borghei/scenario-war-room
> Cross-functional what-if modeling for compound adversity -- shows how one problem cascades into the next. Use when facing complex risk scenarios, strategic decisions with major downside, or multi-variable threats.
npx skills add https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills --skill scenario-war-room
Tier: POWERFUL
Category: C-Level Advisory
Tags: scenario planning, war room, risk modeling, cascade effects, contingency planning, pre-mortem, crisis simulation
The Scenario War Room models cascading what-if scenarios across all business functions. Not single-assumption stress tests -- compound adversity that shows how one problem creates the next, and where the cascade can be interrupted. Every scenario produces concrete hedges with costs, owners, and deadlines.
Before generating, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
More than 3 variables creates analysis paralysis, not insight. Choose the 3 that actually keep leadership awake at night.
For each variable, specify:
| Field | Description | Example |
|-------|-----------|---------|
| What changes | Specific, quantified | "Top customer (28% of ARR) gives 60-day termination notice" |
| Probability | Your best estimate | 15% |
| Timeline | When it could hit | Within 90 days |
| Detection signal | How you would know it is happening | Sponsor goes dark, usage drops 25% MoM |
Variable Template:
Variable A: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
Variable B: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
Variable C: [Specific change]
Probability: [X]% | Timeline: [When]
Detection: [Early warning signal]
First-order impact: [Immediate consequence]
For each variable, assess impact across every business function:
| Domain | Key Questions | Typical Impact Areas |
|--------|-------------|---------------------|
| Finance (CFO) | Burn impact? Runway change? Bridge options? | Cash, runway, covenant triggers |
| Revenue (CRO) | ARR gap? Churn cascade? Pipeline affected? | NRR, expansion, new logo risk |
| Product (CPO) | Roadmap derailed? PMF at risk? Customer need shift? | Delivery timeline, feature priority |
| Engineering (CTO) | Velocity hit? Key person risk? Technical debt impact? | Capacity, architecture, hiring |
| People (CHRO) | Attrition cascade? Hiring freeze? Morale impact? | Retention, culture, bench strength |
| Operations (COO) | Capacity affected? Process breaks? OKR impact? | SLAs, efficiency, scale |
| Market (CMO) | CAC affected? Competitive exposure? Brand risk? | Pipeline generation, positioning |
| Legal/Compliance | Regulatory timeline risk? Contract exposure? | Obligations, deadlines, penalties |
This is the most valuable step. Map how Variable A triggers consequences that amplify Variable B.
Cascade Diagram:
TRIGGER: Customer churn ($560K ARR)
│
├──▶ CFO: Runway drops 14 → 8 months
│ │
│ └──▶ CHRO: Hiring freeze imposed
│ │
│ └──▶ CTO: 3 open engineering reqs frozen, roadmap slips 2 months
│ │
│ └──▶ CPO: Q4 feature launch delayed → 2 more customers at risk
│ │
│ └──▶ CRO: NRR drops → additional churn risk (DEATH SPIRAL ENTRY)
│
└──▶ CRO: Revenue concentration increases (next largest = 22%)
│
└──▶ Investors: Concentration risk flagged → Series A terms worsen
Name the cascades explicitly. Common cascade patterns:
| Cascade Pattern | Description | Interruption Point |
|----------------|-------------|-------------------|
| Revenue-to-Runway Death Spiral | Customer churn → lower runway → hiring freeze → slower product → more churn | Emergency revenue diversification |
| Key Person Cascade | Star leaves → team morale drops → followers leave → velocity collapses | Retention bonuses before departure |
| Market Squeeze | Competitor raises → price war → margins compress → can't invest in product | Differentiation, not price matching |
| Trust Cascade | Incident → customer concern → churn → press → more churn | Swift, transparent communication |
| Fundraise-Burn Spiral | Miss target → raise delayed → bridge at bad terms → burn cuts → team loss | Parallel fundraise tracks |
Model three scenarios with increasing severity:
| Scenario | Variables Hit | Definition | Recovery Difficulty |
|----------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|
| Base | 1 of 3 | Single shock, others don't materialize | Manageable with prepared response |
| Stress | 2 of 3 | Compound shock, cascade begins | Requires significant pivot, board involvement |
| Severe | All 3 | Full cascade, existential territory | Requires emergency action, may need board intervention |
For each severity level, quantify:
BASE SCENARIO (Variable A only):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [freeze / reduction / none]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Recovery plan: [specific actions]
STRESS SCENARIO (Variables A + B):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [specifics]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Recovery plan: [specific actions]
SEVERE SCENARIO (All three):
Runway impact: [X] months → [Y] months
ARR impact: -$[X] ([Y]% of total)
Headcount impact: [specifics]
Timeline to critical: [X] months
Existential: [yes/no]
Emergency plan: [specific actions requiring board approval]
Define measurable signals that tell you a scenario is unfolding BEFORE it is confirmed. The value of this exercise is acting early, not reacting late.
