risk-management
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Build or review an AI risk-management system, risk register, controls, monitoring plan, incident taxonomy, or remediation workflow. Use for EU AI Act Article 9 and Article 72 alignment, enterprise-risk integration, model and system monitoring, or serious-incident escalation.
16 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- grace-method/grace-plugintheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- peterbamuhigire/proposal-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collectiontheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- IngAs8/ClaudeSkilltheir own version, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- aws-solutions/konductortheir own version, first seen Sep 23, 2026
- Serennity007/claude-trading-skills-67their own version, first seen Aug 25, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use market-microstructure and sentiment-analysis.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
agiprolabsSkillmarket-microstructure
DEX orderflow analysis, trade classification, buyer/seller pressure, and microstructure signals for Solana tokens
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillsentiment-analysis
Use when a director of product asks for the fictional sentiment split and recent excerpts.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions16 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 16
- vivy-yi/xiaohongshu-skills★ 455same name
- agiprolabs/claude-trading-skills★ 366same name
- travisjneuman/.claude★ 106same name
- nimadorostkar/Claude-Skills-collection★ 33same name
- abinauv/business-consulting★ 28same name
- aws-solutions/konductor★ 11same name
- peterbamuhigire/proposal-skills★ 8same name
- Dragoon0x/product-skills★ 4same name
- gokulsvision/crewm8-cfo-skills★ 2same name
- Vaibhavkkm/vkkm-aegis-plugin★ 2same name
6 more not listed
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 repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-act-classificationSkill
- ai-act-complianceSkill
- ai-vendor-assessmentSkill
- dpia-aiSkill
- governance-documentationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 31
Use the organisation’s approved likelihood and severity scales.
- Very specific: line 41
Keep the internal incident taxonomy separate from the EU AI Act definition of a serious incident and from GDPR personal-data breaches or …
- Distinctive: line 43
When an event occurs:
- Distinctive: line 51
Do not invent a universal EU AI Act reporting deadline.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Manage AI risk
Separate three layers: legal requirements, organisational risk appetite, and operating controls. Do not present an internal score as a legal classification.
Scope the system
Record intended purpose, foreseeable misuse, actors, affected persons, lifecycle stage, model and data dependencies, environment, change history, and legal classification. Follow LEGAL-SOURCE-PROTOCOL.md for legal conclusions.
Identify risk
Assess concrete harms and failure modes across:
- health, safety, and fundamental rights
- discrimination, accessibility, and representation
- privacy, confidentiality, and data governance
- accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity, and resilience
- transparency, explainability, contestability, and human oversight
- manipulation, misuse, prohibited practices, and synthetic content
- supplier, model-chain, concentration, and change risk
- legal, operational, financial, reputational, and environmental effects
Identify affected groups, exposure paths, existing controls, and uncertainty. Do not treat a generic taxonomy as evidence that a risk exists.
Evaluate and treat
Use the organisation’s approved likelihood and severity scales. Record inherent risk, control design, control operation, residual risk, owner, treatment, due date, evidence, and acceptance authority. Define measurable thresholds and stop-use criteria where feasible.
For high-risk providers, map the iterative lifecycle process to Article 9 and connect testing, technical documentation, instructions, post-market monitoring, and corrective action. Do not imply Article 9 applies to every deployer or minimal-risk system.
Monitor
Define metric, population, threshold, frequency, owner, data source, response, and limitations. Include performance, drift, subgroup effects, override rates, complaints, incidents, uptime, security events, input changes, model changes, and human-oversight effectiveness where relevant.
Handle incidents
Keep the internal incident taxonomy separate from the EU AI Act definition of a serious incident and from GDPR personal-data breaches or cybersecurity-reporting events.
When an event occurs:
- Protect people and preserve evidence; suspend or constrain use when required by the risk.
- Record system version, time, context, outputs, decisions, impact, and immediate controls.
- Route high-risk deployer notifications under Article 26(5), provider obligations under Article 73, and other regimes separately.
- Retrieve the current provision through the Lexbeam EU AI Act MCP before stating a recipient or deadline.
- Investigate root cause, corrective action, effectiveness, reclassification, documentation updates, and lessons.
Do not invent a universal EU AI Act reporting deadline. Apply the event and actor-specific statutory route.
Output
Produce scope, risk register, control plan, monitoring plan, incident and escalation matrix, residual-risk decision, review triggers, open evidence gaps, and source note.
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.

