Use when long-lived agents, project memories, system prompts, or playbooks are repeatedly summarized, rewritten, or optimized and risk losing domain detail, provenance, or execution learnings.
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。
Cross-functional what-if modeling for cascading multi-variable scenarios. Unlike single-assumption stress testing, this models compound adversity across all business functions simultaneously. Use when planning for compound downside scenarios (for example losing a key customer while a funding round slips) rather than testing one assumption.
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。
Attribution: Sourced from alirezarezvani/claude-skills by Alireza Rezvani.
Model cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests — compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next.
scenario planning, war room, what-if analysis, risk modeling, cascading effects, compound risk, adversity planning, contingency planning, stress test, crisis planning, multi-variable scenario, pre-mortem
python scripts/scenario_modeler.py # Interactive scenario builder with cascade modeling
Or describe the scenario:
/war-room "What if we lose our top customer AND miss the Q3 fundraise?"
/war-room "What if 3 engineers quit AND we need to ship by Q3?"
/war-room "What if our market shrinks 30% AND a competitor raises $50M?"
/em:stress-test)State each variable with:
Variable A: Top customer (28% ARR) gives 60-day termination notice
Probability: 15% | Timeline: Within 90 days
Variable B: Series A fundraise delayed 6 months beyond target close
Probability: 25% | Timeline: Q3
Variable C: Lead engineer resigns
Probability: 20% | Timeline: Unknown
For each variable, each relevant role models impact:
| Domain | Owner | Models |
|---|---|---|
| Cash & runway | CFO | Burn impact, runway change, bridge options |
| Revenue | CRO | ARR gap, churn cascade risk, pipeline |
| Product | CPO | Roadmap impact, PMF risk |
| Engineering | CTO | Velocity impact, key person risk |
| People | CHRO | Attrition cascade, hiring freeze implications |
| Operations | COO | Capacity, OKR impact, process risk |
| Security | CISO | Compliance timeline risk |
| Market | CMO | CAC impact, competitive exposure |
This is the core. Show how Variable A triggers consequences in domains that trigger Variable B's effects:
TRIGGER: Customer churn ($560K ARR)
↓
CFO: Runway drops 14 → 8 months
↓
CHRO: Hiring freeze; retention risk increases (morale hit)
↓
CTO: 3 open engineering reqs frozen; roadmap slips
↓
CPO: Q4 feature launch delayed → customer retention risk
↓
CRO: NRR drops; existing accounts see reduced velocity → more churn risk
↓
CFO: [Secondary cascade — potential death spiral if not interrupted]
Name the cascade explicitly. Show where it can be interrupted.
Model three scenarios:
| Scenario | Definition | Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Base | One variable hits; others don't | Manageable with plan |
| Stress | Two variables hit simultaneously | Requires significant response |
| Severe | All variables hit; full cascade | Existential; requires board intervention |
For each severity level:
Define the measurable signal that tells you a scenario is unfolding before it's confirmed:
Trigger for Customer Churn Risk:
- Sponsor goes dark for >3 weeks
- Usage drops >25% MoM
- No Q1 QBR confirmed by Dec 1
Trigger for Fundraise Delay:
- <3 term sheets after 60 days of process
- Lead investor requests >30-day extension on DD
- Competitor raises at lower valuation (market signal)
Trigger for Engineering Attrition:
- Glassdoor activity from engineering team
- 2+ referral interview requests from engineers
- Above-market offer counter-required in last 3 months
For each scenario: actions to take now (before the scenario materializes) that reduce impact if it does.
