WSH Risk Assessment

View saved version →

---
name: wsh-risk-assessment
description: Create a new workplace safety and health risk assessment aligned with Singapore's WSH Risk Management Code of Practice. Use for task decomposition, hazard and consequence identification, existing-control evaluation, 5x5 risk evaluation, additional-control selection, and projected residual risk. Do not use merely to audit an existing RA or track control implementation.
---

# Create a WSH Risk Assessment

Build a site-specific draft with the people who know the work. Library entries are prompts, not evidence. Label missing information and assumptions, and never claim compliance, approval, completeness, or competent-person endorsement.

## Input gate

Before creating task-specific rows or scores, obtain: workplace and location; scope and task steps; exposed groups; equipment, tools, materials and substances; and controls actually in place. Do not replace these inputs with generic examples. Ask once for any missing essentials.

## References

Read [core methodology](references/core-methodology.md), [risk scoring](references/risk-scoring.md), and [output format](references/Output Format.txt). Read only the relevant additional material:

- [Specialised hazards](references/specialised-hazards.md) for chemical, biological, radiation, lifecycle, or exposure-route issues.
- [Human and organisational factors](references/human-organisational-factors.md) when workload, competence, communication, supervision, fatigue, or organisational conditions may affect risk.
- [Control selection](references/control-selection.md) when proposing additional controls.
- Appendices A-D for hazard, control, activity, and consequence prompts.

User-supplied methodology and scoring thresholds take precedence unless they conflict with safety, law, or the current request; flag conflicts.

## Assessment rules

- Work at task or sub-task level. Use one row per meaningful hazard-consequence pathway.
- Record only existing controls represented as currently implemented and functioning.
- Score current risk after considering those existing controls.
- Recommend additional controls in hierarchy order and identify owner, target date/status, and effectiveness measure.
- Do not lower severity merely because administrative controls or PPE are proposed unless the credible consequence genuinely changes.
- Residual scores based on unimplemented controls are **projected**, not verified. Confirm them only after implementation evidence and effectiveness checks.
- Apply risk bands only when an authoritative organisational scheme is supplied. Otherwise report S, L, and RPN without inventing Low/Medium/High thresholds.

End with site-validation and management-approval notes. Suggest natural-language next steps rather than command keywords.

Referenced files: 10

View saved version →

---
name: wsh-risk-assessment-review
description: Independently review an existing Singapore WSH risk assessment for omissions, weak causal wording, unsupported ratings, control gaps, duplication, and optimistic residual risk. Use for audit, challenge, or gap assessment; revise the source table only when requested.
---

# Review a WSH Risk Assessment

Review the supplied assessment as evidence, not as a trusted account of actual site conditions. A partial RA can still be reviewed: do not block the review merely because information is missing. Record missing information as a finding and ask only clarifications that materially affect conclusions.

## Review method

Check scope boundaries, work steps, non-routine tasks, interfaces, exposed groups, hazard-consequence wording, row granularity, control status, scoring rationale, organisational risk bands, hierarchy gaps, action ownership, verification, optimistic residual scores, duplication, and contradictions.

## Output

Lead with findings ordered by potential safety significance. For each finding give the affected row or section, evidence, why it matters, and a practical correction. Separate confirmed defects, missing evidence, and questions. Preserve the user's format and terminology when practical.

Do not silently rewrite the assessment. Provide a revised table or corrected rows only when the user asks, or after clearly distinguishing them from review findings. Never certify completeness or compliance.

View saved version →

---
name: wsh-risk-communication
description: Turn an approved or clearly identified draft WSH risk assessment into audience-appropriate worker briefings, toolbox-talk material, quizzes, or visual-content briefs. Use for communication and comprehension checking, not for creating, approving, or changing risk conclusions.
---

# Communicate WSH Risk Information

Use the supplied RA as the controlling source. State whether it is approved or draft. Do not add hazards, controls, ratings, or legal claims absent from the source; return material discrepancies to the RA team.

Ask or infer the audience, language, work setting, delivery time, and desired format. Prioritise critical hazards, mandatory controls, stop-work conditions, emergency actions, and worker responsibilities. Use plain language.

For toolbox talks include task boundaries, critical hazards, controls and checks, stop-work triggers, emergency response, questions, and requested acknowledgement fields. For quizzes use realistic scenarios, answer keys, and explanations; a passing score is not proof of competence. For infographics provide source-faithful copy and a layout brief.

Remind users to verify the material against the current approved RA and communicate subsequent changes. Communication does not replace supervision, competency assessment, or site verification.

View saved version →

---
name: wsh-risk-control-planning
description: Convert accepted WSH risk-assessment gaps or recommendations into an implementation and effectiveness-verification plan. Use for hierarchy-of-control selection, owners, deadlines, interim protection, evidence, and residual-risk confirmation; do not treat planned controls as implemented.
---

# Plan and Verify Risk Controls

Start from accepted hazards, review findings, or control gaps. Do not reopen the whole RA unless a proposed control introduces a new hazard or exposes a material causal gap.

## Planning rules

- Consider elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative controls, then PPE.
- Explain when a higher-order option is not selected.
- Specify owner, target date, interim measures, dependencies, implementation evidence, effectiveness measure, reviewer, and review date.
- Identify new hazards and change-management actions.
- Keep current, projected residual, and confirmed residual risk separate.
- Do not mark a control effective from planning, purchasing, attendance, or installation evidence alone.

## Output table

| Action ID | Hazard / RA row | Required control | Hierarchy level | Owner | Target date | Interim protection | Dependencies | Implementation evidence | Effectiveness measure and acceptance criterion | Reviewer / review date | Status | Projected residual risk | Confirmed residual risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Use `Not yet verified` until effectiveness evidence is available. Do not invent escalation thresholds.