Skip to content This library is free, offered as dana. If it helps your work, donate here →
penguin tree ai
← back to libraryDonate here

This is one of 3,622 free prompts in the penguin tree ai library. Sign up once and the whole library opens, with new prompts by email.

open the library →

Ethical sourcing compliance tracker

Transforms a raw supplier list and audit data into a portfolio-level compliance status table showing audit dates, findings severity, corrective action plan (CAP) status, risk tier, and next audit due dates — plus a…

download .md

Purpose

Turn scattered audit records into a single portfolio-level compliance dashboard — showing every supplier's audit status, findings severity, CAP progress, and next audit due date — so compliance managers can see risk across the whole supply base at a glance and know exactly which suppliers to act on first.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when the user asks to:

  • Build a supplier compliance status summary or dashboard
  • Track corrective action plan (CAP) status across suppliers
  • Prepare a compliance report for leadership, buyers, or a brand's sustainability team
  • Identify which suppliers are overdue for audit or re-audit
  • Flag high-risk suppliers based on findings severity
  • Consolidate audit data from multiple facilities into one monitoring view

Inputs Required

Before starting, collect:

  • Supplier list: Names/IDs of facilities to track, and location/country if available
  • Audit data: For each supplier — audit type (e.g., SMETA, SLCP, BSCI, WRAP, internal), last audit date, and findings
  • Findings detail: Non-conformances by category and severity (critical/major/minor or Zero-Tolerance/high/medium/low)
  • CAP status: Whether a corrective action plan exists and its current state (open, in progress, verified/closed)
  • Audit cycle policy: Required re-audit frequency by risk tier (e.g., annual, biannual) — or use the default below
  • Escalation thresholds: What triggers escalation (e.g., any Zero-Tolerance finding, CAP overdue by 30+ days)
  • Reporting date: The "as of" date for the snapshot

If audit cycle policy is missing, default to: high-risk = every 6 months, medium-risk = every 12 months, low-risk = every 18 months. If severity scales differ across audit standards, normalize to a Critical / Major / Minor scale and note the mapping.

Instructions

Step 1: Normalize and Validate the Data

Standardize inputs before building the table:

  • Map each supplier's audit standard-specific findings to a common scale: Zero-Tolerance/Critical, Major, Minor
  • Flag any supplier with missing critical fields (no audit date, no findings, no CAP status) as Data Gap — do not silently drop them
  • Confirm audit dates are real dates; flag placeholders or "unknown" as Unverified

Step 2: Assign Risk Tier

Classify each supplier into High / Medium / Low risk using:

  • High: Any open Zero-Tolerance/Critical finding, OR audit older than the required cycle, OR CAP overdue
  • Medium: Open Major findings with a CAP in progress, OR audit within cycle but approaching due date
  • Low: Only Minor findings or all findings verified closed, audit current
  • Country/sourcing-geography risk may bump a supplier up one tier where relevant

Step 3: Calculate CAP Status and Next Audit Due Date

For each supplier:

  • CAP status: Not Required / Open / In Progress / Verified-Closed / Overdue (overdue = past agreed remediation deadline)
  • Next audit due date: Last audit date + cycle interval for that risk tier
  • Days to next audit: Difference between reporting date and next audit due date (negative = overdue)

Step 4: Build the Compliance Status Table

Produce the master table (see Output Format) with one row per supplier, sorted by risk tier (High → Low), then by days-overdue.

Step 5: Build the Escalation List

Extract the subset of suppliers requiring immediate action:

  • Any Zero-Tolerance/Critical finding open
  • Any CAP overdue
  • Any audit overdue by 30+ days
  • Any Data Gap on a previously high-risk supplier For each, state the trigger and the single recommended next action.

Step 6: Build the Remediation Follow-Up Schedule

List suppliers with open or in-progress CAPs, sorted by remediation deadline, with the next check-in date and owner-action to prompt (e.g., "request CAP evidence," "schedule verification visit").

Step 7: Portfolio Summary

Write a short rollup: total suppliers, count by risk tier, count with open Critical findings, count overdue for audit, and CAP closure rate (verified-closed ÷ total CAPs).

Output Format

  • Structure: Portfolio summary → master compliance status table → escalation list → remediation follow-up schedule
  • Length: Table-driven; supporting prose kept to 300–500 words total
  • Format: Markdown tables for the master table, escalation list, and follow-up schedule; brief prose for the summary
  • Sections:
  • Portfolio Summary (bullet rollup with counts and CAP closure rate)
  • Compliance Status Table — columns: Supplier | Country | Audit Standard | Last Audit Date | Findings (Critical/Major/Minor counts) | CAP Status | Risk Tier | Next Audit Due | Days to Next Audit
  • Escalation List — Supplier | Trigger | Recommended Next Action
  • Remediation Follow-Up Schedule — Supplier | Open CAP Items | Remediation Deadline | Next Check-In | Action to Prompt
  • Tone: Compliance operations — precise, factual, no editorializing; findings and status only, action items direct

Quality Checklist

Before delivering output, verify:

  • [ ] Every supplier from the input list appears in the master table (count them against the input)
  • [ ] Findings are normalized to a single Critical/Major/Minor scale with the mapping noted if standards differed
  • [ ] Every row has a Risk Tier and a Next Audit Due date (or is explicitly flagged as Data Gap / Unverified)
  • [ ] Days to Next Audit is calculated relative to the stated reporting date, with overdue shown as negative
  • [ ] Escalation list contains only suppliers meeting a defined trigger — each with a stated trigger
  • [ ] CAP closure rate in the summary matches the CAP statuses in the master table

Notes

  • The most common real-world failure is silent data gaps — a supplier with no recent audit that never surfaces. Always flag missing data rather than excluding the supplier.
  • Zero-Tolerance findings (child labor, forced labor, life-safety) should never be buried in a Major count — surface them separately in both the table and escalation list.
  • When multiple audit standards are in play, keep the original standard visible in the table so buyers and auditors can trace findings back to source.
  • Recommended cadence: regenerate this snapshot monthly, and always before a leadership or buyer compliance review.

How to use this skill

This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.

Installing in Claude Code:

  • ~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)
  • <your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md — auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)

Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.

Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:

  1. Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
  2. Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits

For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills