name: stpa-overview description: Entry point for STPA (System Theoretic Process Analysis) hazard and safety analysis. Use for full 4-step STPA sessions, focused project-critic safety reviews, coordinator safety gates, reviewer hazard checks, risk assessment, unsafe state transitions, external input, filesystem, concurrency, physical systems, AI-driven systems, or when tempted to route work to retired stpa-analyst. metadata: tags: "stpa, safety, hazard-analysis, risk-assessment, control-theory, project-critic, reviewer, retired-stpa-analyst"
STPA Overview
Core Principle
STPA is a skill workflow, not a routable workflow agent.
When safety, hazards, risk, unsafe state transitions, external input, filesystem effects, concurrency, physical systems, or AI-driven control loops are relevant, load and use this skill. Do not route to stpa-analyst, add stpa-analyst to GOAL agents, expose it as an available delegate agent, or send QUALITY_REPORT_REQUEST to a retired agent.
What is STPA?
STPA (System Theoretic Process Analysis) is a hazard analysis method that:
- Treats safety as a control problem, not just a failure problem
- Uses control-feedback loops to model complex systems
- Identifies unsafe control actions that could lead to hazards
- Discovers unintended interactions across software, humans, physical processes, and AI systems
When to Use
Use this skill in either mode:
- Full 4-step STPA mode — for a new safety/hazard analysis session or when the human partner asks for safety analysis, hazard analysis, risk assessment, STPA, or control-loop analysis.
- Focused safety-review mode — for coordinator gates, project-critic gates, quality reports, or
*-reviewerreviews where a quick hazard check is warranted but a full STPA session would be too heavy.
Do not use this skill for ordinary style-only review with no safety, risk, control-flow, validation, concurrency, or state-transition implications.
Mandatory Routing Rules
- No retired-agent routing — Never route safety work to
stpa-analyst; STPA lives here. - Coordinator gate — The coordinator must load/use this skill when safety/hazard analysis is relevant before delegating, validating, or declaring a safety-sensitive workflow complete.
- Project-critic gate — Project critics must request or perform focused safety-review evidence through this skill, not by targeting
stpa-analyst. - Reviewer permission — Any
*-reviewermay load/use this skill when circumstances warrant hazard or safety analysis. If safety risk is material, include focused STPA findings in the review report. - Coordinator-owned checkboxes — If a GOAL checkbox is completed by STPA work, report evidence to the coordinator; do not edit GOAL checkboxes unless you are explicitly the coordinator.
Choose the Mode
| Situation | Mode | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Human asks for STPA, hazard analysis, risk assessment, or safety analysis | Full 4-step STPA | Losses, hazards, constraints, control structure, UCAs, loss scenarios, mitigations |
| Coordinator sees external input, filesystem changes, concurrent operations, unsafe state transitions, or safety-critical behavior | Focused safety-review first; escalate to full STPA if needed | Gate note or task plan with hazards/constraints |
| Project critic needs a quality report | Focused safety-review | PASS/NEEDS WORK safety report |
*-reviewer sees safety or hazard implications |
Focused safety-review inside normal review | Review comments with safety findings |
Full 4-Step STPA Mode
Announce: "I'm using the STPA Overview skill to guide a systematic hazard analysis. We'll work through four STPA steps and record decisions as we go."
Step 1: Define Purpose of Analysis
Load: skills({"name":"stpa-step1-define-purpose"})
- Identify Losses (unacceptable outcomes)
- Define System-Level Hazards (states leading to losses)
- Establish System-Level Constraints (behaviors that prevent hazards)
Step 2: Model the Control Structure
Load: skills({"name":"stpa-step2-control-structure"})
- Create hierarchical control-feedback diagrams
- Identify controllers, controlled processes, control actions, and feedback paths
- Use Graphviz/DOT format with
rankdir=TBandnode [shape=box]
Step 3: Identify Unsafe Control Actions (UCAs)
Load: skills({"name":"stpa-step3-unsafe-control-actions"})
- Analyze each control action for four UCA types:
- Not provided when needed
- Provided when not needed
- Wrong timing or order
- Stopped too soon or applied too long
Step 4: Identify Loss Scenarios
Load: skills({"name":"stpa-step4-loss-scenarios"})
- Trace causal pathways for each UCA
- Identify why UCAs might occur
- Develop recommendations and mitigations
Full-Mode Process
- Load each step-specific skill before doing that step
- Ask one question at a time using the environment's human-question mechanism
- If your role cannot ask the human directly, send the coordinator
QUESTION: ... - Record answers in
.sgai/PROJECT_MANAGEMENT.mdunder## STPA Analysis - Iterate when later steps reveal missing losses, hazards, controls, or feedback
- Summarize findings and notify the coordinator when STPA work completes
Focused Safety-Review Mode
Announce: "I'm using STPA Overview in focused safety-review mode to check hazards without running the full four-step STPA process."
