Generates structured risk analysis summaries for legal matters, identifying and evaluating risks by severity and likelihood with quantified exposures and mitigation strategies. Use when preparing risk assessments, exposure analyses, liability summaries, or pre-filing risk evaluations across litig...
BY CaseMarkUPDATED Oct 28, 2026
INTENDED FOR✳Claude Code>_Codex◈OpenClaw↗CursorInstall in a listed agent.
instructions.md
---
name: risk-analysis-87f1d23cf8c4
language: en
description: Generates structured risk analysis summaries for legal matters, identifying and evaluating risks by severity and likelihood with quantified exposures and mitigation strategies. Use when preparing risk assessments, exposure analyses, liability summaries, or pre-filing risk evaluations across litigation, regulatory, contractual, reputational, and operational domains.
---
# Risk Analysis Summary
Produces a prioritized risk analysis from matter documents, quantifying exposures and recommending mitigations for attorneys, clients, and stakeholders.
## Prerequisites
1. **Matter documents** — contracts, pleadings, correspondence, regulatory filings, insurance policies
2. **Matter context** — jurisdiction, industry, phase (pre-filing / active / settlement), key parties
3. **Risk tolerance** — if known, acceptable exposure thresholds or strategic constraints
## Workflow
### 1. Executive Overview
- **Matter snapshot** — one-paragraph factual summary
- **Top 3–5 risks** — ranked by severity × likelihood, one sentence each with estimated exposure
- **Immediate actions** — time-sensitive deadlines, SOL dates, regulatory windows
### 2. Risk Register
Assign each risk a sequential ID (R-01, R-02, ...) and complete:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Category | Contractual / Regulatory / Litigation / Financial / Reputational / Operational |
| Description | Specific risk statement grounded in document evidence |
| Factual basis | Cite provisions, regulatory sections, correspondence, or facts |
| Legal authority | Statutes, regulations, case law — mark `[VERIFY]` if uncertain |
| Likelihood | High / Medium / Low with reasoning |
| Severity | Critical / Major / Moderate / Minor |
| Financial exposure | Best-case / most-likely / worst-case range |
| Non-monetary impact | Reputational harm, sanctions, operational disruption |
| Mitigating factors | Defenses, insurance coverage, factual counterarguments |
| Interdependencies | Other risk IDs that compound or conflict |
### 3. Risk Matrix
Plot risk IDs on a 3×3 severity (rows) × likelihood (columns) grid:
```
│ Low │ Medium │ High
──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────
Critical │ │ │
Major │ │ │
Moderate │ │ │
```
### 4. Mitigation Strategies
For each risk rated Major/High or above:
- **Action** — specific, practical step
- **Type** — Legal defense / Procedural / Settlement / Insurance / Operational
- **Feasibility** — High / Medium / Low
- **Effectiveness** — estimated exposure reduction
- **Resources** — cost, time, personnel
- **Trade-offs** — whether this mitigation exacerbates another risk
### 5. Timeline
| Priority | Risk ID | Action | Deadline/Trigger | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urgent | | | | |
| Near-term (30–90 days) | | | | |
| Strategic (90+ days) | | | | |
Flag all hard deadlines: statutes of limitations, cure periods, regulatory filing dates.
### 6. Information Gaps
List areas needing additional investigation, discovery, or expert consultation to refine the assessment.
## Pitfalls
- **Ungrounded risks** — every risk must cite specific documents or facts; never assert risk in the abstract
- **Missing quantification** — provide dollar ranges with stated assumptions; flag estimates as conservative or aggressive
- **Fact vs. inference** — clearly distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences, and speculative scenarios
- **Tone imbalance** — neither minimize genuine risks nor catastrophize manageable exposures
- **Audience mismatch** — use language accessible to business stakeholders; define legal terms on first use
- **Unacknowledged uncertainty** — state confidence levels; identify what additional information would change the assessment
- **Ignored interdependencies** — flag where addressing one risk may worsen another
- **Jurisdiction blindness** — note where analysis depends on forum, governing law, or regulatory body
---
name: risk-analysis-87f1d23cf8c4
language: en
description: Generates structured risk analysis summaries for legal matters, identifying and evaluating risks by severity and likelihood with quantified exposures and mitigation strategies. Use when preparing risk assessments, exposure analyses, liability summaries, or pre-filing risk evaluations across litigation, regulatory, contractual, reputational, and operational domains.
