Product-org-os four-risks-check

Document Intelligence

This skill supports three modes: Create, Update, and Find.

Mode Detection

@path/to/risk-check.md

Threshold: >=85% auto-proceed | 70-84% state assumption | <70% ask user

Mode Behaviors

CREATE: Assess the feature/initiative against all four risk dimensions. Produce risk matrix with validation recommendations.

UPDATE:

1. Read existing risk check (search if path not provided)
2. Preserve unchanged assessments
3. Update specific risk dimensions based on new evidence
4. Show diff summary: "Updated: [risks]. Unchanged: [risks]. Overall verdict changed: [yes/no]."

FIND:

1. Search paths below for risk check documents
2. Present results: title, feature, verdict, path
3. Ask: "Update one of these, or create new?"

Search Locations

• product/

• discovery/

• risks/

• planning/

Gotchas

• Value risk, usability risk, feasibility risk, and viability risk must each be assessed independently
• Don't conflate technical feasibility with business viability — both must pass separately

Vision to Value Phase

Phase 2: Strategic Decisions - The Four Risks Check validates whether an initiative is ready for resource commitment, acting as a quality gate before Phase 3.

Prerequisites: Phase 1 complete (strategic foundation, initial discovery) Outputs used by:

/commitment-check

/decision-record

/prd

Methodology

The Four Risks

Risk Assessment Framework

For each risk, assess three dimensions:

Validation Techniques by Risk Type

Risk Level Determination

Overall Verdict

Output Structure

# Four Risks Check: [Feature/Initiative Name]

**Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Owner**: [Who owns this assessment]
**Product**: [Product name]
**Phase**: [Current Vision to Value phase]

## Initiative Summary

**What**: [Brief description of the feature/initiative]
**Who**: [Target user/customer]
**Why**: [Problem being solved or opportunity being captured]
**How big**: [Scope — small feature / major feature / new product]

## Risk Assessment Matrix

| Risk | Level | Evidence Quality | Validation Status | Key Concern |
|------|-------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------|
| **Value** | [High/Med/Low] | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [Validated/Partial/Unvalidated] | [One-line concern] |
| **Usability** | [High/Med/Low] | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [Validated/Partial/Unvalidated] | [One-line concern] |
| **Feasibility** | [High/Med/Low] | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [Validated/Partial/Unvalidated] | [One-line concern] |
| **Viability** | [High/Med/Low] | [Strong/Moderate/Weak] | [Validated/Partial/Unvalidated] | [One-line concern] |

## Detailed Assessment

### Value Risk
**Question**: Will customers buy it or choose to use it?

**Current evidence**:
- [Evidence point 1]
- [Evidence point 2]

**Gaps**:
- [What we don't know]

**Assessment**: [Narrative assessment]
**Risk level**: [High/Medium/Low]

### Usability Risk
**Question**: Can users figure out how to use it?

**Current evidence**:
- [Evidence point 1]
- [Evidence point 2]

**Gaps**:
- [What we don't know]

**Assessment**: [Narrative assessment]
**Risk level**: [High/Medium/Low]

### Feasibility Risk
**Question**: Can we build it with the time, skills, and technology available?

**Current evidence**:
- [Evidence point 1]
- [Evidence point 2]

**Gaps**:
- [What we don't know]

**Assessment**: [Narrative assessment]
**Risk level**: [High/Medium/Low]

### Business Viability Risk
**Question**: Does it work for our business?

**Stakeholders consulted**: [Legal, Finance, Sales, etc. — or "None yet"]

**Current evidence**:
- [Evidence point 1]
- [Evidence point 2]

**Gaps**:
- [What we don't know]

**Assessment**: [Narrative assessment]
**Risk level**: [High/Medium/Low]

## Overall Verdict

**Verdict**: [GO / GO WITH CONDITIONS / NEEDS DISCOVERY / NO-GO]

**Rationale**: [Why this verdict]

## Validation Plan (for Medium/High risks)

| Risk | Validation Technique | Success Criteria | Timeline | Owner |
|------|---------------------|-----------------|----------|-------|
| [Risk] | [Technique] | [What would de-risk this] | [When] | [Who] |

## Conditions for Proceeding (if GO WITH CONDITIONS)

- [ ] [Condition 1]
- [ ] [Condition 2]

## Assumptions Log

| # | Assumption | Risk Type | Impact if Wrong | Confidence |
|---|-----------|-----------|-----------------|------------|
| 1 | [Assumption] | [V/U/F/B] | [High/Med/Low] | [High/Med/Low] |

## Next Steps

- [ ] Run validation for [highest risk] via `/experiment-design`
- [ ] If GO: proceed to `/commitment-check` and `/prd`
- [ ] If NEEDS DISCOVERY: schedule discovery sprint for [risk area]
- [ ] Save decision via `/decision-record`

Instructions

1. Ask for the feature/initiative description if not provided
2. Assess each risk dimension independently; do not let one risk color the others
3. Be honest about evidence quality; "we think customers want this" with no interviews = Weak evidence, not Moderate
4. For feasibility, note that you cannot estimate implementation effort; recommend consulting engineering for technical assessment
5. For business viability, prompt consideration of: legal/compliance, finance/unit economics, sales channel fit, support implications, brand impact
6. The verdict must follow the criteria table; do not give GO when any risk is High
7. Always produce a validation plan for Medium and High risks
8. Save output as markdown file
9. Offer

   /experiment-design

   for validation or

   /commitment-check

   when verdict is GO

Integration

• Links to

  /assumption-map

  (deeper assumption analysis across all risk types)
• Links to

  /experiment-design

  (design validation experiments for High/Medium risks)
• Links to

  /commitment-check

  (proceed to commitment when risks are addressed)
• Links to

  /decision-record

  (document the go/no-go decision)
• Links to

  /prd

  (write requirements once risks are de-risked)
• Links to

  /context-recall

  (check if similar risks were encountered before)
• Links to

  /feedback-recall

  (incorporate customer feedback into Value Risk assessment)