# Technical Risks & Mitigation Strategies

**Document Version:** 1.0  
**Date:** 2025-11-16  
**Project:** RabbitMQ MCP Server  
**Risk Assessment Phase:** Pre-Implementation (Solutioning Gate)

---

## Executive Summary

This document identifies technical risks for the RabbitMQ MCP Server project and provides concrete mitigation strategies for each. Risks are categorized by severity (Critical, High, Medium, Low) and probability, with specific action items assigned to implementation phases.

**Risk Profile:**
- 🚨 **1 Critical Risk** (P3×I3=9): Auto-reconnection reliability
- ⚠️ **5 High Risks** (P2-3×I2-3=6): Performance, security, semantic search
- 📊 **8 Medium Risks** (P2×I2=4): Scalability, caching, version compatibility
- ℹ️ **4 Low Risks** (P1×I2=2): Documentation, UX improvements

**Overall Risk Posture:** ✅ **MANAGEABLE** - All risks have mitigation strategies. No blocking risks.

---

## 1. Critical Risks (Score ≥9)

### RISK-001: Auto-Reconnection with Exponential Backoff 🚨

**Category:** Reliability  
**Probability:** High (3/3) - Network failures common in distributed systems  
**Impact:** Critical (3/3) - Connection loss blocks all operations  
**Risk Score:** 9 (P3×I3)  
**Status:** 🟡 Mitigated (test coverage required)

**Description:**  
The auto-reconnection mechanism (FR-007) must reliably restore connections with exponential backoff (1s, 2s, 4s, 8s, 16s, 32s, 60s max). Failures could cause:
- Permanent connection loss requiring manual restart
- Message loss during reconnection window
- Cascading failures in dependent services

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 1-2):**
1. **Implement Robust Reconnection State Machine**
   - States: CONNECTED, DISCONNECTED, RECONNECTING, FAILED
   - Event-driven transitions with clear error handling
   - Circuit breaker after 10 consecutive failures (manual intervention required)
   
2. **Comprehensive Integration Tests** (Epic 1, Story 1.7)
   - Test 1: Kill RabbitMQ during operation → validate auto-reconnect
   - Test 2: Simulate intermittent failures → validate backoff timing
   - Test 3: Verify message queue during reconnection
   - Test 4: Validate connection pool refresh after reconnect
   - **Target:** 100% coverage of reconnection paths

3. **Production Monitoring** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `rabbitmq_reconnection_attempts_total` (counter)
   - Metric: `rabbitmq_reconnection_duration_seconds` (histogram)
   - Alert: `rabbitmq_connection_state == DISCONNECTED` for >5min (P1)
   - Alert: `rabbitmq_reconnection_failures_total >10` (P0 - circuit breaker triggered)

**Phase 2 (Growth Features):**
4. **Advanced Resilience Patterns**
   - Queue operations during reconnection (with retry)
   - Graceful degradation (cached data fallback)
   - Predictive reconnection (health check failures trigger preemptive reconnect)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ 100% integration test pass rate on reconnection scenarios
- ✅ Mean Time To Reconnect (MTTR) <30 seconds in production
- ✅ Zero data loss during reconnection (message queue preserved)

**References:**
- FR-007: Auto-Reconnection
- Epic 1, Story 1.7: Connection Resilience Testing
- ADR-003: Connection Management Strategy

---

## 2. High Risks (Score 6-8)

### RISK-002: Semantic Search Performance Variability ⚠️

**Category:** Performance  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Model inference has inherent variability  
**Impact:** High (3/3) - FR-002 mandates <100ms p95 latency  
**Risk Score:** 6 (P2×I3)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (pre-computed embeddings)

**Description:**  
sentence-transformers model `all-MiniLM-L6-v2` performance depends on:
- CPU resources (no GPU in MVP scope)
- Number of operations to embed (100+ RabbitMQ operations)
- Concurrent search requests
- Model loading time on cold start

Risk: Latency exceeds <100ms target under load, degrading UX.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 1):**
1. **Pre-Computed Embeddings at Build Time** (Epic 1, Story 1.2)
   - Generate embeddings for all operations during code generation
   - Store embeddings in memory (NumPy array or similar)
   - Avoid runtime model inference for operations
   - **Result:** O(1) lookup instead of O(n) model inference

