risk-map
Skill1 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Build a risk register for a codebase, feature, or diff, then rank what to test first by blast radius x likelihood x detectability. Use before writing any test, when starting QA on an untested project, or when asked "where do we start" / "what should we test first".
In this repository34 other files it gives its agents.
- a11y-auditSkill
- api-contract-testingSkill
- autonomous-explorationSkill
- bug-reproSkill
- chaos-resilienceSkill
- ci-wiringSkill
- contract-testing-pactSkill
- coverage-ratchetSkill
- database-testingSkill
- e2e-authoringSkill
- environment-paritySkill
- exploratory-chartersSkill
- false-positive-hunterSkill
- flake-forensicsSkill
- i18n-l10n-testingSkill
- load-and-stressSkill
- mutation-proofSkill
- never-break-prodSkill
- payment-testingSkill
- perf-budgetSkill
- qa-triageSkill
- regression-curationSkill
- release-gateSkill
- responsive-mobile-testingSkill
- root-cause-protocolSkill
- security-regressionSkill
- smoke-and-sanitySkill
- state-machine-testingSkill
- test-data-managementSkill
- test-strategySkill
- tracking-testingSkill
- transactional-email-testingSkill
- unit-test-authoringSkill
- visual-regressionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 35
Use churn as a likelihood proxy: git log --since='6 months' --name-only --pretty=format: | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -40.
- Distinctive: line 36
Score: every candidate on the three axes.
- Distinctive: line 37
Check detectability honestly: If a failure only appears in a monthly report, it is a 3.
- Distinctive: line 53
Never rank by coverage gaps.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Risk Map
Coverage is a budget. This skill spends it where failure hurts.
Scoring
For each candidate area, score three axes 1-3 and multiply (RPN, 1-27):
| Axis | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Blast radius | cosmetic, one user | one tenant / one flow degraded | money, data loss, auth bypass, all tenants |
| Likelihood | stable, rarely touched | changed monthly | changed this sprint, or churn-heavy |
| Detectability | fails loudly in CI | surfaces in logs within a day | silent — users notice before you do |
Tiers: P0 = RPN >= 18 or any blast-radius 3 + detectability 3. P1 = 9-17. P2 = rest.
Always-P0 candidates (check each explicitly, mark N/A if absent)
- Payment / checkout / refund, and anything that writes an amount
- Authentication, session expiry, password reset, OAuth callback
- Authorization and tenant scoping — "can user A read user B's row"
- Data migrations and destructive operations (delete, overwrite, bulk update)
- Anything that emails, charges, or publishes to the outside world
- Idempotency of webhooks and retried jobs
Procedure
- Enumerate the surface. Scoped to a diff: changed files plus their direct callers.
Scoped to a project: entry points (routes, jobs, handlers, CLI commands) — not every file.
Use churn as a likelihood proxy:
git log --since='6 months' --name-only --pretty=format: | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn | head -40. - Score every candidate on the three axes. No unscored area survives into the plan.
- Check detectability honestly. If a failure only appears in a monthly report, it is a 3.
- Write the register to
.qa-supreme/risk-register.md. - Cut. Present only P0 and P1 as the work plan. P2 is documented, not scheduled.
Output format
| Area | Blast | Likely | Detect | RPN | Tier | Failure mode in one line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| checkout/charge.ts | 3 | 3 | 3 | 27 | P0 | double charge on webhook retry |Close with: P0: <n> areas. P1: <n>. Recommended first target: <area> — <why in one clause>.
Rules
- Never rank by coverage gaps. An untested constant is not a risk.
- A risk you cannot phrase as a concrete failure ("user X sees Y") is not a risk — drop it.
- Re-run on every significant diff. Risk moves with the code.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