---
# Risk Analysis Summary
Produces a prioritized risk analysis from matter documents, quantifying exposures and recommending mitigations for attorneys, clients, and stakeholders.
## Prerequisites
1. **Matter documents** — contracts, pleadings, correspondence, regulatory filings, insurance policies
2. **Matter context** — jurisdiction, industry, phase (pre-filing / active / settlement), key parties
3. **Risk tolerance** — if known, acceptable exposure thresholds or strategic constraints
## Workflow
### 1. Executive Overview
- **Matter snapshot** — one-paragraph factual summary
- **Top 3–5 risks** — ranked by severity × likelihood, one sentence each with estimated exposure
- **Immediate actions** — time-sensitive deadlines, SOL dates, regulatory windows
### 2. Risk Register
Assign each risk a sequential ID (R-01, R-02, ...) and complete:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Category | Contractual / Regulatory / Litigation / Financial / Reputational / Operational |
| Description | Specific risk statement grounded in document evidence |
| Factual basis | Cite provisions, regulatory sections, correspondence, or facts |
| Legal authority | Statutes, regulations, case law — mark `[VERIFY]` if uncertain |
| Likelihood | High / Medium / Low with reasoning |
| Severity | Critical / Major / Moderate / Minor |
| Financial exposure | Best-case / most-likely / worst-case range |
| Non-monetary impact | Reputational harm, sanctions, operational disruption |
| Mitigating factors | Defenses, insurance coverage, factual counterarguments |
| Interdependencies | Other risk IDs that compound or conflict |
### 3. Risk Matrix
Plot risk IDs on a 3×3 severity (rows) × likelihood (columns) grid:
```
│ Low │ Medium │ High
──────────────┼────────────────┼────────────────┼──────────────
Critical │ │ │
Major │ │ │
Moderate │ │ │
```
### 4. Mitigation Strategies
For each risk rated Major/High or above:
- **Action** — specific, practical step
- **Type** — Legal defense / Procedural / Settlement / Insurance / Operational
- **Feasibility** — High / Medium / Low
- **Effectiveness** — estimated exposure reduction
- **Resources** — cost, time, personnel
- **Trade-offs** — whether this mitigation exacerbates another risk
### 5. Timeline
| Priority | Risk ID | Action | Deadline/Trigger | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Urgent | | | | |
| Near-term (30–90 days) | | | | |
| Strategic (90+ days) | | | | |
Flag all hard deadlines: statutes of limitations, cure periods, regulatory filing dates.
### 6. Information Gaps
List areas needing additional investigation, discovery, or expert consultation to refine the assessment.
## Pitfalls
- **Ungrounded risks** — every risk must cite specific documents or facts; never assert risk in the abstract
- **Missing quantification** — provide dollar ranges with stated assumptions; flag estimates as conservative or aggressive
- **Fact vs. inference** — clearly distinguish established facts, reasonable inferences, and speculative scenarios
- **Tone imbalance** — neither minimize genuine risks nor catastrophize manageable exposures
- **Audience mismatch** — use language accessible to business stakeholders; define legal terms on first use
- **Unacknowledged uncertainty** — state confidence levels; identify what additional information would change the assessment
- **Ignored interdependencies** — flag where addressing one risk may worsen another
- **Jurisdiction blindness** — note where analysis depends on forum, governing law, or regulatory body
COMPATIBILITY & REFERENCES
Platform guidance
Imported from the listed AgentSkill.sh category. Complete supplied package files and notices are retained. Required external tools and credentials are not installed. No bundled code was executed during import. Individual agent task behavior has not been tested.
Help users make better hiring decisions. Use when someone is evaluating job candidates, making hiring decisions, conducting reference checks, reviewing work samples or take-homes, calibrating their hiring bar, or deciding between finalists.
Help users navigate career changes and pivots. Use when someone is considering a new role, transitioning into product management, evaluating job offers, taking a sabbatical, or feeling stuck in their current position.
Help users build relationships with mentors and sponsors for career growth. Use when someone is looking for career guidance, wants to find a mentor, needs an advocate at work, is trying to build their professional network, or asking how to get advice from senior leaders.