scenario-war-room
Skill0 starsChanged 28 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
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 facing complex risk scenarios, strategic decisions with major downside, or when the user asks 'what if X AND Y both happen?'
4 other projects use a version of this, 2 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ddmsolutions/claude-skillsedited, first seen Aug 27, 2026
- Hassaan146/claude-skillsword for word, first seen Jul 25, 2026
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skillsword for word, first seen Jul 8, 2026
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skillsedited, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 2
- Hassaan146/claude-skills★ 18100% same
- mahiunfiltered/claude-code-skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 2
- Hussain-Elfalah/Agentic-Skills★ 283% same
- ddmsolutions/claude-skills★ 095% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository198 other files it gives its agents.
- a11y-auditSkill
- ab-test-setupSkill
- ad-creativeSkill
- adversarial-reviewerSkill
- aeoSkill
- agent-designerSkill
- agent-protocolSkill
- agent-workflow-designerSkill
- ai-securitySkill
- analytics-trackingSkill
- andreessenSkill
- api-design-reviewerSkill
- api-test-suite-builderSkill
- apple-hig-expertSkill
- app-store-optimizationSkill
- autoresearch-agentSkill
- aws-solution-architectSkill
- azure-cloud-architectSkill
- board-deck-builderSkill
- board-meetingSkill
- book-to-skillSkill
- brand-guidelinesSkill
- browser-automationSkill
- business-growth-skillsSkill
- business-investment-advisorSkill
- campaign-analyticsSkill
- ceo-advisorSkill
- cfo-advisorSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- change-managementSkill
- chaos-engineeringSkill
- chief-ai-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-customer-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-data-officer-advisorSkill
- chief-of-staffSkill
- chro-advisorSkill
- churn-preventionSkill
- ci-cd-pipeline-builderSkill
- ciso-advisorSkill
- claude-coachSkill
- cloud-securitySkill
- cmo-advisorSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewerSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- company-osSkill
- competitive-intelSkill
- competitive-teardownSkill
- competitor-alternativesSkill
- content-creatorSkill
- content-humanizerSkill
- content-productionSkill
- content-strategySkill
- context-engineSkill
- contract-and-proposal-writerSkill
- copy-editingSkill
- copywritingSkill
- cpo-advisorSkill
- cro-advisorSkill
- cs-onboardSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are 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.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 149
Every war room session produces:
- Distinctive: line 188
Model recovery, not just impact: Every scenario should have a "what we do" path.
- Distinctive: line 190
Separate base case from sensitivity: Don't conflate "what probably happens" with "what could happen."
≈ “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
Scenario War Room
Model cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests — compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next.
Keywords
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
Quick Start
python scripts/scenario_modeler.py # Interactive scenario builder with cascade modelingOr describe the scenario in natural language:
"What if we lose our top customer AND miss the Q3 fundraise?" "What if 3 engineers quit AND we need to ship by Q3?" "What if our market shrinks 30% AND a competitor raises $50M?"
What This Is Not
- Not a single-assumption stress test (that's
/em:stress-test) - Not financial modeling only — every function gets modeled
- Not worst-case-only — models 3 severity levels
- Not paralysis by analysis — outputs concrete hedges and triggers
Framework: 6-Step Cascade Model
Step 1: Define Scenario Variables (max 3)
State each variable with:
- What changes — specific, quantified if possible
- Probability — your best estimate
- Timeline — when it hits
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: UnknownStep 2: Domain Impact Mapping
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 |
Step 3: Cascade Effect Mapping
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.
Step 4: Severity Matrix
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:
- Runway impact
- ARR impact
- Headcount impact
- Timeline to unacceptable state (trigger point)
Step 5: Trigger Points (Early Warning Signals)
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 monthsStep 6: Hedging Strategies
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 |
Output Format
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.]Rules for Good War Room Sessions
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.
Common Scenarios by Stage
Seed:
- Co-founder leaves + product misses launch
- Funding runs out + bridge terms unfavorable
Series A:
- Miss ARR target + fundraise delayed
- Key customer churns + competitor raises
Series B:
- Market contraction + burn multiple spikes
- Lead investor wants pivot + team resists
Integration with C-Suite Roles
| 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
references/scenario-planning.md— Shell methodology, pre-mortem, Monte Carlo, cascade frameworksscripts/scenario_modeler.py— CLI tool for structured scenario modeling
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.