2. **Optimized Search Implementation** (Epic 1, Story 1.3)
   - Use vectorized cosine similarity (NumPy/SciPy)
   - Cache query embeddings for repeated searches (LRU cache, 100 entries)
   - Parallel processing if query batch size >1

3. **Performance Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Load test: 100 concurrent searches → validate <100ms p95
   - Stress test: 1000 searches/min → identify breaking point
   - Cold start test: First search after restart → measure model load time
   - **Target:** p95 <80ms (20% buffer below 100ms requirement)

4. **Monitoring & Alerts** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `search_latency_milliseconds` histogram (p50, p95, p99)
   - Alert: `search_latency_p95 >100ms` for 5min (P2 - SLO violation)
   - Dashboard: Real-time latency tracking with 1-hour rolling window

**Phase 2 (Performance Optimization):**
5. **Advanced Optimizations** (if needed)
   - Quantized embeddings (384 dims → 128 dims with PCA)
   - Approximate Nearest Neighbors (FAISS/Annoy) for faster search
   - GPU acceleration via CUDA (optional for high-throughput scenarios)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ p95 latency <80ms in load tests (100 concurrent users)
- ✅ Cold start <1 second (model loading + first search)
- ✅ Zero p95 SLO violations in first 30 days production

**References:**
- FR-002: Semantic Search
- Epic 1, Story 1.2: Generate Embeddings
- Epic 1, Story 1.3: Search Implementation

---

### RISK-003: Credential Sanitization Bypass ⚠️

**Category:** Security  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Comprehensive regex patterns implemented  
**Impact:** Critical (3/3) - Credential leak = security incident  
**Risk Score:** 3 (P1×I3) → **Escalated to High due to impact severity**  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (ADR-006 + testing)

**Description:**  
Automatic credential sanitization (ADR-006) uses regex patterns to detect and redact credentials in logs/errors. Risk: New credential formats bypass patterns, leaking secrets.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 1):**
1. **Comprehensive Regex Pattern Library** (Epic 1, Story 1.6)
   - Patterns: passwords, API keys, tokens, connection strings, AWS credentials, SSH keys
   - Test suite with 50+ credential format variations
   - **Coverage:** 100% of common credential formats

2. **Defense-in-Depth Strategy** (Epic 7)
   - Layer 1: structlog processor (auto-sanitization)
   - Layer 2: Exception handler (sanitize before serialization)
   - Layer 3: HTTP response middleware (sanitize error responses)
   - Layer 4: Audit logging (separate sanitized audit trail)

3. **Security Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Inject credentials in all input vectors (connection strings, operation params, errors)
   - Validate sanitization in logs, error responses, audit trails
   - Automated security scan in CI pipeline
   - **Target:** Zero credential leaks in 1000+ test cases

4. **Production Monitoring** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `credential_sanitization_failures_total` (counter)
   - Alert: Any sanitization failure → P0 alert (immediate investigation)
   - Log scanning: Daily automated scan for leaked patterns

**Phase 2 (Security Hardening):**
5. **Advanced Security Measures**
   - Machine learning-based secret detection (falco/gitleaks)
   - Secrets management integration (HashiCorp Vault)
   - Regular security audits and penetration testing

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ 100% sanitization test pass rate
- ✅ Zero credential leaks in production logs (30-day validation)
- ✅ <1ms sanitization overhead per log entry

**References:**
- ADR-006: Automatic Credential Sanitization
- FR-014: Structured Logging
- Epic 1, Story 1.6: Security Implementation

---

### RISK-004: RabbitMQ Management API Version Incompatibility ⚠️

**Category:** Integration  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - API differences exist across 3.11/3.12/3.13  
**Impact:** High (3/3) - Operations fail on unsupported versions  
**Risk Score:** 6 (P2×I3)  
**Status:** 🟡 Mitigated (multi-version support + testing)

**Description:**  
RabbitMQ Management API has minor differences across versions:
- 3.11.x: Legacy, some operations deprecated
- 3.12.x: LTS, recommended for production
- 3.13.x: Latest, new features

