Review Supplied Completion Criteria

The problem

Project closure often stalls because completion criteria are buried across mismatched contracts, statements of work, and email threads. Humans struggle to reconcile inconsistent performance thresholds, missing test evidence, and unclear sign-off authority before final payment or handover.

What it does

• Extracts and decomposes completion criteria from supplied contracts, SOWs, and change orders.
• Identifies documented conflicts between different source versions regarding scope, dates, and performance targets.
• Generates a gap register highlighting missing evidence, unassigned owners, and unsupported closure claims.
• Produces draft completion matrices and human validation plans to guide final sign-off.
• Flag items reported as finished but lacking verifiable evidence in the provided materials.

Frameworks & tools

Works with PDF, text, and image exports of legal contracts, test protocols, punch lists, and project schedules. Use it with Read tools to process multi-document closure packages.

Why this beats prompting it yourself

General prompts often hallucinate completion or miss subtle version conflicts between a 2022 contract and a 2024 change order. This skill enforces a strict evidence-based review logic that prevents premature sign-off by labeling unverified claims as Reported, not evidenced.

Use cases

• Reviewing supplier deliverables against multi-part statements of work.
• Preparing implementation handover packages for operational teams.
• Reconciling corrective-action reports with customer specifications.
• Drafting completion matrices for milestone-based financial releases.

Known limitations

It cannot independently access ERP or CRM systems, inspect physical equipment, or execute live tests. It only analyzes the materials you supply or authorize it to read.