Risk Assessment Matrix
This matrix helps evaluate AI development patterns and frameworks for client projects, balancing innovation with reliability.
Assessment Criteria
Risk Factors:
- Client Impact: Potential for project delays or quality issues
- Security: Data privacy and code security implications
- Maintainability: Long-term support and debugging complexity
- Transparency: Client understanding and audit trail clarity
- Skill Dependency: Team expertise requirements
Scoring: Low (1-3), Medium (4-6), High (7-10)
Framework Pattern Assessment
Task Management
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Markdown Backlogs | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Low |
| Structured Text | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 5 | Medium |
| Issue Systems | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | Low |
Recommendation: Issue systems for client work, markdown for internal projects.
AI Guidance Patterns
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Command Libraries | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 6 | Medium |
| Coding Standards | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | Low |
| Definition of Done | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Low |
| Validation Hooks | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | Medium |
Recommendation: Start with standards and definitions. Add hooks for quality-critical projects.
Multi-Agent Coordination
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role Simulation | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 7 | High |
| Swarm Parallelism | 8 | 5 | 9 | 9 | 9 | High |
| Repo Artifacts | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Medium |
Recommendation: Avoid multi-agent patterns for client work until ecosystem matures.
Session Management
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal Orchestration | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | Medium |
| Parallel Worktrees | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6 | Medium |
| Parallel Containers | 4 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 7 | Medium-High |
Recommendation: Parallel worktrees for development, containers for specific isolation needs.
Tool Integration
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCP Integrations | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | Medium |
| Custom Tools | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Medium |
| Database Access | 6 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 5 | High |
| Testing Hooks | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 | Low-Medium |
Recommendation: Testing hooks are essential. Custom tools for specific needs. Evaluate MCP carefully.
Development Roles
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI as PM | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 5 | High |
| AI as Architect | 7 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 6 | High |
| AI as Implementer | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | Medium |
| AI as QA | 5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Medium |
Recommendation: AI implementation with human oversight. Human PM and architect roles.
Code Delivery
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Diffs | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Low |
| Feature Flags | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 5 | Medium |
| Full Scaffolds | 7 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 4 | Medium-High |
Recommendation: Small diffs for production. Feature flags for experimentation. Scaffolds for prototyping only.
Context Preservation
| Pattern | Client Impact | Security | Maintainability | Transparency | Skill Dependency | Overall Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Low |
| Persistent Memory | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | Medium |
| Session Continuity | 4 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 6 | Medium |
Recommendation: Documentation is essential. Memory and continuity provide efficiency gains.
Client Project Risk Profiles
Conservative (Financial, Healthcare, Government)
- Use: Issue systems, coding standards, small diffs, documentation
- Avoid: Multi-agent, AI roles, full scaffolds, database access
- Evaluate: Testing hooks, custom tools, feature flags
Moderate (Standard Business Applications)
- Use: All low-risk patterns, selective medium-risk adoption
- Avoid: High-risk patterns without explicit client approval
- Experiment: MCP integrations, validation hooks, parallel workflows
Aggressive (Startups, Internal Tools, Prototyping)
- Use: All patterns based on technical merit
- Experiment: Multi-agent coordination, full scaffolds, AI roles
- Monitor: Performance, quality, and maintainability closely
Decision Framework
- Assess Client Risk Tolerance: Conservative, Moderate, or Aggressive
- Evaluate Pattern Risk: Use matrix scores
- Consider Team Capability: Factor in skill dependency scores
- Start Conservative: Begin with low-risk patterns
- Iterate Carefully: Add complexity only with proven value
- Document Decisions: Maintain rationale for pattern choices
Red Flags
Immediate Stop Conditions:
- AI making architectural decisions without human review
- Multi-agent systems in production without extensive testing
- Direct database access without security review
- Client deliverables generated without human validation
- Missing audit trails for AI-generated code
Warning Signs:
- Increasing debugging time for AI-generated code
- Client confusion about AI involvement in project
- Team dependency on complex frameworks
- Reduced code quality or test coverage
- Difficulty explaining AI decisions to stakeholders