Risk: Operations fail due to API changes, causing production outages.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 2):**
1. **Multi-Version OpenAPI Specifications** (Epic 1, Story 1.1)
   - Maintain 3 OpenAPI specs: v3.11, v3.12, v3.13
   - Version-specific code generation
   - Runtime version selection via `RABBITMQ_API_VERSION` env var

2. **Comprehensive Version Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Integration test matrix: 3 RabbitMQ versions × 20 operations = 60 tests
   - testcontainers with version-specific images
   - Automated CI pipeline with parallel version testing
   - **Coverage:** 100% of MVP operations on all 3 versions

3. **Version Detection & Validation** (Epic 2, Story 2.1)
   - Health check endpoint queries RabbitMQ version
   - Validate loaded OpenAPI spec matches server version
   - Graceful degradation: Unsupported operations return clear error
   - **Target:** Zero version mismatch errors in production

4. **Documentation** (Epic 8)
   - Version compatibility matrix in README
   - Migration guide for version upgrades
   - Known limitations per version

**Phase 2 (Advanced Multi-Version Support):**
5. **Dynamic Version Adaptation**
   - Runtime version detection (query `/api/overview`)
   - Automatic OpenAPI spec loading based on detected version
   - Version-agnostic operation wrappers

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ 100% test pass rate on all 3 RabbitMQ versions
- ✅ Zero version-related production failures
- ✅ <5 second version detection + spec loading

**References:**
- FR-021: Multi-Version Support
- Epic 1, Story 1.1: OpenAPI Integration
- Epic 6: Testing Framework

---

### RISK-005: Connection Pool Exhaustion Under Load ⚠️

**Category:** Scalability  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - High concurrency scenarios common  
**Impact:** High (3/3) - Operations block waiting for connections  
**Risk Score:** 6 (P2×I3)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (connection pooling + monitoring)

**Description:**  
Connection pooling (Epic 2) manages limited RabbitMQ connections. Risk: Pool exhaustion under high load causes:
- Operation timeouts (30s max per FR-004)
- Cascading failures (operations queued, users perceive downtime)
- Resource contention (threads blocked waiting)

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 3):**
1. **Intelligent Connection Pool Configuration** (Epic 2, Story 2.6)
   - Min connections: 5 (always warm)
   - Max connections: 20 (configurable via env var)
   - Connection timeout: 30s (fail-fast if pool exhausted)
   - Idle timeout: 5min (reclaim unused connections)

2. **Pool Health Monitoring** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `connection_pool_size` (gauge: active, idle, total)
   - Metric: `connection_pool_wait_time_seconds` (histogram)
   - Alert: `connection_pool_active_connections/max >0.90` for 5min (P2 - pool near capacity)
   - Alert: `connection_pool_wait_time_p95 >10s` (P2 - operations blocking)

3. **Load Testing & Tuning** (Epic 6)
   - Simulate 100 concurrent operations → validate pool capacity
   - Stress test: 500 concurrent operations → identify breaking point
   - Auto-scaling simulation: Validate horizontal scaling relieves pressure
   - **Target:** Support 100 concurrent operations with <1s wait time p95

4. **Graceful Degradation** (Epic 2, Story 2.6)
   - Circuit breaker: After 5 consecutive pool timeouts → return 503 with Retry-After
   - Connection health checks: Evict stale connections every 30s
   - Backpressure: Reject new operations when pool >95% capacity (HTTP 429)

**Phase 2 (Scalability Enhancements):**
5. **Advanced Pool Management**
   - Dynamic pool sizing based on load (autoscale min/max)
   - Connection affinity (reuse connections for same vhost)
   - Connection pool per vhost (reduce contention)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Support 100 concurrent operations with <1s wait time p95
- ✅ Zero connection pool exhaustion alerts in first 30 days
- ✅ Graceful degradation under stress (503 response, not crash)

**References:**
- Epic 2, Story 2.6: Connection Pool with Cache Invalidation
- FR-004: Operation Execution (30s timeout)
- Epic 7: Monitoring

---

### RISK-006: Rate Limiting Ineffective Across Multiple Instances ⚠️

**Category:** Security / Scalability  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Horizontal scaling is planned (ADR-005)  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Rate limits bypassed, resource abuse possible  
**Risk Score:** 4 (P2×I2) → **Escalated to High due to security implications**  
**Status:** 🟡 Accepted for MVP (per-instance limits), 🔵 Tracked for Phase 2

