risk-acceptance-reviewer

name	risk-acceptance-reviewer
description	Document and assess conscious risk decisions, impact and likelihood, expiry dates, and compensating measures.
version	1.0.0
since	2026-07-28
last_modified	2026-07-28
authors	["platform-engineering"]
stability	stable
min_platform_version	{"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"}
deprecated_since	null
replaces	null
supersedes	[]
changelog	[{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-07-28","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}]

Risk Acceptance Reviewer

Purpose

Document and assess conscious risk decisions, impact and likelihood, expiry dates, and compensating measures. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.

When to use

• risk acceptance decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
• A change affects risk acceptance artifacts such as risk acceptance record, impact assessment, likelihood assessment, expiry date, compensating measure, approval.
• The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as expired acceptance, unsupported impact, missing approver, weak compensating measure, open-ended exception, untracked review.
• Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
• Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.

Operating model

1. Identify the relevant risk acceptance artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
2. Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as risk owner, approval timestamp, review date, control exception, residual risk, closure condition.
3. Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
4. Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
5. Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.

Spec-Driven Change Context

• Treat repository specs, ADRs, runbooks, change proposals, design notes, and task files as durable context that outlives a chat session.
• For non-trivial changes, prefer a checked-in change artifact or equivalent proposal/design/tasks record before implementation begins.
• Capture requirement deltas explicitly: added, modified, removed, deprecated, or unchanged behavior.
• Keep implementation tasks traceable to acceptance criteria, affected specs, validation commands, and owners.
• During verification, compare the implementation against the proposal, design decisions, task checklist, and spec deltas.
• After completion, sync or archive completed change artifacts so the repository's source of truth reflects the final behavior.
• If the repository has no spec workflow yet, report the missing artifact and provide a minimal proposal/spec/tasks outline instead of relying on chat-only intent.

Skill-Specific Review Scope

• Primary artifacts: risk acceptance record, impact assessment, likelihood assessment, expiry date, compensating measure, approval.
• Risk themes: expired acceptance, unsupported impact, missing approver, weak compensating measure, open-ended exception, untracked review.