owner completion, escalate if status worsens." That's +2 points.

3. Second-person voice creeping in — "Use the following building blocks to keep... on track" should be "Apply the following building blocks for Tier 1+ launch risk governance." One-point fix, cleaner voice.

Quick Wins

1. Create 3 reference files with actual templates and examples (+3 points)
2. Add scoring formula to the execution process (+2 points)
3. Add validation steps for mitigation confirmation (+2 points)
4. Tighten voice to pure imperative (+1 point)

These changes would push you from 76 → 85+, solidly into B territory.

Checkout your skill here: SkillzWave.ai | SpillWave We have an agentic skill installer that install skills in 14+ coding agent platforms. Check out this guide on how to improve your agentic skills.