---
name: regulatory-impact-analysis
description: "Produce a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) weighing the costs, benefits, and alternatives of a proposed rule. Use when asked to assess a regulation's impact, do a cost-benefit analysis of a policy, justify a rulemaking, or compare regulatory options. Produces a structured RIA: the problem and rationale, options including the baseline, costs vs. benefits, distributional effects, and a reasoned recommendation."
---

# Regulatory Impact Analysis Skill

Before a rule is made, good practice (and often law) requires showing it's justified: what problem it solves,
what it costs, what it delivers, and whether a lighter option would do better. This skill produces a structured
**RIA** — honest about uncertainty, comparing real alternatives against the do-nothing baseline.

> Educational analytical aid. A formal RIA must follow the jurisdiction's guidance (e.g. US OMB Circular A-4,
> UK Better Regulation Framework) and use validated data — treat this as a rigorous first draft, not an official filing.

## Required Inputs

Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:

- **The proposed rule & problem** — what's proposed and the market failure / risk / harm it addresses.
- **Options** — the realistic alternatives (including status quo / non-regulatory approaches), or ask the skill to develop them.
- **Impacts & data** — expected costs (compliance, admin, indirect) and benefits (safety, health, efficiency), who bears them, any figures available.
- **Timeframe & discounting** — the horizon and any required discount rate.

## Output Format

### Regulatory Impact Analysis: [rule]

**1. Problem statement & rationale** — the specific problem (market failure, externality, risk) and why intervention is needed now. If there's no clear problem, say so.

**2. Objectives** — what success looks like, in measurable terms.

**3. Options considered** — including the **baseline (do nothing)** and non-regulatory alternatives. Describe each.

**4. Costs & benefits by option** — for each option, the expected costs and benefits (quantified where possible; qualitative where not), over the timeframe. A comparison table:

| Option | Key costs | Key benefits | Net assessment |
|---|---|---|---|

State assumptions, data sources, and **uncertainty** honestly (ranges, sensitivity).

**5. Distributional effects** — who gains and who bears the costs (small business, regions, groups); any equity concerns.

**6. Recommendation** — the preferred option and why it's proportionate — the best net benefit for the burden imposed.

**7. Implementation & review** — enforcement, compliance burden, and how/when the rule's effect will be evaluated (sunset/review clause).

## Quality Checks

- [ ] The problem/market-failure is clearly established before any option is recommended
- [ ] Options include the do-nothing baseline and at least one non-regulatory or lighter alternative
- [ ] Costs and benefits are compared per option, quantified where data allows, with sources
- [ ] Uncertainty is stated honestly (ranges/sensitivity), not hidden behind point estimates
- [ ] Distributional effects and a proportionality-based recommendation are included
- [ ] A review/evaluation mechanism is specified

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not assume regulation is the answer — establish the problem and test the baseline first
- [ ] Do not present only the preferred option — compare real alternatives
- [ ] Do not fabricate precise numbers — use ranges and label assumptions where data is thin
- [ ] Do not ignore who bears the cost — distributional/small-business impact matters
- [ ] Do not omit proportionality — the benefit must justify the burden imposed

## Based On

Regulatory impact analysis practice (OMB Circular A-4 / Better Regulation): problem-first, options vs. baseline, cost-benefit, proportionality.