Pivotal roles in accounting

Context:
The User is a bookkeeper preparing to reconcile general ledger accounts (typically including cash, bank accounts, prepaid expenses, and accruals) for a defined accounting period. This prompt initiates the workflow by producing a clear scoping brief and an input checklist so that downstream matching and analysis are based on a complete, well-defined dataset. The brief should reflect standard reconciliation practice: tying GL balances to independent sources, isolating timing differences, and surfacing items that may require adjusting entries. Do not perform any matching or analysis yet. User Provides:
- Reconciliation period (start and end dates)
- List of GL accounts in scope and their current ending balances (summary level)
- Entity / business unit name (anonymised label is fine)
- Known events during the period that could affect reconciliation (e.g., new bank account, system migration, large one-off transactions)
- Any prior-period unresolved reconciling items carried forward (brief description)
- Approval thresholds or materiality guidance, if known Ask:
Produce a structured reconciliation scoping brief that (1) restates the scope and objectives, (2) lists the exact source documents and extracts required for each in-scope account, (3) identifies likely risk areas and reconciling-item categories to look for, (4) flags missing inputs or ambiguous assumptions, and (5) proposes a sequencing order for reconciling the accounts. Return Format:
1. Scope Summary (period, accounts, entity, materiality)
2. Source Document Checklist, table with columns: Account | Required Document | Source Type (bank, vendor, schedule, GL extract, prior workpaper) | Status placeholder
3. Risk Areas & Expected Reconciling Items, bullets per account
4. Open Questions / Assumptions to Confirm, numbered list
5. Proposed Reconciliation Sequence, ordered list with rationale Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Be specific to the accounts named; avoid generic checklists
- Explicitly mark any assumption made due to missing input
- Keep the brief to one page in length

Context:
The User is reconciling one or more bank accounts to the general ledger for the period defined in the validated scoping brief. This prompt performs the core matching exercise: tying bank statement activity to GL cash entries, isolating timing differences (outstanding cheques, deposits in transit, unposted bank fees/interest), and flagging unmatched or suspicious items. Output must support drafting adjusting entries and a reconciliation workpaper. User Provides:
- Validated scoping brief and checklist from Loop 1
- Bank statement transaction extract for the period (date, description, amount, debit/credit), anonymised if needed
- GL cash account transaction extract for the period (date, description, amount, debit/credit)
- Opening and closing balances per bank and per GL
- Prior-period outstanding items still expected to clear Ask:
Match bank transactions to GL entries one-to-one or many-to-one where appropriate. Identify and classify every unmatched item. Compute the reconciled balance and the variance to GL. Propose adjusting journal entries for items that are GL-side corrections, and list bank-side items as outstanding without entries. Return Format:
1. Reconciliation Summary Table, Opening Balance (Bank) | + Deposits | − Withdrawals | Closing Balance (Bank) | Closing Balance (GL) | Variance
2. Matched Items, count and total value (no need to list)
3. Unmatched / Reconciling Items Table, Item | Date | Amount | Side (Bank/GL) | Classification (Timing, Error, Omission, Unknown) | Proposed Action
4. Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries, Dr/Cr lines with account, amount, and one-line narrative
5. Items Requiring User Investigation, bullet list with reason Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Do not invent transactions; mark uncertain matches as 'Unknown'
- Preserve original amounts and signs
- Flag any item above the materiality threshold from Loop 1

Context:
The User is reconciling prepaid expense and accrual accounts to their supporting schedules and computing period movements. This prompt compares schedule balances to GL, calculates amortisation or accrual for the period, and drafts adjusting entries. Output should align with the scoping brief and feed the final reconciliation package. User Provides:
- Validated scoping brief from Loop 1
- Prepaid expense schedule (item, vendor, total cost, start date, end date, monthly amortisation, remaining balance)
- Accrual schedule (item, basis, expected amount, period covered)
- GL ending balances for each prepaid and accrual account
- Any new prepaids added or accruals released during the period Ask:
For each schedule line, compute the expected period amortisation or accrual movement, compare the schedule's ending balance to the GL balance, identify variances, and draft adjusting journal entries to align the GL. Return Format:
1. Prepaid Reconciliation Table, Item | Opening | + Additions | − Amortisation | Expected Closing | GL Closing | Variance | Notes
2. Accrual Reconciliation Table, Item | Opening | + New Accrual | − Release/Payment | Expected Closing | GL Closing | Variance | Notes
3. Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries, Dr/Cr lines per variance
4. Items Requiring User Judgement, e.g., contract changes, partial-period items
5. Confirmation of totals tying to GL after proposed entries Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Show calculation logic for any non-trivial amortisation
- Do not propose entries below the materiality threshold unless flagged as required
- Mark estimates clearly