Signal Design Criteria:
| Variable | Signal | Threshold | Response |
|----------|--------|-----------|----------|
| Customer churn | Sponsor stops responding | > 3 weeks silence | Exec escalation, QBR request |
| Customer churn | Usage drops | > 25% MoM decline | CS outreach, value review |
| Fundraise delay | Term sheets | < 3 after 60 days in process | Parallel bridge conversations |
| Fundraise delay | Investor requests | > 30 day DD extension | Reduce burn, extend runway |
| Key person departure | Market compensation | Counter-offer required in last 90 days | Retention package, succession plan |
| Key person departure | External engagement | Engineer presenting at conferences for competitors | Direct conversation, role expansion |
For each scenario: actions to take NOW (before the scenario materializes) that reduce impact if it does. Hedges have costs -- the goal is cheap insurance, not paranoia.
Hedge Evaluation Criteria:
| Criterion | Question |
|-----------|----------|
| Cost | What does this hedge cost to implement? |
| Reversibility | Can we undo it if the scenario doesn't happen? |
| Lead time | How long to implement? (Must be shorter than detection-to-impact window) |
| Coverage | Which scenarios does this hedge protect against? |
| Side effects | Does this hedge cause other problems? |
Hedge Table Template:
| Hedge | Cost | Protects Against | Owner | Deadline | Status |
|-------|------|-----------------|-------|----------|--------|
| Establish $500K credit line | $5K/year | Runway shortfall (Base + Stress) | CFO | 60 days | Not started |
| 12-month retention bonus for 3 key engineers | $90K | Key person departure (all scenarios) | CHRO | 30 days | In progress |
| Diversify to <20% revenue per customer | Sales effort (6 months) | Single-customer dependency | CRO | 2 quarters | Planning |
| Start parallel fundraise track | CEO time (10 hrs/week) | Fundraise delay (Stress + Severe) | CEO | Immediate | Not started |
| Pre-negotiate bridge terms with existing investors | 2 board conversations | Runway crisis (Severe) | CFO + CEO | 45 days | Not started |
| Document architecture for bus factor reduction | 2 engineering weeks | Key person departure | CTO | 30 days | Not started |
Every war room session produces this structured output:
SCENARIO: [Name]
DATE: [Date of analysis]
PARTICIPANTS: [Who was involved]
VARIABLES:
A: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
B: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
C: [Description] — Probability: [X]%, Timeline: [When]
MOST LIKELY PATH: [Which combination actually plays out, with reasoning]
SEVERITY LEVELS:
Base (A only): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Recovery: [2-3 specific actions]
Stress (A+B): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Recovery: [3-4 specific actions]
Severe (A+B+C): Runway [X]→[Y]mo, ARR impact -$[X]
Existential: [yes/no]
Emergency: [actions requiring board approval]
CASCADE MAP:
[A] → [domain impact] → [triggers B amplification] → [domain impact] → [end state]
Interruption points: [where cascade can be broken]
EARLY WARNING SIGNALS:
1. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
2. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
3. [Signal] → indicates [scenario], threshold: [specific]
HEDGES (implement now):
1. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
2. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
3. [Action] — cost: $[X] — protects: [scenarios] — owner: [role] — deadline: [date]
RECOMMENDED DECISION:
[One paragraph: what to do, in what order, and why]
REVIEW DATE: [When to re-run this analysis — typically 90 days or after any variable shifts]
| Skill | Use When |
|-------|----------|
| ceo-advisor | Strategic decisions that scenarios inform |
| cfo-advisor | Financial modeling for scenario impacts |
| coo-advisor | Operational contingency planning |