| Hedge | Cost | Impact | Owner | Deadline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establish $500K credit line | $5K/year | Buys 3 months if churn hits | CFO | 60 days |
| 12-month retention bonus for 3 key engineers | $90K | Locks team through fundraise | CHRO | 30 days |
| Diversify to <20% revenue concentration per customer | Sales effort | Reduces single-customer risk | CRO | 2 quarters |
| Compress fundraise timeline, start parallel process | CEO time | Closes before runways merge | CEO | Immediate |
Every war room session produces:
SCENARIO: [Name]
Variables: [A, B, C]
Most likely path: [which combination actually plays out, with probability]
SEVERITY LEVELS
Base (A only): [runway/ARR impact] — recovery: [X actions]
Stress (A+B): [runway/ARR impact] — recovery: [X actions]
Severe (A+B+C): [runway/ARR impact] — existential risk: [yes/no]
CASCADE MAP
[A → domain impact → B trigger → domain impact → end state]
EARLY WARNING SIGNALS
- [Signal 1 → which scenario it indicates]
- [Signal 2 → which scenario it indicates]
- [Signal 3 → which scenario it indicates]
HEDGES (take these actions now)
1. [Action] — cost: $X — impact: [what it buys] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
2. [Action] — cost: $X — impact: [what it buys] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
3. [Action] — cost: $X — impact: [what it buys] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
RECOMMENDED DECISION
[One paragraph. What to do, in what order, and why.]
Max 3 variables per scenario. More than 3 is noise — you can't meaningfully prepare for 5-variable collapse. Model the 3 that actually worry you.
Quantify or estimate. "Revenue drops" is not useful. "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is. Use ranges if uncertain.
Don't stop at first-order effects. The damage is always in the cascade, not the initial hit.
Model recovery, not just impact. Every scenario should have a "what we do" path.
Separate base case from sensitivity. Don't conflate "what probably happens" with "what could happen."
Don't over-model. 3-4 scenarios per planning cycle is the right number. More creates analysis paralysis.
Seed:
Series A:
Series B:
| Scenario Type | Primary Roles | Cascade To |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue miss | CRO, CFO | CMO (pipeline), COO (cuts), CHRO (layoffs) |
| Key person departure | CHRO, COO | CTO (if eng), CRO (if sales) |
| Fundraise failure | CFO, CEO | COO (runway extension), CHRO (hiring freeze) |
| Security breach | CISO, CTO | CEO (comms), CFO (cost), CRO (customer impact) |
| Market shift | CEO, CPO | CMO (repositioning), CRO (new segments) |
| Competitor move | CMO, CRO | CPO (roadmap response), CEO (strategy) |
references/scenario-planning.md — Shell methodology, pre-mortem, Monte Carlo, cascade frameworksscripts/scenario_modeler.py — CLI tool for structured scenario modeling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。
概要と使いどころ
Use when long-lived agents, project memories, system prompts, or playbooks are repeatedly summarized, rewritten, or optimized and risk losing domain detail, provenance, or execution learnings.
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。
Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.
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。
Adds educational comments to a code file so it becomes a learning resource, asking for the file (with a list of close matches) if none is given. Use when preparing code for learners, onboarding, or teaching.
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。
Write, debug, and optimize Adobe Illustrator automation scripts using ExtendScript (JavaScript/JSX). Use when creating or modifying scripts that manipulate documents, layers, paths, text frames, colors, symbols, artboards, or any Illustrator DOM objects. Covers the complete JavaScript object model, coordinate system, measurement units, export workflows, and scripting best practices.
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。
Patterns and techniques for adding governance, safety, and trust controls to AI agent systems. Use this skill when: - Building AI agents that call external tools (APIs, databases, file systems) - Implementing policy-based access controls for agent tool usage - Adding semantic intent classification to detect dangerous prompts - Creating trust scoring systems for multi-agent workflows - Building audit trails for agent actions and decisions - Enforcing rate limits, content filters, or tool restrictions on agents - Working with any agent framework (PydanticAI, CrewAI, OpenAI Agents, LangChain, AutoGen)
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。
Check any AI agent codebase against the OWASP Agentic Security Initiative (ASI) Top 10 risks. Use this skill when: - Evaluating an agent system's security posture before production deployment - Running a compliance check against OWASP ASI 2026 standards - Mapping existing security controls to the 10 agentic risks - Generating a compliance report for security review or audit - Comparing agent framework security features against the standard - Any request like "is my agent OWASP compliant?", "check ASI compliance", or "agentic security audit"
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。