Context:
The User has completed account-level reconciliations and now needs a packaged summary suitable for management/approver review and audit-trail filing. This prompt converts validated workpapers into a clean, structured summary with variance explanations and a list of entries requiring approval. User Provides:
- Validated reconciliation tables from Loop 2 (bank, prepaid, accrual)
- Final list of proposed adjusting journal entries
- Any unresolved items with planned next steps
- Approver name/role and approval thresholds
- Filing location / workpaper reference convention Ask:
Draft a reconciliation summary memo for the approver, including an executive overview, account-by-account variance commentary, a consolidated list of adjusting entries requiring approval, unresolved items with owners and due dates, and a workpaper index for filing. Return Format:
1. Executive Overview (3–5 sentences: period, accounts reconciled, overall status, total adjustments)
2. Account-by-Account Summary, table: Account | GL Balance | Reconciled Balance | Adjustments Posted | Status (Clean / Adjusted / Open)
3. Variance Explanations, short paragraph per material variance
4. Adjusting Entries for Approval, table: Entry # | Account(s) | Dr | Cr | Narrative | Reason
5. Unresolved Items & Next Steps, Item | Owner | Target Resolution Date
6. Workpaper Index, list of files/references for filing Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Neutral, factual tone suitable for an approver
- No new analysis introduced; only synthesise validated inputs
- Highlight any item above materiality threshold

Context:
The User is preparing an accounts payable batch for processing. This prompt structures the incoming invoice population into a normalised queue with extracted key fields, flags missing information, and confirms the coding and approval rules that will govern the rest of the workflow. No payments or postings are made in this loop. User Provides:
- Batch identifier and cut-off date
- List of invoices received with available fields (vendor name, invoice number, date, amount, currency, due date, PO reference, description), anonymised if needed
- Known special cases (rush payments, disputes, new vendors, credit memos)
- Current chart-of-accounts categories typically used for AP coding
- Approval matrix (threshold tiers and approvers, by role)
- Vendor master snapshot or list of known vendors Ask:
Normalise the invoice list into a standard queue, identify duplicates and likely matches to existing vendors, flag invoices with missing or inconsistent fields, and produce a checklist of items needing User attention before verification begins. Return Format:
1. Normalised Invoice Queue, table: Line# | Vendor | Invoice# | Date | Due Date | Amount | Currency | PO Ref | Description | Vendor Match Status | Flags
2. Duplicates / Possible Duplicates, list with rationale
3. Missing Field Report, Line# | Missing/Inconsistent Field | Suggested Action
4. Special Cases Identified, list with handling note
5. Confirmed Coding & Approval Rules, short restatement
6. Open Questions for User, numbered list Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Do not assign GL codes yet
- Mark any inferred field as 'inferred' and show source
- Preserve original amounts and currencies

Context:
The User needs to verify invoices against POs and receiving reports, propose GL coding, and route for approval. This prompt performs the matching, suggests codes based on description and prior patterns, and assigns approval tiers using the confirmed matrix. User Provides:
- Validated invoice queue from Loop 1
- PO extract: PO# | Vendor | Line items | Quantity | Unit Price | Total
- Receiving report extract: PO# | Quantity Received | Date
- Chart of accounts (relevant subset)
- Approval matrix from Loop 1
- Recent historical coding examples (vendor → account), if available Ask:
For each invoice, perform a three-way match (invoice vs PO vs receiving), propose a GL code with rationale, calculate any variance, assign the approval tier, and flag exceptions. Return Format:
1. Matched Invoices Table, Line# | Vendor | Invoice# | Amount | PO# | Match Status (Full/Partial/None) | Proposed GL Code | Coding Rationale | Approval Tier | Notes
2. Exceptions Table, Line# | Issue Type (Price variance, Qty variance, No PO, No Receipt, Duplicate) | Detail | Suggested Resolution
3. Approval Routing Summary, Approver | # of invoices | Total value
4. Items Requiring User Decision, bullets Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Tolerance for variance: apply User-confirmed threshold; default to flagging anything >2% or above absolute threshold
- Mark inferred coding clearly
- Do not approve on behalf of approvers

