Tighten payables so the company pays the right vendor, once, with evidence. Use when the user mentions accounts payable, duplicate payment, AP control, vendor payments, or asks for a payables control review. Accounting skill by Yasir Jilani.
Scanned 9/30/2026
npx -y skills add SYasJ/claude-business-skills --skill accounts-payable-control --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Accounts Payable Control?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/syasj-accounts-payable-control)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.
---
name: accounts-payable-control
description: "Tighten payables so the company pays the right vendor, once, with evidence. Use when the user mentions accounts payable, duplicate payment, AP control, vendor payments, or asks for a payables control review. Accounting skill by Yasir Jilani."
license: MIT
compatibility: Agent Skills standard. No network access, extra packages, or credentials required.
metadata:
author: Yasir Jilani
version: "1.0.0"
domain: accounting
---
<!-- GENERATED FILE - edits here are overwritten by scripts/generate.py.
Edit the 'accounts-payable-control' entry in source/, then run:
python3 scripts/generate.py && python3 scripts/validate.py
See CONTRIBUTING.md. -->
# Accounts Payable Control
Tighten payables so the company pays the right vendor, once, with evidence.
## When to use this skill
Use this skill when the user:
- accounts payable
- duplicate payment
- AP control
- vendor payments
## When not to use this skill
- The user wants a different domain's specialist skill.
- The task requires a licensed professional to decide, and the user only needs a referral note rather than a draft.
- The request asks you to deceive, evade a control, or hide material facts.
## Professional boundary
This is not an audit opinion, compilation, or tax advice. Do not invent accounting standards. Use the policy, framework, and chart of accounts the organization actually follows.
## Operating boundaries
- Use only information the user provides or files they explicitly ask you to read. Do not invent metrics, laws, citations, prices, credentials, or clinical facts.
- Do not ask for passwords, API keys, tokens, seed phrases, one-time codes, or payment card data.
- Do not send data to an external service, install packages, or add network calls as part of this skill.
- Separate facts, assumptions, and recommendations. If a required input is missing, state the assumption or ask one focused question.
- If the user asks you to deceive a person, evade a control, forge a record, or cause harm, stop. Offer a legitimate alternative.
- Work product that affects money, employment, health, safety, or legal rights is a draft for a qualified human to review before it is used.
## Inputs to collect
- How invoices arrive
- Who can add a vendor
- Approval limits
- Recent duplicate or fraud scares, if any
## Workflow
### 1. Map the path
Invoice, receipt of goods or services, approval, payment. Note where one person can do two of those steps.
### 2. Vendor master
New vendors need evidence the user already requires, plus a second look. Do not ask for or store bank passwords. Do not invent a vendor's bank details.
### 3. Three-way match where it fits
Purchase, receipt, and invoice. Where a match does not fit, say what alternative evidence they use.
### 4. Duplicate test
Same vendor, similar amount, close dates. Recommend a review list, not an automatic accusation.
### 5. Payment run
Who reviews the run before release, and how exceptions are logged.
### 6. Keep evidence
What is retained and for how long, using their retention rule if they have one. Do not invent a legal retention period.
## Output
Deliver a **payables control review**.
- Purpose of this payables control review, in two sentences.
- Facts the user supplied, listed separately from assumptions.
- The work itself, in the structure the workflow names.
- Open questions, risks, and the single next action with an owner.
- What a qualified reviewer still needs to confirm, if the domain is regulated.
## Quality bar
- Every number, date, name, and citation came from the user or is marked as an assumption.
- The artifact can be used without reading this skill again.
- Recommendations are specific enough that someone could accept or reject them.
- Boundaries were respected: no credentials requested, no unsupported professional claim, no deception.
## Example
### Scenario
Priya Shah, controller at Northline Studio in Calgary, needs a payables control review by 30 September 2026. Two similar invoices from the same supplier were paid last quarter.
### Example data
```text
From: Priya Shah, controller
Organization: Northline Studio, Calgary
Date: 14 September 2026
Needed by: 30 September 2026
Two similar invoices from the same supplier were paid last quarter.
How invoices arrive: plain, for people who already know the context. No house guide attached
Who can add a vendor: Priya Shah, controller
Approval limits: Undeposited funds. Partly documented: the what is written down, the who is not
Recent duplicate or fraud scares, if any: Sales tax payable. Partly documented: the what is written down, the who is not
```
### Example outcome
**Payables control review**
To: Priya Shah, controller, Northline Studio
Date: 14 September 2026 · Needed by: 30 September 2026
**Decision**
Separates vendor setup from payment release and proposes a duplicate review list without accusing the supplier.
**What the file supports**
| Input | Value | Status |
| --- | --- | --- |
| How invoices arrive | plain, for people who already know the context. No house guide attached | Needs confirmation |
| Who can add a vendor | Priya Shah, controller | Carried into the draft |
| Approval limits | Undeposited funds. Partly documented: the what is written down, the who is not | Carried into the draft |
| Recent duplicate or fraud scares, if any | Sales tax payable. Partly documented: the what is written down, the who is not | Needs confirmation |
**How this draft was built**
**1. Map the path**
Invoice, receipt of goods or services, approval, payment. Note where one person can do two of those steps.
**2. Vendor master**
New vendors need evidence the user already requires, plus a second look. Do not ask for or store bank passwords. Do not invent a vendor's bank details.
**3. Three-way match where it fits**
Purchase, receipt, and invoice. Where a match does not fit, say what alternative evidence they use.
**4. Duplicate test**
Same vendor, similar amount, close dates. Recommend a review list, not an automatic accusation.
**5. Payment run**
Who reviews the run before release, and how exceptions are logged.
**Deliberately not done**
- One person adds vendors and releases payments with no second look.
- Calling every duplicate-looking item fraud.
- Requesting banking passwords.
**Open items for a human**
- Confirm every row marked *Needs confirmation* above before this leaves draft.
- Anything absent from the file stayed absent. No figure, date, or name was supplied from outside it.
Next: Priya Shah by 30 September 2026. This is a draft, not a sign-off.
## Anti-patterns
- One person adds vendors and releases payments with no second look.
- Calling every duplicate-looking item fraud.
- Requesting banking passwords.
## Related skills
- `expense-policy`
- `internal-controls-walkthrough`
- `vendor-contract-playbook`
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!