Full deviation report comparing an executed supplier agreement against the approved template, with risk ratings and remediation paths, incorporating supplier profile and delegation-of-authority context.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill compare-executed-supply-agreement-against-approved-template --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Compare Executed Supply Agreement Against Approved Template?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-compare-executed-supply-agreement-against-approved)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: compare-executed-supply-agreement-template
task_id: intellectual-property/compare-executed-supply-agreement-against-approved-template
description: Full deviation report comparing an executed supplier agreement against the approved template, with risk ratings and remediation paths, incorporating supplier profile and delegation-of-authority context.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Compare Executed Supply Agreement Against Approved Template
## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable)
- Confirm the document set before analysis: executed agreement, approved template, and any supporting approval, policy, exhibit, or playbook materials.
- Identify whether one executed agreement or multiple versions are in scope; if more than one, enumerate each version first and analyze them separately.
- Treat the executed contract as the operative text, but test each departure against the approved template and the governing approval framework before assigning significance.
- If the source set includes supplier-profile materials, integrate them into the deviation assessment rather than treating them as background only.
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Treating the executed agreement as automatically authoritative without checking whether departures from the template were within delegated signing authority.
- Splitting commercial deviations from operational deviations, which obscures the combined risk picture.
- Ignoring supplier-specific context when ranking deviation severity.
- Describing deviations without distinguishing between those that are already fixed in the executed contract and those that remain amendable by later agreement.
- Reporting differences without tying each one to an approval basis, source interaction, and business consequence.
- Providing a narrative summary without a clear severity ranking and action path for each issue.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- The approved template and any internal approval or delegation framework together define the baseline against which deviations are judged.
- A deviation is material when it alters economics, risk allocation, liability structure, compliance obligations, operational controls, or other protections the template was designed to preserve.
- Delegated authority limits matter: a signatory may bind the business only within the scope of the authority actually granted by the relevant internal framework.
- Supplier risk profile affects materiality: the same deviation can be more or less significant depending on counterparty criticality, financial strength, performance history, compliance posture, and strategic dependence.
- Remediation is usually prospective: an amendment can correct or clarify many issues, but retroactive fixes to accrued liability, indemnity, or already-triggered obligations are often limited.
- Use the controlling authority stated in the source set when present; otherwise cite the applicable internal approval policy, contract governance rule, or generally recognized contract-review principle by name.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Template-to-executed comparison: compare each provision, exhibit, schedule, and defined term against the approved baseline and classify the result as unchanged, minor variation, material deviation, missing, or added.
- Authority review: for each material deviation, test whether the signatory or approver had authority to accept it under the relevant approval framework.
- Source interaction review: check whether a deviation is explained, limited, or contradicted by a supporting document, policy, email approval, exhibit, or incorporated term.
- Risk synthesis: assess each deviation through the combined lens of economics, liability, compliance, and operations, then adjust for supplier-specific context.
- Remediation analysis: identify whether the issue can be cured by amendment, side letter, waiver, internal ratification, operational workaround, or no practical cure.
- Issue-closing discipline: for every deviation, anchor the analysis to a figure, term, threshold, duration, volume, or other measurable source point; then cross-reference the interacting document or clause; then state the downstream consequence for the client.
- Severity discipline: assign every issue a single ordinal severity level using a stated scale, and keep the scale consistent across the report.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable)
- Track hierarchy in the document stack: template, special terms, exhibits, order forms, approvals, and supporting materials may override, supplement, or narrow one another.
- Distinguish pre-signature issues from post-signature remediation. A defect in approval may require internal ratification even if the contract remains effective.
- Distinguish evergreen obligations from time-bound commitments, and flag any deviation that accelerates, extends, or removes a deadline, notice period, renewal point, or cure period.
- Where the source set contains multiple counterparties, affiliate references, or incorporated documents, evaluate whether the deviation changes which entity is bound or protected.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce a deviation report in conventional advisory form, not a clause-by-clause commentary dump.
- Start with a short executive summary that states the overall risk posture, the most important deviations, and whether remediation is likely feasible.
- Define the severity scale once near the top and use it uniformly, such as Critical / High / Medium / Low.
- For each deviation, include:
- template provision or baseline position
- executed language or observed change
- deviation description
- authorization / approval status
- severity rating
- remediation path
- concise rationale
- Make the report self-contained and plain-text legible; do not rely on formatting alone for any required distinction.
- Where the task is a comparison or markup-adjacent analysis, make each substantive change legible in text as well as in structure.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that gives imperative next steps, names the responsible role, and ties each action to a timing anchor or business milestone from the source set.
- Include a priority ranking or risk matrix only if it helps distinguish which deviations require immediate escalation.
- Confirm in the finished work that the primary deliverable file is the deviation report and that it is complete enough to stand on its own for business and legal review.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!