Context:
After approvals are obtained, the User needs a payment batch and corresponding journal entries. This prompt builds the payment schedule by method and due date and drafts the AP journal postings. User Provides:
- Approved invoice list from previous prompt (with approval status confirmed)
- Available payment methods per vendor (ACH, cheque, credit card)
- Cash position / payment run constraints (e.g., max batch value)
- Early payment discount terms where applicable
- Currency and FX rate guidance if multi-currency Ask:
Group approved invoices into a payment batch optimised for due date and method, identify any early-payment-discount opportunities, draft the AP and cash journal entries, and produce a payment instruction list. Return Format:
1. Payment Batch Table, Payment# | Vendor | Method | Amount | Currency | Due Date | Discount Captured (Y/N) | Invoice Refs
2. Discount Opportunities, list with savings and required pay-by date
3. Draft Journal Entries, for invoice booking and for payment, with Dr/Cr lines and narratives
4. Batch Totals, by method and by currency
5. Items Held / Excluded, with reason Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Do not execute payments; produce instructions only
- Show calculation for any discount
- Highlight any payment exceeding cash-position constraint

Context:
The User needs to reconcile the AP subledger to vendor statements, generate an AP aging report, and produce a concise management report for the period. This prompt synthesises validated batch outputs into a reviewer-ready deliverable. User Provides:
- Posted AP subledger balances by vendor (period-end)
- Vendor statements for major vendors (vendor, statement balance, open items)
- Aging buckets policy (e.g., Current, 1–30, 31–60, 61–90, 90+)
- Period totals: invoices processed, payments made, discounts captured, exceptions
- Any unresolved disputes or held items
- Audience and tone for the management report Ask:
Reconcile each major vendor balance to its statement, classify discrepancies, generate the AP aging summary, and draft a management report with KPIs, risks, and recommendations. Return Format:
1. Vendor Reconciliation Table, Vendor | Subledger Balance | Statement Balance | Variance | Likely Cause | Action
2. AP Aging Summary, by bucket, with totals and top vendors per bucket
3. Period KPIs, invoices processed, on-time payment %, discounts captured, exceptions count, average days to pay
4. Risks & Watch Items, bullet list (e.g., concentration, overdue critical vendors)
5. Management Report Draft, short narrative (executive summary + key call-outs)
6. Filing Index, workpaper and document references Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Reconcile to the cent for major vendors; summarise the long tail
- Recommendations should be non-decisional and clearly labelled
- Keep narrative concise and audience-appropriate

Context:
This prompt supports a Financial Controller preparing the day's accounting operations across AP, AR, payroll, reconciliations, and tax compliance. The objective is to convert a raw snapshot of inbound items into a prioritised run-sheet that identifies exceptions, missing inputs, and decision points before any processing begins. This is the framing step, no transactions are processed here. The output will be consumed by a downstream execution loop. User Provides:
- Date and accounting period stage (e.g., mid-month, pre-close).
- AP snapshot: count of new vendor bills, total value band, any flagged duplicates or missing POs.
- AR snapshot: new customer invoices to issue, overdue invoices in each aging bucket, disputed items.
- Payroll status: cycle stage (data collection / calculation / approval / disbursement), known exceptions (new hires, terminations, variable pay).
- Bank and reconciliation status: unreconciled items count, age, bank feed health.
- Tax and remittance deadlines falling within the next 5 business days.
- Known stakeholder issues or pending approvals.
- Standing thresholds (e.g., payment approval limits, materiality for variance flags). Ask:
Structure the inputs into a prioritised daily run-sheet. Identify which items are routine, which are exceptions requiring judgement, and which are blocked pending missing inputs or approvals. Surface any deadline conflicts and propose a sequencing of work. Return Format:
1. Priority Run-Sheet (table): Item | Category (AP/AR/Payroll/Recon/Tax) | Routine vs Exception | Owner needed | Deadline | Suggested order.
2. Exceptions Requiring Judgement (bullets with brief rationale).
3. Missing Inputs / Blockers (bullets with who to chase).
4. Deadline Conflicts or Risks (bullets).
5. Open Questions for the User (numbered). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Do not assume access to live systems; reason only from inputs provided.
- Flag any item where information is insufficient rather than guessing.
- Keep exception rationale to one or two sentences.