**Description:**  
Rate limiting (FR-020) is per-instance in MVP (100 req/min per client). With horizontal scaling:
- Client can bypass limits by targeting different instances
- DDoS protection ineffective
- Resource abuse possible

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 7):**
1. **Document Per-Instance Limitation** (Epic 8)
   - README: Clearly state rate limiting is per-instance
   - Architecture docs: Note shared state required for distributed rate limiting
   - **Acceptance:** Per-instance limits acceptable for MVP (single instance deployment)

2. **Per-Instance Monitoring** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `rate_limit_rejections_total` per instance
   - Alert: `rate_limit_rejections_total >100/min` (P3 - potential abuse)
   - Dashboard: Aggregate metrics across all instances

**Phase 2 (Growth - Distributed Rate Limiting):**
3. **Shared State Implementation** (Epic 10+)
   - Option 1: Redis for distributed rate limiting (recommended)
   - Option 2: Token bucket algorithm with central coordination
   - Option 3: Cloud provider rate limiting (AWS API Gateway, GCP Cloud Armor)

4. **Advanced Rate Limiting Features**
   - Client-based limits (by API key)
   - Operation-based limits (expensive operations have lower limits)
   - Burst allowance (short spikes allowed)

**Success Criteria (MVP):**
- ✅ Per-instance rate limiting working (100 req/min)
- ✅ Rate limit documentation complete
- ✅ Monitoring and alerting operational

**Success Criteria (Phase 2):**
- ✅ Distributed rate limiting across all instances
- ✅ Zero rate limit bypass attempts succeed

**References:**
- FR-020: Rate Limiting
- ADR-005: Stateless Server Design
- Epic 7: Monitoring

---

## 3. Medium Risks (Score 4-5)

### RISK-007: Cache Invalidation Complexity 📊

**Category:** Performance  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Caching introduces complexity  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Stale data causes incorrect operations  
**Risk Score:** 4 (P2×I2)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (strategy documented)

**Description:**  
Connection pooling includes caching (Epic 2, Story 2.6). Cache invalidation triggers:
1. Stale connection detection (HTTP 503, timeouts)
2. Health check failures
3. Configuration changes (credentials, host, TLS)
4. Proactive refresh (background validation every 30s)

Risk: Incorrect invalidation causes stale connections, operation failures, or cache thrashing.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 3):**
1. **Clear Invalidation Rules** (Epic 2, Story 2.6)
   - Immediate eviction: HTTP 503, socket errors, auth failures
   - Health-based eviction: 3 consecutive health check failures
   - Configuration change: Flush entire pool on config update
   - Proactive refresh: Background thread validates connections every 30s

2. **Cache Monitoring** (Epic 7)
   - Metric: `connection_pool_evictions_total` (counter, by reason)
   - Metric: `connection_pool_health_score` (gauge: healthy/total)
   - Alert: `connection_pool_health_score <0.90` for 5min (P2)

3. **Integration Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Test: Change RabbitMQ credentials → validate pool flush
   - Test: Simulate connection failure → validate eviction
   - Test: Health check failure → validate eviction after 3 failures

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Zero stale connection errors in production
- ✅ Cache hit ratio >90% (minimal thrashing)
- ✅ Eviction latency <100ms

**References:**
- Epic 2, Story 2.6: Connection Pool with Cache Invalidation Strategy
- Performance Considerations: Production Monitoring Strategy

---

### RISK-008: Horizontal Scaling Load Balancing Misconfiguration 📊

**Category:** Scalability  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Load balancer config often incorrect  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Uneven load, instance failures  
**Risk Score:** 4 (P2×I2)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (documentation + examples)

**Description:**  
Stateless design (ADR-005) enables horizontal scaling. Risk: Incorrect load balancer configuration causes:
- Sticky sessions (unnecessary due to stateless design)
- Incorrect health checks (false positives/negatives)
- Wrong algorithm (round-robin vs least connections)

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 8):**
1. **Comprehensive Load Balancing Documentation** (Epic 8)
   - nginx example configuration (recommended)
   - HAProxy example configuration
   - Cloud provider examples (AWS ALB, GCP, Azure)
   - Health check endpoint specification: `GET /mcp/health`

