board paper readiness checker
Audit board papers for decision clarity, evidence gaps, and governance readiness before submission.
$5
Works with the AI Agents you already use
Claude Code
Cursor
Codex CLI
Muse
Dots+21 moreClaude CodeCursorCodex CLIMuseDots
Manus
Grok
Grok Bot+18 agentsboard paper readiness checker
Example session with this skill installed
Audit this draft for the 'Project Phoenix' expansion. It proposes $2M for a new warehouse but doesn't list competitors or the specific IRR. Check if it's ready for the board.
- Read your context and instructions
- Compiled the board paper readiness
I have evaluated the draft for Project Phoenix. The paper is currently Not Ready for submission due to significant gaps in financial quantification and competitive analysis.
Board Readiness Audit: Project Phoenix Expansion
Verdict: Not Ready (Score: 4.2/10)
Dimension Score Table
| Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Decision Clarity | 8 | Request for $2M is explicit. |
| Evidence | 3 | Lacks IRR calculations and market data. |
| Options | 2 | No alternatives provided; "Do Nothing" omitted. |
| Costs | 6 | Upfront cost clear; ongoing OpEx is vague. |
| Benefits | 5 | Qualitative benefits listed; missing ROI metrics. |
| Risks | 4 | High-level risks listed without mitigation plans. |
| Dependencies | 5 | Mentions IT integration but lacks timeline. |
| Implementation | 4 | No resource allocation or named owners. |
| Governance | 6 | Approval path defined; regulatory check missing. |
| Ownership | 7 | Accountability sits with COO; explicit. |
Material Gaps & Unsupported Assertions
| Item | Type | Impact | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive Landscape | Gap | High - Board cannot assess market risk | Info Confirmation |
| $2M Cost Assumption | Assertion | High - No breakdown of construction vs. equipment | Drafting Fix |
| IRR/NPV Metrics | Gap | Critical - Required for capital allocation | Info Confirmation |
| Mitigation for Supply Chain | Assertion | Medium - Strategy is mentioned but not detailed | Drafting Fix |
Restructured Skeleton
- Executive Summary: State the $2M request and the core "Why Now".
- The Problem/Opportunity: Detail the warehouse capacity shortage.
- Strategic Options: Compare the $2M expansion against 3PL outsourcing and the Status Quo.
- Financial Analysis: Insert IRR, NPV, and 3-year OpEx projections.
- Risk & Mitigation: Table of Top 5 risks and specific response plans.
- Implementation Roadmap: Phased timeline with monthly milestones.
- Recommendation & Approval: Clear sign-off request for the COO.
Next steps
- Drafting: Use the new skeleton to move the cost assumptions into a structured table.
- Information: Obtain the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) from the finance team.
- Information: Research and cite at least two competitor expansion moves in the same region.
Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.
About this skill
The problem
Board members often reject papers because the request is vague, data is missing, or risks are glossed over. Authors waste time on multiple revision cycles because they lack a systematic way to audit their work against governance standards.
What it does
- Evaluates drafts across ten critical dimensions including decision clarity, evidence, and risk mitigation.
- Identifies material gaps where assertions lack data or external references.
- Calculates a readiness score (0-10) to determine if a paper is fit for submission.
- Generates a restructured skeleton that prioritizes decision-relevant content.
- Separates simple drafting fixes from critical information that requires new data.
Why this beats prompting it yourself
General LLMs tend to be too polite, often missing subtle logical gaps or unsupported claims. This skill applies a rigid diagnostic framework that forces accountability on costs, dependencies, and viable alternatives, ensuring you don't walk into a meeting with an indefensible proposal.
Use cases
- Reviewing internal investment proposals before they reach the executive committee.
- Auditing strategic project updates for compliance with governance frameworks.
- Restructuring rambling drafts into concise, decision-focused board submissions.
- Identifying missing data points in business cases early in the drafting process.
Does not perform external fact-checking or verify the truth of provided data. Limited to evaluating the logical structure and completeness of the provided text.
How to use
- 1
Connect your agent to the Agensi MCP
Copy the prompt and paste it into Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor or any agent that supports MCP. It sets up the connection for you. Manual setup
- 2
Sign in to Agensi
Your agent shows a sign-in link. Sign in and click Allow.
- 3
Ask for what you need
Your agent loads this skill and uses it on your task. It always asks before any payment.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill goes through the trust checks below.
Security scanned
Checked by our 8-point scan before listing
Fresh listing
Recently published to Agensi
Money-back guarantee
Doesn't do what its page promises? You get your money back.
Trust & safety
Security scan
Security scan passed 2 months ago
Permissions
No special permissions declared or detected