Context:
This prompt processes vendor bills and customer invoices flagged in the validated daily run-sheet. The objective is to validate each item against standing rules (PO match, tax codes, duplicate check, approval thresholds), propose GL coding, and isolate discrepancies for review. Routine items should be cleared for execution; exceptions should be analysed with recommended next steps. User Provides:
- Validated run-sheet from Loop 1 (relevant AP/AR section).
- Line-level details for each item: vendor/customer, amount, currency, date, reference, PO/contract reference, supporting document type.
- Chart of accounts extract (relevant codes and descriptions).
- Standing rules: approval thresholds, tax code mapping, duplicate detection criteria.
- Known disputes or aging issues for AR items. Ask:
For each item, validate completeness, propose GL coding and tax treatment, flag potential duplicates or PO mismatches, and recommend whether to (a) clear for execution, (b) hold for missing info, or (c) escalate as a discrepancy. For each discrepancy, provide a short root-cause hypothesis and proposed resolution path. Return Format:
Table: Item Ref | Counterparty | Amount | Proposed GL/Tax Coding | Validation Result | Recommendation (Clear / Hold / Escalate) | Notes.
Below the table: Discrepancy Analysis section with one paragraph per escalated item (root cause hypothesis, resolution path, who to involve). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Never recommend Clear when any required field is missing or ambiguous.
- Coding suggestions must reference the provided chart of accounts.
- Keep notes terse and decision-oriented.

Context:
This prompt supports review of payroll calculations, account reconciliations, and tax liability positions identified in the validated run-sheet. The objective is to detect calculation errors, reconciling differences, and tax exposure issues, and to recommend adjusting actions. No postings are executed here, the output drives User decisions and downstream entries. User Provides:
- Validated run-sheet from Loop 1 (payroll, reconciliation, and tax sections).
- Payroll summary: gross pay, withholdings, employer contributions, period-over-period delta, exception list.
- Reconciliation inputs: account, GL balance, subledger or bank balance, unreconciled items with age and description.
- Tax inputs: liability accruals, remittance amounts due, prior period comparatives, filing deadlines.
- Materiality thresholds and standing tolerance levels. Ask:
For payroll, identify outliers vs prior period and validate withholding logic against provided rates. For reconciliations, classify each unreconciled item (timing, error, missing entry, fraud risk) and propose clearing entries where applicable. For tax positions, verify liability accruals against remittance amounts and flag any shortfall or over-accrual. Return Format:
1. Payroll Review: table of variances above threshold | likely cause | recommended action.
2. Reconciliation Findings: per-account table, Account | Difference | Classification | Proposed Entry or Action | Confidence.
3. Tax Position Review: table, Tax type | Liability | Remittance due | Variance | Recommendation.
4. Items Requiring Escalation: bullet list with rationale. Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Distinguish clearly between high-confidence findings and hypotheses requiring User verification.
- Do not propose entries above the User's stated approval threshold without flagging them for escalation.
- Surface any pattern suggesting a control weakness.

Context:
This prompt produces the end-of-day operations summary for finance leadership. The audience is the CFO and senior finance leaders who need a fast read on what was processed, what exceptions arose, what was decided, and what remains outstanding. The tone is concise, factual, and decision-oriented. User Provides:
- Validated outputs from Loop 2 (AP/AR processing list, payroll findings, reconciliation findings, tax review, escalation list).
- Post-execution updates: payments released, receipts applied, entries posted, escalations resolved or still open.
- Any leadership-specific context (e.g., upcoming board meeting, cash position sensitivity).
- Preferred report length and format. Ask:
Draft a daily operations report that summarises throughput, highlights material variances and exceptions, captures decisions made, and lists open items with owners and deadlines. Return Format:
1. Headline (2–3 sentences): state of operations today.
2. Throughput Snapshot (table): AP processed, AR issued, payroll status, reconciliations cleared, tax remittances.
3. Material Variances and Exceptions (bullets with amounts and brief explanation).
4. Decisions Made Today (bullets).
5. Open Items and Escalations (table: Item | Owner | Deadline | Status).
6. Watch List for Tomorrow (bullets). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Lead with what leadership needs to act on, not what was routine.
- Quantify exceptions wherever amounts are available.
- Keep the full report to one page when printed.