2. **Load Testing Guidance** (Epic 8)
   - k6 script for load testing
   - Validation steps: 2x peak load, verify even distribution
   - Auto-scaling trigger recommendations (CPU 70%, memory 75%)

**Phase 2 (Production Deployment):**
3. **Reference Deployment Architectures**
   - Terraform modules for cloud deployment
   - Docker Compose for local multi-instance testing
   - Kubernetes Helm chart with HPA

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Load balancing documentation complete
- ✅ Example configurations tested
- ✅ Load testing script provided

**References:**
- Deployment Architecture: Load Balancing Strategy
- ADR-005: Stateless Server Design

---

### RISK-009: OpenAPI Specification Drift 📊

**Category:** Maintainability  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Single source of truth prevents drift  
**Impact:** High (3/3) - Operations fail due to schema mismatch  
**Risk Score:** 3 (P1×I3) → **Escalated to Medium due to impact**  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (ADR-001 + CI validation)

**Description:**  
OpenAPI-driven architecture (ADR-001) generates code from spec. Risk: Manual code changes bypass generation, causing drift between spec and implementation.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 0):**
1. **Build-Time Generation Enforcement** (Epic 1, Story 1.1)
   - Code generation as pre-build step (cannot skip)
   - Generated code in `src/generated/` (git-ignored, ephemeral)
   - Manual edits to generated code flagged in PR reviews

2. **CI Validation Pipeline** (Sprint 0)
   - Step 1: Regenerate code from OpenAPI spec
   - Step 2: Diff against committed code
   - Step 3: Fail if drift detected
   - **Target:** Zero spec drift in main branch

3. **Version Control** (Epic 1)
   - OpenAPI spec versioned in repo
   - Semantic versioning: major.minor.patch
   - Breaking changes require major version bump

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ 100% CI validation pass rate
- ✅ Zero manual edits to generated code
- ✅ OpenAPI spec version tracked

**References:**
- ADR-001: OpenAPI-Driven Code Generation
- Epic 1, Story 1.1: OpenAPI Integration

---

### RISK-010: Test Data Management Complexity 📊

**Category:** Testing  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Test data management is complex  
**Impact:** Low (2/3) - Test flakiness, slow test execution  
**Risk Score:** 4 (P2×I2)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (factories + isolation)

**Description:**  
Integration tests require RabbitMQ test data (queues, exchanges, messages). Risk: Shared test data causes flakiness, slow cleanup, test pollution.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 0):**
1. **Pydantic Factories** (Sprint 0)
   - Factory for each domain model (Queue, Exchange, Binding, Message)
   - Factories generate unique names (UUID suffix)
   - Factories with sensible defaults (reduce boilerplate)

2. **Per-Test Vhost Isolation** (Sprint 0)
   - Each test gets unique vhost: `test_{test_name}_{uuid}`
   - Vhost created in fixture setup, deleted in teardown
   - **Result:** Complete test isolation, parallel-safe

3. **Fixture Auto-Cleanup** (Sprint 0)
   - pytest fixtures with yield pattern
   - Cleanup even on test failure
   - Timeout protection (cleanup after 30s max)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Zero test flakiness due to data pollution
- ✅ Tests executable in parallel (4x speedup)
- ✅ 100% cleanup success rate

**References:**
- Test Design: Controllability Assessment
- Epic 6: Testing Framework

---

### RISK-011: Logging Performance Overhead 📊

**Category:** Performance  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - structlog is optimized  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - High overhead degrades throughput  
**Risk Score:** 2 (P1×I2) → **Escalated to Medium for completeness**  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (async logging + testing)

**Description:**  
Structured logging (FR-014) has performance requirement: <5ms overhead per operation. Risk: Excessive logging degrades system throughput (FR-012: 1000 msg/min target).

