managing-climate-risk
Structures climate risk assessment with physical and transition risk analysis and scenario modeling. Use when assessing climate risk, modeling transition scenarios, or evaluating environmental exposure.
Best use case
managing-climate-risk is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Structures climate risk assessment with physical and transition risk analysis and scenario modeling. Use when assessing climate risk, modeling transition scenarios, or evaluating environmental exposure.
Teams using managing-climate-risk should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/managing-climate-risk/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How managing-climate-risk Compares
| Feature / Agent | managing-climate-risk | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Structures climate risk assessment with physical and transition risk analysis and scenario modeling. Use when assessing climate risk, modeling transition scenarios, or evaluating environmental exposure.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Managing Climate Risk Structures climate risk assessment combining physical risk, transition risk, and scenario modeling into an actionable management report for enterprise risk and investment decision-making. ## When To Use - Assessing portfolio or enterprise exposure to climate-related physical and transition risks - Preparing TCFD-aligned climate risk disclosures or internal board reports - Modeling financial impact of climate scenarios (e.g., IEA Net Zero 2050, NGFS orderly/disorderly/hot house) - Evaluating counterparty, sector, or geographic concentration risk from environmental factors - Informing capital allocation, insurance strategy, or stress testing with climate overlays ## Inputs To Gather - **Asset/portfolio data**: Holdings, geographic footprint, sector exposure, revenue breakdown by business line - **Physical risk indicators**: Facility locations, supply chain nodes, historical loss data from weather events, flood/wildfire/hurricane zone maps - **Transition risk indicators**: Carbon intensity metrics (Scope 1/2/3 where available), regulatory timeline for carbon pricing or emissions caps [VERIFY jurisdiction-specific phase-in dates], energy mix dependencies - **Scenario parameters**: Time horizons (2030, 2040, 2050), warming pathways (1.5C, 2C, 3C+), policy assumption sets (e.g., NGFS scenarios) - **Baseline financials**: Revenue, EBITDA, asset valuations, insurance premiums, capex plans - **Regulatory context**: Applicable disclosure frameworks (TCFD, ISSB S2, EU CSRD, SEC climate rule [VERIFY current status and compliance dates]) ## Workflow 1. **Scope definition** — Confirm the entity perimeter (single fund, enterprise-wide, specific portfolio sleeve), time horizons, and intended audience (board, regulators, investors). Determine which scenarios to model. 2. **Physical risk assessment** - Map assets and operations to geographic hazard zones (flood, wildfire, drought, sea-level rise, extreme heat) - Quantify historical loss frequency and severity from climate-related events - Project forward-looking exposure under selected warming scenarios using available hazard models - Assign risk ratings (high/medium/low) by location, asset class, or business unit 3. **Transition risk assessment** - Calculate carbon intensity across Scope 1 and 2; incorporate Scope 3 where data quality permits [VERIFY data source and methodology] - Identify regulatory triggers: carbon pricing mechanisms, emissions trading schemes, phase-out mandates for high-carbon assets - Assess stranded asset risk for fossil fuel holdings, carbon-intensive real estate, or heavy-industry exposures - Evaluate technology disruption risk (e.g., EV adoption curves impacting auto sector, renewable cost declines) 4. **Scenario modeling** - Run at least two contrasting scenarios (e.g., orderly transition vs. hot house world) - Estimate financial impact on revenues, asset valuations, and cost structures under each scenario - Stress test portfolio returns, credit quality, or insurance liabilities against scenario parameters - Identify non-linear tipping points or threshold effects (e.g., carbon price above which specific assets become uneconomic) 5. **Mitigation and adaptation mapping** - For material risks identified, outline available mitigation levers: hedging, divestment, insurance, operational changes, engagement with portfolio companies - Prioritize actions by cost-effectiveness and implementation timeline - Flag adaptation measures for physical risk (e.g., facility hardening, supply chain diversification) 6. **Report assembly** - Summarize findings in a management report structured by risk category - Present scenario outcomes with clear assumptions and sensitivity ranges - Include heat maps or concentration tables for geographic and sectoral exposure - Provide actionable recommendations ranked by urgency and materiality ## Output The deliverable is a **Climate Risk Management Report** containing: - **Executive summary**: Top 3-5 material climate risks, headline scenario impacts, and priority actions - **Physical risk profile**: Geographic heat map, asset-level exposure ratings, projected loss estimates - **Transition risk profile**: Carbon intensity benchmarks, regulatory timeline, stranded asset exposure - **Scenario analysis results**: Side-by-side financial impact under each modeled pathway with key assumptions stated - **Mitigation roadmap**: Prioritized actions with owners, timelines, and estimated cost/benefit - **Data gaps and limitations**: Explicit list of missing inputs, proxy assumptions used, and areas requiring further analysis ## Quality Checks - Verify that all scenario assumptions are explicitly stated — no embedded assumptions without disclosure - Confirm geographic hazard data sources are current (within 2 years) and from recognized providers (e.g., Munich Re, Swiss Re, NOAA, IPCC) - Ensure carbon intensity calculations use consistent boundary definitions across all entities - Cross-check that regulatory timelines reflect enacted law, not proposed rules — mark proposed items with [VERIFY] - Validate that financial impact estimates include sensitivity ranges, not single-point projections - Confirm the report addresses both short-term (1-5 year) and long-term (10-30 year) horizons - Flag any sector or geography where data coverage falls below 70% of exposure