本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

business-continuity-and-resilience

Plans for operating through disruption — impact analysis, recovery objectives, continuity plans, and the exercises that prove they work. Use this to run a business impact analysis, set RTO and RPO, write or test a continuity plan, prepare for a supplier or site failure, or answer a customer's resilience questionnaire.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.1 KB
  • references/sources.md1.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Business continuity and resilience

Continuity is a business question wearing technical clothing. The technical restore is covered by it-operations:backup-and-recovery; this is about which processes must keep running, for whom, and how long you can survive without them.

Start with impact, not systems

A business impact analysis asks, per process: what breaks downstream, how fast, and who notices. Work outward from the customer-visible failure, not inward from the asset register — an inventory of systems tells you what you own, never what matters.

For each critical process establish:

  • Maximum tolerable outage — the point past which the damage is not recoverable by working harder afterwards. This is a business judgment, made by the process owner, not by IT.
  • RTO — how quickly it must be back. Always shorter than someone wants to pay for.
  • RPO — how much data you can afford to lose, measured in time. An RPO of zero is a claim about spending, not about intent.

RTO and RPO that were not signed by the person accountable for the process are aspirations.

Plans people can follow badly

A continuity plan is read by a stressed person at 03:00 who did not write it. Optimize for that reader: named roles rather than names, decision authority stated explicitly, and the first three actions on the first page.

Include what to do when the plan's assumptions fail — the alternate site is also affected, the key person is unreachable, the supplier is not answering. Plans that only handle the anticipated failure handle almost nothing.

Exercises

Untested plans are documents, not capabilities. Escalate the rigour:

  1. Walkthrough — read it aloud together and find the steps nobody can actually perform.
  2. Tabletop — inject a scenario and make the decisions under time pressure.
  3. Live failover — actually run on the alternate path, in production, with the real people.

The exercise produces findings or it was theater. Track them as work with owners and dates, and re-run the scenario that failed rather than a fresh one, so improvement is demonstrable.

Concentration risk

Resilience fails where dependencies converge invisibly: three suppliers who all sit on one cloud region, redundant network paths in the same physical duct, a manual workaround that requires a system you have just lost. Map dependencies to the point where they stop being yours, and check whether the redundancy is real or just contractual.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Tooling

Continuity and crisis management platforms: Fusion Framework, Castellan, Riskonnect, and similar. They hold the impact analysis, the plans, and the exercise record in one place, and they are worth buying at the point where the plans are too many for one person to keep current.

Mass notification: Everbridge, AlertMedia, and similar — the capability being bought is reaching people when your own email and chat are the thing that is down, which is the scenario a plan stored only in those systems fails.

Keep an offline copy of the plan and the contact list. Every organization that has run a real incident has a story about the plan being inside the system that was unavailable.

Never

  • Set an RTO without the process owner agreeing to what it costs.
  • Count a plan as tested because it was reviewed.
  • Treat a backup as continuity — an unrestored backup is an untested assumption.
  • Write a plan whose first step requires the system that has just failed.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する