Context:
This prompt initiates the financial statement preparation cycle. The objective is to define reporting scope, list and validate required data inputs, and establish an audit coordination plan. This is a framing step, no statements are drafted here. User Provides:
- Reporting period and entity/consolidation scope.
- Applicable accounting framework and any new standards effective this period.
- List of source systems and owners (general ledger, subledgers, treasury, payroll).
- Comparative periods required.
- External audit firm and known audit timeline / milestones.
- Prior-period audit findings, management letter points, or restatements.
- Known accounting judgement areas (e.g., revenue recognition, impairment, leases). Ask:
Produce a data inventory and validation checklist, an audit coordination plan with milestones and PBC (Prepared-By-Client) categories, and a risk map highlighting judgement areas and prior-period concerns to address proactively. Return Format:
1. Data Inventory (table): Data Item | Source | Owner | Format | Validation Check | Due Date.
2. Reporting Basis Confirmation (bullets): framework, scope, key policy elections, new standards applicable.
3. Audit Coordination Plan (table): Milestone | Date | Auditor Lead | Client Lead | Deliverables.
4. Risk Map (table): Area | Risk | Driver | Planned Response.
5. Open Questions for the User (numbered). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Be explicit about any scope ambiguity.
- Tie each data item to an owner and a validation check.
- Surface new-standard impacts even if not yet quantified.

Context:
This prompt validates the financial data assembled for statement preparation. The objective is to confirm internal consistency across the trial balance, reconciliations, intercompany schedules, and comparatives, and to surface any anomalies before drafting statements. User Provides:
- Validated artefacts from Loop 1 (data inventory, reporting basis, risk map).
- Trial balance summary by entity and consolidated.
- Reconciliation status by account.
- Intercompany matrix (counterparty balances and eliminations).
- Comparative period balances.
- Known one-off transactions and their treatment. Ask:
Check that trial balances tie to reconciliations, intercompany balances eliminate cleanly, comparatives align with prior published figures, and unusual movements vs comparatives are flagged. Identify data issues that must be resolved before drafting. Return Format:
1. Tie-Out Status (table): Check | Result (Pass/Fail/Review) | Difference | Notes.
2. Intercompany Elimination Analysis (table): Pair | Reported by A | Reported by B | Difference | Action.
3. Comparative Consistency Check (table): Line | Prior Published | Current System | Difference | Explanation Needed.
4. Unusual Movements (bullets with amounts).
5. Blockers Requiring Resolution Before Drafting (numbered). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Do not proceed to drafting if material blockers remain.
- Quantify all differences.
- Distinguish data errors from real economic movements.

Context:
This prompt drafts the financial statements and notes once data has been validated. The objective is to produce a complete, framework-compliant draft suitable for management review and audit. User Provides:
- Validated outputs from the data validation prompt.
- Adjusted trial balance and consolidated figures.
- Statement and note templates / prior-period statements as reference.
- Applicable framework and policy notes.
- List of required disclosures including any new-standard impacts.
- Material events, transactions, and judgements to disclose. Ask:
Draft the primary statements (income statement, balance sheet, cash flow, equity movement) and all required notes, applying the framework consistently. Draft new or updated disclosures for material events and new standards. Identify gaps requiring User input. Return Format:
1. Primary Statements (formatted drafts with comparatives).
2. Notes to the Statements (numbered, framework-compliant, with cross-references).
3. New / Updated Disclosures (list with rationale and draft text).
4. Drafting Gaps and Judgement Calls (numbered, for User decision).
5. Cross-Reference Map (table): Statement Line | Supporting Note | Workpaper Reference. Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Apply the stated framework consistently; do not mix frameworks.
- Flag rather than fabricate any number or disclosure not supported by inputs.
- Keep language consistent with the prior-period statements unless a change is justified.

Context:
This prompt drafts responses to auditor queries during fieldwork. The objective is to produce clear, evidence-backed responses that minimise back-and-forth and document a defensible position. User Provides:
- Validated artefacts from prior steps (drafts, validation results, risk map).
- Auditor query text and context.
- Relevant supporting evidence (summary or excerpt) and workpaper references.
- Management position on any judgement involved. Ask:
Draft a structured response that restates the query, sets out the management position, references supporting evidence, and identifies any open items needing further work. Flag any query suggesting a potential audit adjustment. Return Format:
1. Query Restatement.
2. Management Position (with framework reference where applicable).
3. Supporting Evidence References.
4. Open Items / Further Work Needed.
5. Potential Adjustment Flag (Yes/No with reasoning). Constraints / Quality Bar:
- Be precise and non-defensive in tone.
- Cite only evidence the User has confirmed exists.
- Surface any query that could lead to a material adjustment.