Use this mode when a coordinator, project critic, or reviewer needs a quick safety/hazard assessment.
Scope
Focus on:
- Control-flow safety — unclear control paths, unguarded transitions, missing feedback
- Unsafe state transitions — inconsistent states, stale state, invalid workflow transitions
- Error handling adequacy — silent failures, swallowed errors, misleading success states
- Input and boundary validation — external input, filesystem paths, permissions, untrusted data
- Concurrency and timing — races, double actions, cancellation, retries, ordering problems
- Human/AI control loops — missing human confirmation, hallucinated authority, unsafe autonomy
Process
- Read
GOAL.mdand.sgai/PROJECT_MANAGEMENT.mdto understand expected behavior and risk scope - Inspect relevant files, diffs, reports, or reviewer notes for the scope above
- Identify hazards as
H-n, constraints asSC-n, and concrete issues with file/line evidence when possible - Escalate to full 4-step STPA mode if the focused review finds systemic hazards or unclear losses
- Send or include the structured report below
Focused Report Format
QUALITY_REPORT from stpa-overview focused safety review
**Scope Reviewed:** [brief scope]
**Hazards / Issues Found:**
- H-1: [hazard or issue, with file:line if applicable]
**Recommended Safety Constraints:**
- SC-1: [constraint or mitigation]
**Verdict:** PASS | NEEDS WORK
**Unresolved Concerns:**
- [unknowns, assumptions, or follow-up needed]
Documentation Structure
Record full STPA sessions like this:
## STPA Analysis
### Step 1: Purpose Definition
#### Losses (L)
- L-1: [description]
#### Hazards (H)
- H-1: [system] [unsafe condition] [→ L-1]
#### System-Level Constraints (SC)
- SC-1: [condition to enforce] [→ H-1]
### Step 2: Control Structure
[Graphviz/DOT diagram]
### Step 3: Unsafe Control Actions
[UCA table]
### Step 4: Loss Scenarios
[Scenario descriptions and recommendations]
Rationalization Table
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Routing to the dedicated STPA agent is faster." | stpa-analyst is retired. Loading this skill is the supported path. |
| "The quality-report behavior lived in the old wrapper." | Focused safety-review mode now owns that behavior. Use this skill's report format. |
| "STPA is outside reviewer scope." | *-reviewer agents may load/use STPA when safety or hazard risk warrants it. |
| "Full STPA is too heavy for a project-critic gate." | Use focused safety-review mode; escalate only if needed. |
"Safety Analysis should add stpa-analyst to GOAL agents." |
Safety analysis is coordinator/reviewer guidance plus this skill, not an available delegate agent. |
Red Flags - STOP
- Adding
stpa-analystto GOALagentsor exposing it as an available delegate - Sending
QUALITY_REPORT_REQUESTtostpa-analyst - Treating safety review as impossible because full STPA is too large
- Saying reviewers cannot use STPA when they see hazard/safety implications
- Completing a safety-relevant coordinator or project-critic gate without STPA evidence
- Using slash-form step skill names instead of actual
stpa-step...skill names
Examples
Good: Coordinator Gate
The coordinator sees a task involving external input, filesystem writes, and concurrent workers. It loads stpa-overview, runs focused safety-review mode, records hazards and constraints, then delegates implementation with those constraints.
Good: Reviewer
A go-readability-reviewer sees a workflow state transition that can mark work complete after a failed validation. The reviewer loads stpa-overview, uses focused mode, and reports H-1 plus SC-1 in the review.
Bad: Retired Agent Routing
The project critic sends QUALITY_REPORT_REQUEST to stpa-analyst because an old wrapper described that mode. This is wrong: use focused safety-review mode in this skill and report back directly.
Completion Checklist
Before finishing STPA work, verify:
- You chose full mode or focused mode intentionally
- You did not route to
stpa-analyst - You loaded actual step skills by name when running full mode
- You recorded findings or returned a structured focused report
- You notified the coordinator of completed GOAL work instead of editing checkboxes yourself
Related Skills
stpa-step1-define-purpose— Detailed Step 1 guidancestpa-step2-control-structure— Control structure modelingstpa-step3-unsafe-control-actions— UCA identification tablesstpa-step4-loss-scenarios— Causal scenario analysis