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 7):**
1. **Async Logging** (Epic 7)
   - Logs written to in-memory queue
   - Background thread flushes to disk
   - Buffer saturation blocks writes (zero log loss)

2. **Performance Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Benchmark: Log 1000 operations/sec → measure overhead
   - Target: <5ms p95 overhead
   - Validate throughput: 1000 msg/min with logging enabled

3. **Log Level Configuration** (Epic 7)
   - Production default: INFO (minimal overhead)
   - Debug logging on-demand (via API or env var)
   - Sampling: Log 1/10 requests under high load

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ <5ms p95 logging overhead
- ✅ 1000 msg/min throughput maintained
- ✅ Zero log loss under normal load

**References:**
- FR-014: Structured Logging
- FR-016: Logging Performance

---

### RISK-012: OpenTelemetry Integration Complexity 📊

**Category:** Observability  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Well-documented library  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Missing traces hinder debugging  
**Risk Score:** 2 (P1×I2) → **Escalated to Medium for completeness**  
**Status:** 🟡 Accepted for MVP (basic instrumentation), 🔵 Enhanced in Phase 2

**Description:**  
OpenTelemetry instrumentation (FR-019) requires trace propagation across all operations. Risk: Missing spans cause incomplete traces, hindering production debugging.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 7):**
1. **Basic Instrumentation** (Epic 7)
   - Automatic instrumentation for httpx (RabbitMQ HTTP calls)
   - Manual spans for MCP tool operations
   - Correlation ID propagation in logs
   - **Target:** 95% of operations have complete traces

2. **Testing & Validation** (Epic 6)
   - Integration test: Validate trace completeness
   - Load test: Validate trace performance overhead <1%
   - Jaeger UI validation: Spot-check traces

**Phase 2 (Observability Enhancements):**
3. **Advanced Tracing**
   - Distributed tracing across multiple instances
   - Trace sampling (1/100 under high load)
   - Custom metrics (business-level metrics, not just technical)

**Success Criteria (MVP):**
- ✅ 95% of operations have complete traces
- ✅ <1% performance overhead
- ✅ Trace export to Jaeger/Tempo successful

**References:**
- FR-019: Observability
- Epic 7: Structured Logging & Observability

---

### RISK-013: RabbitMQ Server Downtime During Operations 📊

**Category:** Reliability  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - Server maintenance/crashes happen  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Operations fail, but auto-reconnect recovers  
**Risk Score:** 4 (P2×I2)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (auto-reconnect + fail-fast)

**Description:**  
RabbitMQ server downtime during operations causes:
- Operation failures (connection lost mid-operation)
- User confusion (unclear error messages)
- Potential data inconsistency (partial topology changes)

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 2):**
1. **Fail-Fast Pattern** (Epic 2, Story 2.5)
   - Connection failures return immediately (no retry per FR-004)
   - Clear error message: "RabbitMQ unreachable. Auto-reconnecting..."
   - User guidance: Retry operation after reconnection

2. **Auto-Reconnection** (Epic 2, Story 2.4)
   - Background reconnection with exponential backoff
   - Connection state exposed via health check
   - User can poll health check before retrying

3. **Transactional Operations** (Epic 3)
   - Topology operations validated before execution
   - Rollback on partial failure (where possible)
   - Idempotent operations (safe to retry)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Clear error messages on connection failure
- ✅ Auto-reconnect successful in <30s
- ✅ Zero data inconsistency on failure

**References:**
- FR-007: Auto-Reconnection
- FR-004: Operation Execution (fail-fast)
- Epic 2: Connection Management

---

### RISK-014: TLS/SSL Certificate Validation Issues 📊

**Category:** Security  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Standard library handles most cases  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Insecure connections or connection failures  
**Risk Score:** 2 (P1×I2) → **Escalated to Medium for completeness**  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (configuration + testing)

**Description:**  
TLS/SSL support (FR-022) requires certificate validation. Risk:
- Self-signed certificates rejected (common in dev environments)
- Certificate expiration causes sudden connection failures
- Incorrect validation allows MITM attacks

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 2):**
1. **Flexible TLS Configuration** (Epic 2, Story 2.1)
   - Flag: `--tls-verify` (default: true, production)
   - Flag: `--tls-ca-cert` (custom CA for self-signed)
   - Flag: `--tls-insecure` (disable verification, dev only)
   - Clear warnings when verification disabled

2. **Certificate Validation Testing** (Epic 6)
   - Test: Valid certificate → connection succeeds
   - Test: Self-signed + CA provided → connection succeeds
   - Test: Expired certificate → connection fails with clear error
   - Test: Wrong hostname → connection fails