Context:
This prompt integrates final audit adjustments and produces the final statement package for approval, filing, and distribution. User Provides:
- Validated drafts and audit query log from Loop 2.
- Final list of agreed audit adjustments (and any passed adjustments memo).
- Approval requirements (management, audit committee, board).
- Regulatory filing requirements and formats.
- Distribution list (internal and external) with channels. Ask:
Apply audit adjustments to the drafts, recompute affected lines and disclosures, produce the final statement package, draft a board/audit-committee memo summarising results and key judgements, prepare a passed adjustments summary, and produce a filing and distribution plan. Return Format:
1. Final Statements (revised with audit adjustments applied; change log vs prior draft).
2. Audit Adjustments Applied (table): Adjustment | Dr/Cr | Amount | Reason | Source.
3. Passed Adjustments Summary (table with materiality rationale).
4. Board / Audit Committee Memo (1–2 pages): Period Results | Key Judgements | Audit Outcome | Recommended Approvals.
5. Filing and Distribution Plan (table): Recipient/Filing | Format | Owner | Deadline | Status.
6. Sign-off Routing (table): Approver | Scope | Deadline. Constraints / Quality Bar:
- The change log must reconcile every difference vs the prior draft.
- Passed adjustments rationale must reference materiality explicitly.
- Filing outputs must match required formats; flag any format uncertainties.

Context
The User is the primary point of contact for a tax client and needs a structured account profile that captures the client's entities, deliverables, deadlines, contacts, and service expectations. This prompt exists to convert scattered engagement context into a single working profile that anchors all subsequent client interactions. User Provides
- Client name / type and entity structure summary: [CLIENT SUMMARY]
- Engagement letter scope and fee arrangement summary: [ENGAGEMENT SCOPE]
- Prior-year deliverables and notable issues: [PRIOR-YEAR HIGHLIGHTS]
- Known upcoming deadlines and deliverables: [DEADLINES]
- Key client contacts and their roles: [CONTACTS]
- Communication preferences and sensitivities: [PREFERENCES] Ask
Build a complete client account profile and service map that captures scope, contacts, deliverables, deadlines, recurring touchpoints, and known risk areas. Identify any ambiguities in scope or gaps in expectations. Return Format
1. Client Snapshot (entities, jurisdictions, fiscal calendar)
2. Service & Deliverable Map (table: Deliverable | Frequency | Owner | Next Due Date)
3. Contact Directory (table: Name | Role | Topics | Preferred Channel)
4. Recurring Touchpoints (cadence and agenda themes)
5. Known Risk & Watch Areas (positions, prior issues, sensitive topics)
6. Scope Ambiguities & Clarifications Needed Constraints / Quality Bar
- Stay within the engagement scope provided; do not invent services.
- Flag assumptions explicitly.

Context
The User needs to assemble and validate client information (financial statements, prior returns, supporting documents) required to advance the account. This prompt produces an intake checklist and validation plan so that incomplete or inconsistent data is surfaced early. User Provides
- Validated client account profile from prior prompt: [ACCOUNT PROFILE]
- Documents already received (sanitised summaries): [DOCUMENTS RECEIVED]
- Current open client requests or questions: [OPEN REQUESTS] Ask
Cross-reference received documents against the service map, list missing items, propose reconciliation checks (e.g., financials vs. prior return, payroll vs. GL, K-1 ties), and draft a client outreach plan to close gaps. Return Format
1. Document Coverage Matrix (Required | Received | Status | Notes)
2. Validation & Reconciliation Checks to Run
3. Gap-Closure Outreach Plan (priority, recipient, suggested message theme)
4. Readiness Assessment for next deliverable(s) Constraints / Quality Bar
- Do not infer figures; mark missing items clearly.
- Group asks to the client efficiently to limit back-and-forth.

Context
The User has received client financials and supporting documents and needs a structured review for completeness, internal consistency, and reasonableness before drafting deliverables. This prompt produces a findings log and clarifying questions list. User Provides
- Loop 1 artefacts (account profile, intake matrix): [LOOP 1 ARTEFACTS]
- Financials summary (TB, P&L, BS, key roll-forwards): [FINANCIALS]
- Supporting items (payroll summary, debt schedule, fixed assets, etc.): [SUPPORTING]
- Prior-year comparatives: [PRIOR-YEAR DATA] Ask
Perform reconciliations and reasonableness checks (intercompany ties, TB-to-financials, P&L variance vs. prior year, balance sheet roll-forwards, payroll-to-GL). Flag discrepancies, anomalies, and items requiring client clarification. Return Format
1. Reconciliation Results (table: Check | Expected | Actual | Variance | Status)
2. Variance & Anomaly Findings (with hypothesis and recommended action)
3. Clarification Questions for Client (grouped, numbered)
4. Items Ready to Advance to Drafting Constraints / Quality Bar
- Cite the specific schedule or line for each finding.
- Do not assume causes for variances; suggest hypotheses to verify.

