Learn Hardcore Spanish (Spain): Mi tutora dice que todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro. - My advisor says that every risk ought to have a clear limit.

In schools, tutora is the teacher who is responsible for a class or group (like a form tutor or homeroom teacher), or the teacher who oversees your progress.
In universities, tutora can be your academic advisor or thesis supervisor.
A private tutor who comes to your house or gives you extra lessons is usually called profesor particular, not tutor.

So mi tutora here is more like my (academic) advisor / form tutor / supervising teacher, depending on context, not necessarily a private tutor you pay for extra classes.

Why do we need que in mi tutora dice que…?

In Spanish, when you report what someone says indirectly, you almost always use que to introduce the reported clause.

Direct speech (with the exact words):
- Mi tutora dice: “Todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.”
Reported / indirect speech:
- Mi tutora dice que todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.

In the indirect version, que is a conjunction that links dice to the clause todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.
Leaving out que in this structure (Mi tutora dice todo riesgo debería…) is incorrect.

Why isn’t there a subjunctive after dice que? Shouldn’t it be something like tenga?

The verb after dice que does not automatically go into the subjunctive. It depends on the meaning of decir in that sentence:

If decir que means to say / state that, you normally use indicative (or, as here, a conditional structure):
- Mi tutora dice que todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.
  → She is stating an opinion.
If decir que is used as to tell someone to do something (an order or instruction), you use the subjunctive:
- Mi tutora dice que hagamos los ejercicios.
  → My tutor tells us to do the exercises.

In the original sentence, debería de tener is a fixed structure (deber + infinitive), so you cannot change tener to tenga. The whole chunk debería de tener functions as the verb of the subordinate clause, and there’s no reason for the subjunctive here.

Why is it debería and not debe?

Both are possible, but they have different nuances:

debe tener un límite claro
→ strong obligation, more categorical: must / has to have a clear limit
It sounds firmer, more like a rule or requirement.
debería (de) tener un límite claro
→ weaker, more like a recommendation or moral judgement: should / ought to have a clear limit
It sounds less imposing and more like giving advice or expressing an opinion.

In everyday Spanish, the conditional debería is very common when you want to sound polite or not too forceful, just like should in English.

What is the difference between debería de tener and debería tener?

Traditionally, grammar books make this distinction:

deber + infinitive → obligation / duty
- Todo riesgo debería tener un límite claro.
  → Every risk should have a clear limit.
deber de + infinitive → probability / supposition
- Debe de ser tarde.
  → It must be / is probably late.

However, in real modern Spanish (especially in Spain):

Many speakers use deber de even when they clearly mean obligation, not probability.
So debería de tener is very common and widely accepted in the sense of should have.

The RAE says that the distinction is recommended (use deber for obligation, deber de mainly for probability), but also recognizes that in actual usage the two forms often overlap.

For a learner:

If you want to be “safe” and a bit more formal, use:
- deber + infinitive for obligation (debería tener),
- deber de + infinitive mainly for probability (debe de ser...).
In everyday Peninsular Spanish, you will hear both, and debería de tener with the meaning should have is normal.

Why is it todo riesgo and not todo el riesgo or cada riesgo?

Each option has a slightly different meaning:

todo riesgo (no article, singular)
- Typical pattern: todo + singular noun = every X / any X of that type, in general.
- Todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.
  → Every risk in general should have a clear limit.
todo el riesgo
- Means the whole (of) the risk or all the risk – referring to one specific risk.
- Todo el riesgo recae sobre ti.
  → All the risk falls on you.
cada riesgo
- Emphasizes each risk separately, one by one: each risk.
- Cada riesgo debería tener su límite claro.
  → Each risk should have its clear limit.

In the original sentence, the idea is a general rule about risks as a concept, so todo riesgo (generic, no article) is the most natural.

Why is riesgo singular and not riesgos?

Spanish often uses a generic singular to talk about things in general:

Todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.
→ refers to the idea of any / every risk, not to one specific risk.
You could also say:
Todos los riesgos deberían de tener un límite claro.
That is correct but feels a bit more concrete, as if you have a set of risks in mind.

So:

todo riesgo (singular) = generic, more abstract rule.
todos los riesgos (plural) = focuses more on all the individual instances.

Both are grammatical; the singular here sounds more like a general principle.

Could I say un claro límite instead of un límite claro?

In normal, neutral Spanish, adjectives like claro usually go after the noun:

un límite claro = a clear limit (neutral, standard word order)

You can put some adjectives before the noun, but this often:

sounds more literary or emphatic, or
slightly changes the nuance.

un claro límite would be understood, but it is:

less common,
more stylistic or rhetorical (emphasizing claro in a more subjective way, almost like an obvious / very clear limit).

In everyday speech and standard writing, un límite claro is the natural choice here.

Could the subject mi tutora be omitted, like just Dice que todo riesgo…?

Yes, but only if the context already makes it clear who is speaking.

Spanish can drop subject pronouns and even noun subjects when they are understood from context. For example, in a conversation where you are already talking about your tutor:

Ayer hablé con mi tutora. Dice que todo riesgo debería de tener un límite claro.
→ Yesterday I spoke with my tutor. She says that every risk should have a clear limit.

Here, dice is clearly referring to mi tutora mentioned in the previous sentence, so you can omit mi tutora in the second sentence.

In an isolated sentence, though, you need Mi tutora dice que… so the listener knows who is saying it.