3. **Documentation** (Epic 8)
   - TLS configuration examples
   - Self-signed certificate setup guide
   - Production best practices (always verify)

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ TLS verification works with standard certificates
- ✅ Self-signed certificates supported (with CA)
- ✅ Clear error messages on validation failure

**References:**
- FR-022: CLI Interface (TLS/SSL)
- Epic 2: Connection Management

---

## 4. Low Risks (Score ≤3)

### RISK-015: FR Organization Suboptimal ℹ️

**Category:** Documentation  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Organization is functional  
**Impact:** Low (1/3) - Minor impact on readability  
**Risk Score:** 1 (P1×I1)  
**Status:** 🔵 Tracked (low priority)

**Description:**  
FR-005 (AMQP Protocol Operations) interrupts connection management flow (FR-006, FR-007). This is a minor documentation organization issue that doesn't impact implementation.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Optional):**
1. **Reorganize FRs** (if time permits)
   - Group connection management: FR-006, FR-007 (together)
   - Group messaging: FR-005, FR-011, FR-012, FR-013 (together)
   - Maintain backward references in epics

**Phase 2 (Documentation Refresh):**
2. **Comprehensive FR Reorganization**
   - Group by domain: Connection, Topology, Messaging, Observability
   - Add FR dependency graph
   - Update all references in epics

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ FRs grouped by logical domain
- ✅ No broken references

**References:**
- PRD Validation Report: Partial Item #1

---

### RISK-016: Enterprise Integration Guidance Limited ℹ️

**Category:** Documentation  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Phase 2/Vision features  
**Impact:** Medium (2/3) - Limits future extensibility  
**Risk Score:** 2 (P1×I2)  
**Status:** 🔵 Tracked (Phase 2)

**Description:**  
Limited architecture guidance for enterprise integrations (LDAP, SSO, multi-region) deferred to Phase 2/Vision. This could cause rework if not considered in initial design.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 8):**
1. **Add Extensibility Notes** (Epic 8)
   - Architecture section: Plugin system design (future)
   - API versioning strategy (for backward compatibility)
   - Authentication abstraction layer (enables future SSO)

**Phase 2 (Growth Features):**
2. **Enterprise Integration Architecture**
   - LDAP/SSO integration design
   - Multi-region deployment patterns
   - Advanced RBAC model

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Extensibility notes documented
- ✅ No architectural rework required for Phase 2

**References:**
- PRD Validation Report: Partial Item #2

---

### RISK-017: CLI UX Improvements Needed ℹ️

**Category:** User Experience  
**Probability:** Medium (2/3) - UX improvements always needed  
**Impact:** Low (1/3) - Doesn't block functionality  
**Risk Score:** 2 (P2×I1)  
**Status:** 🔵 Tracked (post-MVP)

**Description:**  
CLI interface (FR-022) functional but could improve:
- Command shortcuts (e.g., `rabbitmq-mcp q ls` instead of `rabbitmq-mcp queue list`)
- Interactive mode (REPL for multiple operations)
- Command history and autocomplete

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 5):**
1. **Basic CLI Implementation** (Epic 5)
   - Full command names (clear, unambiguous)
   - Help system with examples
   - Error messages with corrective actions

**Phase 2 (UX Enhancements):**
2. **Advanced CLI Features**
   - Command shortcuts/aliases
   - Interactive mode (REPL)
   - Shell completion (bash/zsh)
   - Command history

**Success Criteria (MVP):**
- ✅ CLI functional with clear help
- ✅ Error messages actionable

**References:**
- FR-022: CLI Interface
- Epic 5: Console Client Interface

---

### RISK-018: Documentation Completeness ℹ️

**Category:** Documentation  
**Probability:** Low (1/3) - Documentation is comprehensive  
**Impact:** Low (1/3) - Minor impact on onboarding  
**Risk Score:** 1 (P1×I1)  
**Status:** 🟢 Mitigated (Epic 8)

**Description:**  
Documentation must cover installation, configuration, usage, troubleshooting. Risk: Incomplete documentation slows user adoption.

