Cross-audit comparing an employee roster against employment eligibility verification records to identify compliance gaps at the individual employee level, with employee-specific documentation, timing, and reverification analysis.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill compare-i --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Compare I?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-compare-i)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: compare-i9-roster-audit
task_id: immigration/compare-i
description: Cross-audit comparing an employee roster against employment eligibility verification records to identify compliance gaps at the individual employee level, with employee-specific documentation, timing, and reverification analysis.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Compare I-9 Records Against Employee Roster
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Agents collapse the audit into a general compliance narrative and fail to tie each gap to a specific employee identifier, hire date, and record status, making remediation non-operational.
- Agents identify missing or late records without showing the date logic that makes the defect verifiable from the source set.
- Agents flag expired authorization only as a category and omit the affected employees, the record status, and whether reverification occurred.
- Agents miss the distinction between ordinary reverification failures and improper reverification of permanent resident documentation, which can trigger a separate anti-discrimination concern.
- Agents treat roster-to-record mismatches as a document review instead of a reconciliation exercise across the full employee population.
- Agents omit a severity hierarchy, leaving the report unable to prioritize remediation.
- Agents give findings without concrete next steps, deadline anchors, or accountable roles.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Employment eligibility verification is required for each covered employee using the prescribed form and acceptable-document framework; a missing or incomplete record is a substantive compliance gap. Cite the governing employment eligibility verification rules by name when characterizing the defect.
- Section 2 must be completed by the employer within the third business day after the employee’s first day of work; weekends and federal holidays are excluded when counting business days.
- Temporary work authorization documents carry expiration dates; where the underlying authorization expires, the employer must complete reverification on time using the proper follow-up mechanism.
- Lawful permanent resident status does not expire when the physical card expires; requesting reverification solely because the card expired is improper and may implicate anti-discrimination rules under the federal employment verification regime.
- The roster and the verification log must be reconciled as complementary source sets: the roster shows who is employed and when they started, and the record log shows whether a compliant verification file exists.
- A deficiency should be framed by its regulatory consequence, not just by its paperwork status: missing records, late completion, unverifiable status, and improper reverification have different compliance implications and remediation paths.
- When a legal proposition is stated, anchor it to the controlling authority or standard that supports it rather than using unsupported conclusory labels.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
1. **Roster-to-record reconciliation**
- Build a complete employee-by-employee match between the roster and the verification log.
- Enumerate every employee on the roster before analysis so no person is implicitly omitted.
- For each employee, determine whether a record exists, whether it is complete, and whether the record status matches the roster status.
2. **Timing analysis**
- For each record with a completion date, compare the hire date to the employer-completion date.
- Count business days only, using the source calendar rules if provided; otherwise, apply the standard business-day convention.
- State the elapsed timing in the finding so the defect can be independently checked.
3. **Expiration and reverification analysis**
- For each employee with expiring authorization, identify the expiration date and whether a reverification entry exists.
- Flag any expired authorization with no follow-up action as a separate defect from late initial completion.
- If the source set includes a later date tied to follow-up review, confirm it lines up with the expiration event.
4. **Permanent resident reverification screen**
- Isolate any employee whose documentation reflects permanent resident status.
- Check whether the record shows reverification triggered by card expiration alone.
- Treat that as a distinct concern and do not merge it into ordinary document-expiration findings.
5. **Section completeness and document validity**
- Check for a signed and dated attestation, consistent status selection, and a permissible document combination where the source log provides enough information to assess it.
- Do not infer compliance from a partially completed entry.
6. **Issue closure discipline**
- Each finding should close with: the scale or timing detail that makes it measurable, the source-set cross-reference that shows why it matters, and the downstream operational or regulatory consequence.
- If a finding cannot be measured from the source set, say what is missing instead of overstating certainty.
7. **Aggregation after employee-level review**
- After the employee-level table is complete, group findings by deficiency type for the summary.
- Keep the aggregate summary secondary to the employee-specific analysis.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Use hire date, first day of work, record completion date, and expiration date as distinct temporal anchors; do not conflate them.
- Treat the roster as the population baseline and the verification log as the compliance evidence set; mismatches arise from comparing those two vertically related records.
- Where the source set contains multiple employees with the same defect type, keep each employee in a separate row before aggregating by category.
- Preserve chronology in the report: hire event, initial verification, expiration, reverification, and current status should appear in that order when available.
- If only one employee or one defect class is actually present, state that affirmatively; do not imply a broader sample than the source set supports.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Open with a brief methodology note that states the roster and record log were reconciled employee by employee.
- Define an ordinal severity scale once at the top and apply it uniformly to every finding.
- Use an employee-level findings table with columns for employee identifier, hire date, record status, deficiency type, relevant dates, severity, and concise consequence.
- For each finding, include the date logic or status logic, the controlling compliance rule or standard, and a short explanation of impact.
- Separate ordinary verification defects from any permanent resident reverification concern.
- Follow the employee-level table with an aggregate summary by deficiency type.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that assigns each step to a role and ties it to an immediate or otherwise concrete timing anchor.
- Keep remediation specific to the defect type: create missing records, correct late completion notation, complete reverification, or isolate and escalate any improper permanent resident reverification issue.
- If the source set does not support a particular conclusion, say so explicitly rather than filling the gap with assumptions.
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!