Assess physical and transition climate risk for a site, product, or portfolio with scenario-based structure. Use when asked to run a climate risk assessment, evaluate physical or transition risk, prepare TCFD/ESRS-style climate risk analysis, or assess how climate scenarios affect an asset or business. Produces a hazard-exposure-vulnerability matrix across 2030/2040/2050 horizons and labelled scenarios, with financial-impact ranges, confidence levels, and adaptation options.
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill climate-risk-assessment --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Climate Risk Assessment?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mohitagw15856-climate-risk-assessment-0b61cd57)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: climate-risk-assessment
description: "Assess physical and transition climate risk for a site, product, or portfolio with scenario-based structure. Use when asked to run a climate risk assessment, evaluate physical or transition risk, prepare TCFD/ESRS-style climate risk analysis, or assess how climate scenarios affect an asset or business. Produces a hazard-exposure-vulnerability matrix across 2030/2040/2050 horizons and labelled scenarios, with financial-impact ranges, confidence levels, and adaptation options."
---
# Climate Risk Assessment Skill
Climate risk work goes wrong by being either vague ("weather may worsen") or falsely precise ("flood losses of $4.7M in 2043"). This skill structures an assessment as hazard × exposure × vulnerability, across explicit time horizons and named scenarios, with impact expressed as ranges plus a confidence label. It supports decision-making; it is not an engineering or actuarial study.
## What This Skill Produces
- A risk register for the asset(s): hazard × exposure × vulnerability, scored per horizon and scenario
- Physical risks (acute + chronic) and transition risks (policy, market, technology, reputation) treated separately
- Financial-impact ranges with an explicit confidence level per estimate
- Adaptation and mitigation options with rough cost/benefit direction
- A stated-assumptions register so the assessment can be challenged and updated
## Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided; with a thin brief, proceed using labelled assumptions (e.g. "assumed coastal location — confirm") rather than refusing:
- **Subject** — the site(s), product, or portfolio, with location(s) and asset life / planning horizon
- **Exposure basics** — what is physically and economically at stake: asset value, revenue dependence, supply chain nodes, workforce
- **Known sensitivities** — past climate-related disruptions, insurance history, single points of failure
- **Transition context** — sector, carbon intensity, regulatory exposure, customer decarbonization pressure
- **Financial scale** — revenue or asset value bands, so impact ranges land in the right order of magnitude
## Assessment Framework
**1. Structure every risk as hazard × exposure × vulnerability.** A hazard (e.g. riverine flood) only becomes a risk when exposure (asset in the floodplain) meets vulnerability (no defenses, 6-week recovery). Score each component, not just the headline.
**2. Use three horizons: 2030 / 2040 / 2050.** Near-term physical risk is mostly locked in regardless of scenario; scenario divergence dominates from ~2040. Say which effect drives each rating.
**3. Label scenarios and use them consistently:**
| Label | Character | Physical risk | Transition risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orderly | Early, coordinated policy (~1.5–2°C) | Lower long-term | Front-loaded but predictable |
| Disorderly | Late, abrupt policy (~<2°C, delayed) | Moderate | Sharp, repricing shocks in 2030s |
| Hothouse | Weak policy (~3°C+) | High and compounding | Low policy risk, high physical + liability |
Assess at least orderly and hothouse — they bracket the outcome space. Note that transition and physical risk peak in *different* scenarios; a single-scenario view always understates one of them.
**4. Express impact as a range with confidence.** Use order-of-magnitude bands tied to the subject's financial scale (e.g. "1–5% of site revenue per event"), and tag each estimate High / Medium / Low confidence with the reason (data quality, model dependence, deep uncertainty).
**5. Identify adaptation options per material risk.** Categories: harden (physical protection), diversify (sites, suppliers), transfer (insurance, contracts), retreat (relocate, exit), and accept (with monitoring trigger). Note rough cost direction and by when a decision is needed.
## Output Format
### Climate risk assessment: [subject]
**1. Scope and assumptions** — subject, horizons, scenarios used, and every assumption made from a thin brief, labelled.
**2. Physical risk register** — table: hazard | type (acute/chronic) | exposure | vulnerability | rating per horizon × scenario | confidence.
**3. Transition risk register** — same structure across policy, market, technology, and reputation risks (include transition *opportunities* where real).
**4. Financial impact summary** — the top 5 risks with impact ranges, confidence, and which scenario/horizon drives each.
**5. Adaptation options** — per material risk: option, category, cost direction, decision-by date.
**6. Monitoring triggers** — observable signals (regulation drafts, insurance repricing, hazard events) that should force a reassessment.
Include this line in the artifact: *"Verify scenario selection, disclosure use, and any figures intended for reporting against the applicable standard/regulation (e.g. ESRS E1, TCFD/ISSB) with your compliance team; use engineering-grade studies before capital decisions."*
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Every risk decomposes into hazard, exposure, and vulnerability — no monolithic "climate risk" entries
- [ ] All three horizons and at least two labelled scenarios are covered, and the driver of each rating is stated
- [ ] Every financial estimate is a range with a confidence label and a reason for that confidence
- [ ] Transition and physical risks are assessed separately and both appear in the top-risks summary
- [ ] Each material risk has at least one adaptation option with a decision-by date
- [ ] Assumptions and monitoring triggers are explicit enough for a future reassessment
## Anti-Patterns
- [ ] Do not give point estimates for long-horizon losses — ranges with confidence, always
- [ ] Do not assess only one scenario — a single pathway hides either transition or physical risk
- [ ] Do not conflate hazard with risk — a flood map is not a loss estimate until exposure and vulnerability are in
- [ ] Do not let 2050 risks crowd out 2030 decisions — state what must be decided this planning cycle
- [ ] Do not present this as an engineering, actuarial, or compliance-grade study — it structures judgment, it does not replace specialist analysis
## Based On
TCFD/ISSB and ESRS E1 climate-risk practice (physical/transition split, scenario analysis, hazard–exposure–vulnerability structure).
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!