Purpose
Surface where concurrent regulatory initiatives collide, duplicate, or leave gaps across Lines of Business and jurisdictions — producing an overlap matrix, conflict register, gap inventory, and a ranked consolidation plan so a programme office can eliminate rework, resolve requirement conflicts, and evidence full coverage before an examiner does it for you.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Map overlaps and dependencies across multiple regulatory programmes running concurrently
- Find where two or more initiatives touch the same LOB, system, control, or data source
- Identify conflicting requirements between regulations across different jurisdictions
- Detect coverage gaps where no initiative owns a regulatory obligation
- Consolidate duplicated build or remediation effort across LOBs into shared workstreams
- Prepare a cross-programme dependency view for a steering committee or regulator
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Initiative list: Each regulatory programme in scope — name, driving regulation, and target milestone/deadline
- Lines of Business affected: The LOBs each initiative touches (e.g., Retail, Wealth, Markets, Commercial, Treasury)
- Jurisdictions: Legal entities and regulators in scope per initiative (e.g., UK/PRA, EU/ECB, US/OCC, APAC/MAS)
- Impacted domains per initiative: Systems, data sources, controls, policies, or processes each initiative changes (as known)
- Ownership: Who owns each initiative and each affected LOB — sponsor and delivery lead
- Known constraints: Shared resources, frozen change windows, or platform dependencies
- Current status: Delivery stage of each initiative (scoping / build / testing / live)
If impacted-domain detail is incomplete for some initiatives, proceed on the information given and flag those initiatives as "low-confidence — requires domain mapping" in the output.
Instructions
Step 1: Normalize the Initiative Inventory
Build a clean baseline before any comparison.
- Restate each initiative as: [Initiative] — [driving regulation] — [jurisdictions] — [LOBs] — [impacted domains] — [status] — [milestone]
- Standardize LOB and jurisdiction naming so the same entity is labeled identically across initiatives (inconsistent labels hide real overlaps)
- Flag any initiative missing LOB, jurisdiction, or domain data as low-confidence
- Note initiatives sharing a milestone window within 90 days — these carry the highest collision risk
Step 2: Build the Overlap Matrix
Construct an initiative-by-initiative grid to expose intersection points.
- For every pair of initiatives, record shared dimensions across four axes: LOB, Jurisdiction, System/Data, Control/Policy
- Score each pairing's overlap intensity: None / Low (1 shared axis) / Medium (2 axes) / High (3+ axes)
- For every Medium and High pairing, name the specific shared object (e.g., "both change the same client-onboarding control in Wealth UK")
- Highlight three-way-or-more clusters — where a single LOB, system, or control is touched by three or more initiatives simultaneously (these are the top rework and change-freeze risks)
Step 3: Build the Conflict Register
Distinguish overlap (shared surface) from conflict (incompatible demands on the same surface). Classify each conflict by type:
- Requirement conflict: Two regulations mandate incompatible outcomes on the same object (e.g., data-retention minimum vs. data-minimization deletion)
- Sequencing conflict: Initiative B depends on a change Initiative A hasn't delivered, or both must alter the same object in the same window
- Resource conflict: Same platform, team, SME, or change window claimed by multiple initiatives concurrently
- Interpretation conflict: Same obligation read differently across jurisdictions or LOBs, producing divergent builds For each conflict record: the conflicting initiatives, the specific object in contention, jurisdictions involved, severity (Critical / High / Medium), and a recommended resolution owner.
Step 4: Build the Gap Inventory
Find obligations that no initiative currently owns.
- Cross-check each in-scope regulatory obligation against the initiative that should own it
- Flag gaps of two types: Coverage gap (obligation with no owning initiative) and Jurisdictional gap (obligation covered in one entity but silently unaddressed in another that is equally in scope)
- For each gap, state the exposed LOB(s), the jurisdiction, and the likely consequence if unaddressed (finding, breach, remediation)
- Rank gaps by regulatory exposure severity and proximity of the relevant deadline
Step 5: Prioritized Consolidation & Resolution Plan
Turn findings into ranked action. Produce a ranked list of actions scored by exposure severity × number of initiatives/LOBs affected × deadline proximity. Each action states:
- What to do (consolidate duplicated build / resolve a specific conflict / close a named gap / establish a shared workstream)
- Which initiatives and LOBs it affects
- The recommended owner (programme-level vs. LOB-level)
- The decision required and by when Explicitly call out consolidation opportunities: where two or more initiatives building against the same object should be merged into a single shared workstream to remove duplicated effort.
Output Format
- Structure: Normalized inventory → Overlap matrix (table) → Conflict register (table) → Gap inventory (table) → Prioritized consolidation plan (ranked list)
- Length: 1,000–1,400 words plus tables
- Format: Structured document — tables for the matrix, register, and gap inventory; ranked numbered list for the action plan
- Sections: Initiative Inventory → Overlap Matrix → Conflict Register → Gap Inventory → Prioritized Consolidation Plan
- Tone: Programme director — precise, evidence-led, decision-forcing; every finding names the specific object in contention and a named owner, never a generic "review dependencies"
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every initiative pairing has an overlap score (None/Low/Medium/High) — the matrix has no blank cells
- [ ] Every Medium and High overlap names the specific shared object (control, system, data source, or policy)
- [ ] Each conflict is classified by type (requirement / sequencing / resource / interpretation) and assigned a severity and resolution owner
- [ ] The gap inventory distinguishes coverage gaps from jurisdictional gaps and names the exposed LOB and jurisdiction for each
- [ ] Consolidation plan is ranked by exposure × breadth × deadline — not listed arbitrarily
- [ ] Low-confidence initiatives (incomplete input data) are flagged, not silently treated as fully mapped
Notes
- The most dangerous findings are jurisdictional gaps — an obligation cleanly handled in the home entity but silently unaddressed in a subsidiary is the classic source of cross-border findings
- Three-or-more-way clusters on a single control or system are where change-freeze collisions and rework concentrate; treat these as steering-committee escalations regardless of individual severity
- Overlap is not automatically bad — a Medium overlap with aligned requirements is a consolidation opportunity, while a Low overlap with a requirement conflict is more urgent; score the conflict, not just the surface area
- If two initiatives share a milestone within 90 days and a High overlap, surface the sequencing conflict first — it is the fastest path to a missed regulatory deadline
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills