---
name: deal-review-risk-assessment
description: Reviews an opportunity against qualification and forecast rules, identifies evidence gaps and risks, and produces a dated action plan. Use for deal reviews, forecast inspection, opportunity health, sales risk assessment, or pipeline coaching.
license: Apache-2.0
metadata:
  adlass.categories: "sales-crm/pipeline"
  adlass.industries: ""
  adlass.tags: "deal-review, forecast, opportunity-risk, qualification, action-plan, sales"
  adlass.adaptation: "reference-doc"
  adlass.source: "original"
  adlass.version: "1"
---

# Deal review risk assessment

## Purpose

Test whether an opportunity's forecast position is supported by evidence. Make qualification gaps, stakeholder risks, timing risks, competitive exposure, and next actions explicit for sales management.

## Scope

Opportunity history, stage evidence, customer need, value, authority, process, timing, competition, activity, commitments, and forecast category.

**Excluded:** changing CRM fields, approving discounts, contacting the customer, and treating seller opinion as evidence.

## Data basis

- Opportunity and activity records.
- Call notes, proposals, mutual action plans, and qualification framework.
- Forecast definitions and risk rules in scope.

## Result

A deal review memo, qualification-gap sheet, and action plan.

## Quality criteria

- Every assessment cites a record, date, or explicit absence of evidence.
- Forecast recommendation follows the configured definitions.
- Risks have likelihood, impact, evidence, and mitigation.
- Actions have owner, date, and dependency or are open points.
- Facts are separated from seller assumptions.

## Instructions

Review evidence in the order defined by the qualification framework. Do not reward activity volume when outcome evidence is missing. Treat past-due dates, single-threading, unconfirmed authority, and unowned next steps as risks when the policy defines them. Explain any forecast downgrade or hold.

## Adapt before use
Keep a clear audit trail throughout the run. Use the source wording and field values that support each material conclusion, and retain uncertainty when the evidence does not decide the issue. Separate a missing record from a negative result and a contradictory record from an exception. Prefer a short, prioritised result over unsupported completeness. Check that counts, identifiers, dates, and labels agree across the written result and the structured output. When a rule, source, or mapping is unavailable, name the limitation and explain how it affects interpretation. Do not silently infer ownership, approval, timing, or business intent.

- Add qualification, forecast, risk, and action definitions.
- Map opportunity and activity fields.
- Set risk scoring and required review roles.