Context
The User is preparing the in-scope client deliverable(s) (e.g., tax return, advisory memo, planning summary, response to notice). This prompt generates a structured draft grounded in validated data, with assumptions and workpaper references. User Provides
- Validated financials and resolved discrepancies: [VALIDATED INPUTS]
- Deliverable type and audience: [DELIVERABLE TYPE]
- Applicable tax/accounting treatments to apply: [TREATMENTS]
- Client-specific positions or preferences from prior years: [HISTORICAL POSITIONS] Ask
Draft the deliverable with clear structure, applied treatments, key computations, assumptions, and workpaper references. Highlight areas requiring User judgement before client release. Return Format
1. Draft Deliverable (structured per type)
2. Key Computations & Assumptions
3. Workpaper Reference Index
4. Reviewer Watch-Items (areas needing User judgement)
5. Open Questions to Resolve Before Client Review Constraints / Quality Bar
- Cite authority for any tax treatment applied.
- Keep assumptions visible and easy to amend.

Context
The User has shared a draft deliverable with the client and received questions or revision requests. This prompt structures responses, identifies which changes are accepted, and documents impacts on the deliverable. User Provides
- Current draft deliverable: [CURRENT DRAFT]
- Client questions and revision requests (sanitised): [CLIENT FEEDBACK]
- Constraints (technical, regulatory, fee/scope): [CONSTRAINTS] Ask
For each client item, propose a response, indicate whether it should be accepted/declined/clarified, describe the resulting change to the deliverable, and flag any items that require User judgement or escalation. Return Format
1. Response Matrix (table: Client Item | Proposed Response | Disposition | Deliverable Impact | Judgement Required?)
2. Updated Sections of Deliverable (drafted)
3. Items to Escalate or Discuss Live with Client Constraints / Quality Bar
- Maintain professional, neutral tone.
- Do not concede technical positions without authority-backed rationale.

Context
The User is ready to finalize the deliverable, secure approvals, file/submit as required, and archive workpapers. This prompt produces the closeout package, client communication, filing checklist, and archive index, without introducing new technical positions. User Provides
- Final deliverable and resolved client feedback: [FINAL DELIVERABLE]
- Filing/submission requirements (channels, authorities, signatures): [FILING REQS]
- Client communication preferences and tone: [TONE / PREFERENCES]
- Workpapers and supporting documents to archive: [WORKPAPER INDEX] Ask
Produce (1) a final client delivery message and summary, (2) a filing/submission checklist with owners and confirmations, (3) an archive index of workpapers, and (4) a forward-looking follow-up list for the next engagement cycle. Return Format
1. Final Client Message (concise, professional, action-oriented)
2. Executive Summary of Deliverable (key results, decisions, next steps)
3. Filing & Submission Checklist (table: Item | Owner | Status | Confirmation)
4. Workpaper Archive Index (table: Document | Location | Retention Note)
5. Forward Follow-Up List (planning items, next deadlines, account growth opportunities) Constraints / Quality Bar
- Match the client's preferred tone.
- Do not introduce new positions or analysis not already in the deliverable.

Context
The User is a Tax Manager developing planning strategies for a client. Before research and modeling begin, a structured planning brief is needed that captures objectives, constraints, current tax posture, and the scope of strategies to consider. This prompt exists to align the work and prevent premature jumping to recommendations. User Provides
- Client entity structure and ownership summary: [STRUCTURE]
- Current financial and tax posture (recent results, ETR, key positions): [POSTURE]
- Planning objectives and any savings target or constraint: [OBJECTIVES]
- Contemplated transactions or life events (M&A, succession, exits, relocations): [EVENTS]
- Risk appetite and reputational considerations: [RISK APPETITE]
- Timeline and decision deadlines: [TIMELINE] Ask
Build a planning brief that (1) restates objectives in measurable terms, (2) maps the current tax baseline, (3) identifies candidate strategy themes worth researching, (4) lists assumptions and constraints, and (5) defines success criteria for any recommendation. Return Format
1. Objectives (measurable, prioritized)
2. Current Tax Baseline (entities, ETR, key positions, carryovers)
3. Candidate Strategy Themes (with brief rationale, not yet researched in depth)
4. Assumptions & Constraints
5. Success Criteria & Decision Inputs
6. Open Questions Before Research Constraints / Quality Bar
- Do not commit to specific strategies yet; only theme-level candidates.
- Distinguish facts from assumptions explicitly.

