Update to WSH Risk Assessment

{
  "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.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "wsh-risk-assessment-review",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: wsh-risk-assessment-review\ndescription: 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.\n---\n\n# Review a WSH Risk Assessment\n\nReview 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.\n\n## Review method\n\nCheck 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.\n\n## Output\n\nLead 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.\n\nDo 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.\n"
}