| internal-narrative | Communicating scenario outcomes to stakeholders |
| cs-onboard | Company context that feeds scenario variables |
| Problem | Likely Cause | Resolution |
|---------|-------------|------------|
| Scenarios feel too abstract to act on | Variables not specific or quantified enough | Require dollar amounts, percentages, and timelines for every variable; "revenue drops" is not actionable, "$420K ARR at risk over 60 days" is |
| Team generates only obvious, low-probability scenarios | Conformity bias; not applying Shell scenario planning method of challenging mental models | Use inversion technique: "What would guarantee our failure?"; bring in external perspective; reference industry-specific historical precedents |
| Cascade mapping stops at first-order effects | Facilitator not pushing past immediate consequences | Require minimum 3 levels of cascade for each variable; use "and then what?" prompting for each domain impact |
| Hedges identified but never implemented | No ownership, deadline, or cost attached | Every hedge must have: cost estimate, owner name, deadline, and status tracking; review in weekly leadership meeting |
| War room sessions take too long (> 4 hours) | Too many variables or trying to model every scenario | Enforce maximum 3 variables and 3-4 scenarios per session; use severity matrix to focus on highest-impact combinations |
| Early warning signals not being monitored | Signals assigned but not integrated into existing reporting | Add signals to existing dashboards and weekly scorecards; assign specific person to monitor each signal |
| Participants reluctant to name worst-case scenarios | Fear of being seen as negative or alarmist | Establish ground rules explicitly; cite Shell's experience: "the value is in surfacing what others won't say"; reward naming hard truths |
| Skill | Integration | Data Flow |
|-------|-------------|-----------|
| ceo-advisor | Strategic decisions informed by scenario analysis | War room scenarios → CEO decision inputs |
| cfo-advisor | Financial modeling for scenario impacts and hedge costs | War room financial impacts → CFO stress test models |
| coo-advisor | Operational contingency planning and cascade interruption | War room cascade map → COO contingency plans |
| executive-mentor | Pre-mortem failure modes feed into scenario variables | Mentor failure modes → War room variables |
| internal-narrative | Crisis scenarios require pre-built communication plans | War room crisis scenarios → Narrative crisis templates |
| org-health-diagnostic | Health dimension scores surface scenario variables | Health red flags → War room variable candidates |
| strategic-alignment | Scenario outcomes may require strategic realignment | War room outcomes → Alignment reassessment |
| Tool | Purpose | Usage |
|------|---------|-------|
| scripts/scenario_builder.py | Build structured scenarios with variables, probabilities, detection signals, and severity levels | python scripts/scenario_builder.py --name "Customer Concentration Risk" --variable "Top customer churns" --probability 20 --impact 500000 --timeline 90 --json |
| scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py | Calculate compound impact across multiple variables with severity matrix and cascade risk scoring | python scripts/impact_matrix_calculator.py --variables "churn:500000:0.2" "fundraise_delay:0:0.3" "key_departure:0:0.15" --arr 2000000 --runway-months 14 --json |
| scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py | Build and evaluate decision trees with expected value calculations for strategic options | python scripts/decision_tree_analyzer.py --decision "Enter Japan market" --option "Direct:0.6:2000000:-500000" --option "Partnership:0.75:1000000:-200000" --option "Wait:1.0:0:0" --json |
Take borghei/scenario-war-room from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.