**Mitigation Strategy:**

**Phase 1 (MVP - Sprint 8):**
1. **Comprehensive Documentation** (Epic 8)
   - README: Quick start, installation, basic usage
   - Architecture docs: Design decisions, ADRs
   - API docs: Auto-generated from OpenAPI spec
   - Troubleshooting guide: Common issues and solutions
   - Examples: 10+ real-world scenarios

2. **Documentation Testing** (Epic 8)
   - Validate all code examples
   - Test installation instructions on clean machine
   - User testing: 3 external users try documentation

**Success Criteria:**
- ✅ Documentation covers all MVP features
- ✅ All code examples tested and working
- ✅ User testing feedback incorporated

**References:**
- Epic 8: Documentation & Release

---

## 5. Risk Management Process

### 5.1 Risk Review Cadence

| Phase | Frequency | Participants | Outputs |
|-------|-----------|--------------|---------|
| Sprint Planning | Every sprint | PM + Architect + Scrum Master | Updated risk register |
| Sprint Review | Every sprint | Full team | Risk mitigation status |
| Phase Gate | Before each phase | Stakeholders + Team | Go/No-Go decision |
| Production | Weekly | DevOps + PM | Incident review |

### 5.2 Escalation Criteria

| Risk Score | Escalation | Timeline |
|------------|-----------|----------|
| ≥9 (Critical) | Immediate | 1 hour |
| 6-8 (High) | Same day | 24 hours |
| 4-5 (Medium) | Next standup | 48 hours |
| ≤3 (Low) | Sprint review | 1 sprint |

### 5.3 Risk Status Definitions

- 🚨 **Unmitigated**: No mitigation plan, blocks progress
- 🟡 **Mitigated**: Mitigation in progress, not blocking
- 🟢 **Resolved**: Mitigation complete, monitoring ongoing
- 🔵 **Accepted**: Risk accepted, tracked for future
- ⚫ **Closed**: Risk no longer applies

### 5.4 Success Metrics

**Project-Level Risk Metrics:**
- Zero unmitigated critical risks at any phase gate
- <3 unmitigated high risks at sprint boundaries
- 100% risk review completion rate
- <24h mean time to risk mitigation plan

**MVP Success Criteria:**
- All 18 risks have documented mitigation strategies ✅
- Critical risk (RISK-001) test coverage 100%
- High risks (RISK-002 to RISK-006) monitoring operational
- Medium risks tracked and scheduled for remediation

---

## 6. Appendix

### 6.1 Risk Scoring Matrix

| Impact → | Low (1) | Medium (2) | High (3) | Critical (3) |
|----------|---------|------------|----------|--------------|
| **High (3)** | 3 | 6 | 9 | 9 |
| **Medium (2)** | 2 | 4 | 6 | 6 |
| **Low (1)** | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |

**Severity Thresholds:**
- 9: 🚨 Critical - Immediate action required
- 6-8: ⚠️ High - Address within sprint
- 4-5: 📊 Medium - Address within phase
- ≤3: ℹ️ Low - Track and monitor

### 6.2 Related Documents

- **PRD:** `docs-bmad/prd/` (all functional requirements)
- **Architecture:** `docs-bmad/architecture/` (ADRs, tech stack, patterns)
- **Epics:** `docs-bmad/epics/` (96 stories with acceptance criteria)
- **Test Design:** `docs-bmad/test-design-system.md` (testability assessment)
- **Validation Reports:** `docs-bmad/prd/validation-report-*.md`, `docs-bmad/architecture/validation-report-*.md`

### 6.3 Risk Ownership

| Risk Category | Primary Owner | Backup |
|---------------|---------------|--------|
| Reliability | Architect (Winston) | DevOps |
| Performance | Architect (Winston) | QA (Murat) |
| Security | Architect (Winston) | Security Team |
| Scalability | Architect (Winston) | DevOps |
| Testing | QA (Murat) | Architect |
| Documentation | PM (John) | Tech Writer |

---

**Document End**

**Next Steps:**
1. Review this risk register at Sprint Planning
2. Create tracking issues for all High/Critical risks
3. Schedule risk review meetings (weekly during MVP)
4. Update risk status as mitigation progresses

**Sign-Off:**
- ✅ Architect (Winston): Technical risk assessment complete
- ⏳ PM (John): Business risk review pending
- ⏳ QA (Murat): Testing risk validation pending
