refactor(plugin)!: ship as a Claude Code plugin, one dir link per harness
Skills move to skills/<name>/SKILL.md and the repo gains both manifests, so it is now a marketplace hosting exactly one plugin whose root is the repo root (source: "."). Claude Code installs it from git; no symlinks involved. Why: install.sh wired the library into every consuming repo as an ABSOLUTE symlink to $CHECKOUT_DIR. The checkout moved three times, most recently when local-dev@1966d5a dropped the embedded .skills/ copy, and nothing migrated the links — 243 dangling links across 12 repos, hidden from git by the **/.claude/skills/ ignore rule. Worse, ~/dev spans two path roots (/Users/mathias on the iCloud-shared Macs, /home/mathias on koala), so an absolute link stored there is broken on one side by construction. Re-running the installer cannot fix that; only removing the mechanism can. install.sh keeps the harnesses with no plugin system and drops from 42 links per harness to one directory link, via the convergent ~/.agents/skills convention that Pi and OpenCode both read: ~/.agents/skills -> $CHECKOUT_DIR/skills ~/.config/crush/skills -> ~/.agents/skills ~/.config/opencode/skills -> ~/.agents/skills wire_claude_repo is deleted outright rather than gated behind a flag — on a mixed-root fleet it cannot be made correct. Antigravity and Vibe targets go too; both unused. CHECKOUT_DIR keeps its host-local default deliberately: pointing it into ~/dev would put a git working tree inside iCloud with two concurrent writers. Taskfile drops five near-identical wiring loops (they had already drifted) and delegates to install.sh. `task check` gains frontmatter validation, a stray-root-entry gate, and manifest/tag version parity — the loose secret-hygiene.md sat unloadable for months because nothing checked layout. Verified: claude plugin validate . passes clean; a probe skill loaded as skills:zzprobe through --plugin-dir; task check green at 42 skills. Refs: #23 Bump-Type: minor Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BeAp5LTscnz2W7Ubt4eJ6m
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: regulatory-risk-assessment
|
||||
description: Produce a structured regulatory risk assessment / risk-register entry for regulated-industry features (banking, payments, PSD2/PSR, DORA, AML). Use when filing a CAD issue that needs a Risk:LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH level, or designing features touching payments, auth, data storage, or external APIs ("what are the risks?", "compliance gate", "risk register").
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# regulatory-risk-assessment
|
||||
|
||||
Produce a structured regulatory risk assessment for a feature, component,
|
||||
or integration — generating a risk register entry that satisfies the
|
||||
audit requirements of regulated-industry clients (banking, finance,
|
||||
insurance, PSD2/PSR, DORA, AML/KYC contexts).
|
||||
|
||||
**Use when:**
|
||||
- Filing a Gitea issue dispatched via CAD (needs Risk: LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH)
|
||||
- Designing a feature touching payments, auth, data storage, external APIs
|
||||
- Preparing a client deliverable in a regulated industry
|
||||
- "what are the risks?" / "compliance gate" / "risk register" in session
|
||||
|
||||
**Do not use for:** routine refactoring, docs-only changes, internal
|
||||
tooling with no external data or user impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## What this skill produces
|
||||
|
||||
A docs/risk-register.md section with this schema:
|
||||
|
||||
### R-[DOMAIN]-[NN] — [Short risk title]
|
||||
|
||||
| Field | Value |
|
||||
|-------|-------|
|
||||
| Risk | What could go wrong (concrete, specific) |
|
||||
| Regulatory reference | Which obligation/regulation, if any |
|
||||
| Likelihood | H / M / L |
|
||||
| Impact | H / M / L |
|
||||
| Overall | H / M / L (highest of likelihood x impact) |
|
||||
| Mitigation | What we are doing about it |
|
||||
| Validation | Test name or Gitea issue number |
|
||||
| Status | open / mitigated / accepted |
|
||||
|
||||
Risk ID namespace:
|
||||
R-AUTH-NN authentication and authorization
|
||||
R-DATA-NN data storage, retention, privacy
|
||||
R-API-NN external API integration
|
||||
R-PAY-NN payment and financial transactions
|
||||
R-INFRA-NN infrastructure and availability
|
||||
R-AGENT-NN agentic / AI execution
|
||||
R-COMP-NN compliance and regulatory obligation
|
||||
|
||||
## Mechanics
|
||||
|
||||
Step 1 — Scope the assessment
|
||||
1. What external systems does this touch?
|
||||
2. What user data does it read, write, or transmit?
|
||||
3. What happens on silent failure? Loud failure?
|
||||
4. What is the blast radius of a worst-case bug?
|
||||
5. Is a regulation implicated?
|
||||
|
||||
Step 2 — Enumerate risks (common examples)
|
||||
Auth/OAuth: token theft, refresh failure, insufficient scope
|
||||
Email/Gmail: misclassification archives HUMAN thread, PII in logs
|
||||
Payment/PAIN.001: wrong amount, duplicate submission, missing field
|
||||
Agentic: irreversible action without approval, prompt injection, spirals
|
||||
Infra: single point of failure, secret in logs
|
||||
|
||||
Step 3 — Declare overall risk level
|
||||
Highest individual risk = feature overall level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH).
|
||||
This is the **Risk:** declaration in the CAD agent-ready issue contract.
|
||||
|
||||
Step 4 — Write validations
|
||||
Every mitigation needs a validation:
|
||||
- Specific test name (TestXxx)
|
||||
- Gitea issue number
|
||||
- Manual verification step with acceptance criteria
|
||||
Not acceptable: "will test later", "review manually"
|
||||
|
||||
Step 5 — Update docs/risk-register.md
|
||||
Append entries. Create if absent:
|
||||
|
||||
# Risk Register
|
||||
All entries follow R-[DOMAIN]-[NN] schema.
|
||||
See skills/regulatory-risk-assessment/SKILL.md for conventions.
|
||||
Last updated: [date]
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with assessor-loop
|
||||
|
||||
For complex regulated-industry features (PSD2/PSR, DORA, AML), route to
|
||||
mathias/assessor-loop for deep obligation decomposition first.
|
||||
Use this skill standalone for internal tooling or general engineering risk.
|
||||
|
||||
## Integration with CAD
|
||||
|
||||
Every CAD-dispatched issue must include:
|
||||
**Risk:** LOW | MEDIUM | HIGH
|
||||
|
||||
CAD pre-flight (agentsquad#29) rejects issues without it.
|
||||
If genuinely no risks: declare LOW and note why.
|
||||
|
||||
## Example entry
|
||||
|
||||
### R-DATA-01 — Email misclassification archives a HUMAN thread
|
||||
|
||||
| Field | Value |
|
||||
|-------|-------|
|
||||
| Risk | LLM labels a real person's email as NOISE, causing auto-archive |
|
||||
| Regulatory reference | None (internal) |
|
||||
| Likelihood | M |
|
||||
| Impact | H |
|
||||
| Overall | H |
|
||||
| Mitigation | Phase 1 read-only; HUMAN class never auto-archived in any phase |
|
||||
| Validation | TestClassifier_HumanThreadNeverArchived; 1-week Phase 1 review |
|
||||
| Status | open |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user