Context
The User has a planning brief and now needs a precise list of inputs and authorities required to research and model the candidate strategy themes. This prompt produces an input checklist and research scoping plan. User Provides
- Validated planning brief from prior prompt: [PLANNING BRIEF]
- Documents and data already available (summaries): [AVAILABLE INPUTS]
- Jurisdictions in scope: [JURISDICTIONS] Ask
For each candidate strategy theme, list (a) the client inputs required, (b) the authorities and guidance to consult, and (c) the modeling variables needed. Identify what is missing and propose how to obtain it. Return Format
1. Per-Theme Input Checklist (table: Theme | Client Inputs | Authorities | Modeling Variables | Status)
2. Cross-Theme Common Inputs
3. Missing Items & How to Obtain Them
4. Research Scoping Plan (sequence, depth, time estimate) Constraints / Quality Bar
- Keep checklists specific; avoid generic 'tax law' references.
- Flag any theme that is not viable to research due to missing critical inputs.

Context
The User needs grounded research on each candidate strategy theme, with authorities cited and current guidance reflected. This prompt produces a research memo per theme that supports or rules out the theme. User Provides
- Planning brief and input checklist from Loop 1: [LOOP 1 ARTEFACTS]
- Themes to research (selected from candidates): [THEMES]
- Jurisdictions and relevant client positions: [CONTEXT] Ask
For each theme, produce a research memo covering applicable Code sections, regulations, rulings, and recent guidance; eligibility requirements; documentation requirements; common pitfalls; and a preliminary go/no-go view with rationale. Return Format
For each theme:
1. Theme & Hypothesis
2. Authorities & Guidance (with citations)
3. Eligibility & Requirements
4. Documentation Requirements
5. Common Pitfalls & Audit Risk Areas
6. Preliminary Go / No-Go / Needs-More-Info with rationale Constraints / Quality Bar
- Cite specific authority; flag when guidance is unclear or unsettled.
- Note where state/local rules diverge from federal.

Context
The User has research memos and needs quantitative scenario modeling for the viable strategies. This prompt produces structured scenario models and a comparative evaluation across savings, cashflow, complexity, and risk. User Provides
- Research memos from prior prompt: [RESEARCH MEMOS]
- Baseline financial and tax projections: [BASELINE]
- Strategy-specific modeling assumptions (rates, timing, elections): [ASSUMPTIONS]
- Time horizon for evaluation: [HORIZON] Ask
For each viable strategy, build a scenario model showing baseline vs. strategy outcomes (tax, cashflow, ETR, basis, carryovers) over the horizon. Then produce a comparative table evaluating strategies on savings, cashflow timing, implementation complexity, compliance burden, audit risk, and reversibility. Return Format
1. Per-Strategy Scenario Model (table: Year | Baseline | Strategy | Delta, for tax, cashflow, ETR)
2. Key Drivers & Sensitivities
3. Comparative Evaluation Matrix (Strategy | Savings | Cashflow Timing | Complexity | Compliance Burden | Audit Risk | Reversibility)
4. Recommended Short List with rationale
5. Assumptions Used (visible and editable) Constraints / Quality Bar
- Make assumptions explicit and editable.
- Show sensitivities for assumptions that materially move outcomes.
- Do not present results without uncertainty acknowledgement.

Context
The User has short-listed strategies, models, and a comparative evaluation. This prompt produces a client-facing recommendation memo with an implementation roadmap and a monitoring plan, calibrated to the client's risk appetite and decision style. User Provides
- Loop 2 artefacts (research, models, comparative matrix): [LOOP 2 ARTEFACTS]
- Client decision style and risk appetite: [CLIENT PROFILE]
- Internal and external resources available for implementation: [RESOURCES]
- Required documentation and reporting requirements: [DOC REQS] Ask
Produce (1) a prioritized recommendation memo with rationale, quantified impact, and risks, (2) an implementation roadmap with phases, owners, milestones, and dependencies, (3) a documentation checklist, and (4) a post-implementation monitoring plan with review triggers. Return Format
1. Executive Summary (recommendations and expected impact)
2. Prioritized Recommendations (table: Strategy | Priority | Estimated Savings | Key Risks | Decision Needed)
3. Implementation Roadmap (phases, owners, milestones, dependencies)
4. Documentation & Compliance Checklist
5. Monitoring Plan (KPIs, review cadence, triggers for revisiting strategy)
6. Open Questions / Decisions Required from Client Constraints / Quality Bar
- Keep the executive summary concise; detail goes into appendices.
- Tie every recommendation to authority and to the model output.
- Be explicit about decisions the client must make and by when.