Purpose
Turn raw ESG data and program details into disclosure-ready narrative prose that reads as credible to investors and regulators — aligned to TCFD/CSRD structural expectations, grounded in specific metrics, and screened for greenwashing language before delivery. Solves the gap between the sustainability team's data and a narrative the IR and comms teams can publish without legal or reputational risk.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Draft narrative sections for an annual report, sustainability report, or ESG report
- Translate raw emissions, diversity, or governance metrics into publishable prose
- Write TCFD-aligned climate risk or governance narrative
- Prepare CSRD/ESRS-style double-materiality or impact narrative
- Rewrite existing sustainability copy to reduce greenwashing exposure
- Build investor-facing ESG messaging that connects strategy to reported figures
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Report type & audience: Investor-grade (10-K/annual/IR) or public-facing (sustainability report/website), and primary reader
- Disclosure framework: TCFD, CSRD/ESRS, GRI, SASB, or a combination
- ESG data inputs: The raw metrics — Scope 1/2/3 emissions, energy, diversity, safety, governance figures, with base/comparison years
- Programs & commitments: Active initiatives, targets, and time-bound commitments (e.g., net-zero by 2040, SBTi status)
- Governance context: Who oversees ESG (board committee, C-suite roles), how risks are managed
- Prior-year narrative (optional): Last cycle's language to maintain continuity and show progress
- Known constraints: Metrics that regressed, targets missed, or areas legal has flagged
If the disclosure framework is unspecified, default to TCFD for climate content and note that CSRD double-materiality structure can be layered in on request.
Instructions
Step 1: Classify the Narrative and Set the Register
Determine the required tone and rigor based on report type:
- Investor-grade: Precise, conservative, forward-looking-statement-safe. Every claim tied to a reported figure or a stated methodology. No aspirational language without a target and timeline.
- Public-facing: Accessible but still evidence-backed. May include human/story elements, but no claim survives without data behind it.
Confirm the framework's structural expectations before drafting (see Step 2).
Step 2: Map Content to Framework Structure
Organize the narrative to the required disclosure architecture:
TCFD (four pillars)
- Governance: Board and management oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities
- Strategy: Climate risks/opportunities over short, medium, long term; scenario resilience
- Risk Management: How climate risks are identified, assessed, integrated into enterprise risk
- Metrics & Targets: Scope 1/2/3, targets, methodology, base year
CSRD/ESRS
- Lead with double materiality: impact materiality (company on world) and financial materiality (world on company)
- Structure per relevant ESRS topical standards; include policies, actions, targets, and metrics per topic
- Connect each material topic to strategy and value chain
GRI/SASB: Map disclosures to the material topics and required metrics; narrate management approach per topic.
Step 3: Convert Data to Substantiated Claims
For each metric, build the claim in this pattern:
- Figure + comparison: State the number with its base or prior-year comparison and the percentage change
- Context: Why it moved — a program, methodology change, or business factor
- Methodology tag: Reference the standard used (GHG Protocol, market vs. location-based) so the claim is auditable
- Never present a favorable trend without stating the base year and boundary
Step 4: Apply the Greenwashing Screen
Every sentence must pass these filters:
- Vague-term ban: Replace "green," "eco-friendly," "sustainable," "clean" as standalone descriptors — require a defined, measurable basis
- Unqualified superlatives: No "leading," "best-in-class," "world-first" without third-party verification cited
- Aspiration vs. achievement separation: Clearly distinguish "we have reduced" (past, measured) from "we aim to reduce" (target, dated). Never blur the two
- Selective framing check: If a metric regressed, disclose it — do not narrate only the wins
- Offset transparency: If claims rely on offsets or renewable certificates, state so explicitly; do not present them as direct reductions
- Scope completeness: Flag when Scope 3 is excluded or estimated so the reader understands boundary
Step 5: Handle Weak Spots and Missed Targets
For regressions or missed commitments:
- State the fact plainly, then the cause, then the corrective action and revised timeline
- Frame as governance in action, not as failure — regulators and analysts read candor as credibility
- Never omit a flagged constraint from Step 1 inputs
Step 6: Draft and Integrate Forward-Looking Language
- Pair every target with a base year, target year, and interim milestone where available
- Where investor-grade, keep forward-looking statements qualified and defensible
- Connect commitments back to governance (who is accountable) and strategy (why it matters to the business)
Output Format
- Structure: Framework-aligned sections with clear headers matching the chosen disclosure architecture
- Length: 1,000–1,600 words for a multi-section narrative; scalable per section on request
- Format: Publication-ready prose with subheadings; data claims rendered inline with comparisons and methodology tags
- Sections: Executive framing → framework-mapped body sections (e.g., Governance / Strategy / Risk Management / Metrics & Targets for TCFD) → forward-looking commitments
- Tone: Measured, evidence-led, and credible to a skeptical analyst — confident without hyperbole, candid about gaps
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every quantitative claim includes a base/comparison year and directional change
- [ ] No banned vague terms ("green," "eco-friendly," "sustainable") appear as unqualified descriptors
- [ ] Achievements (past, measured) and aspirations (dated targets) are grammatically and structurally separated
- [ ] All sections required by the chosen framework are present and correctly labeled
- [ ] Any regression or missed target flagged in inputs is disclosed, not omitted
- [ ] Offset-dependent or Scope-3-estimated claims are explicitly qualified
Notes
- Investor and regulator credibility comes from candor about gaps — narratives that only report wins read as greenwashing to sophisticated readers
- For CSRD, the double-materiality assessment must precede topic narratives; if the materiality analysis hasn't been done, flag this as a prerequisite rather than inventing material topics
- Keep the boundary (organizational and operational) consistent across all metrics in a single report — inconsistent boundaries are a common audit finding
- When prior-year language is provided, preserve terminology continuity so year-over-year comparisons read cleanly
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:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- 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