# Auditing Commitments > Audits a US Federal proposal draft for the obligations it creates, and flags promises stronger than the solicitation requires. Use when the user needs a commitment audit, a promise review, an obligation review, a check for overcommitting, a review of "we will" and "shall" language, a check that the draft does not guarantee more than the RFP asked for, or a review of AI-generated proposal content before it goes out. Produces a commitment register mapping every promise to the requirement behind it, with the delta priced and the unsupported promises listed. - Skill: `danielkinneyspears/auditing-commitments` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add danielkinneyspears/auditing-commitments` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/danielkinneyspears/auditing-commitments/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: danielkinneyspears (https://skillmd.com/u/danielkinneyspears) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/danielkinneyspears/auditing-commitments --- # Auditing Commitments A proposal is a binding offer. Every "we will", "we shall", "we guarantee" and "we ensure" is a candidate obligation, and if it survives into the contract the offeror performs it at its own cost for the life of the award — sometimes with the proposal incorporated wholesale by reference. Overcommitting is not a writing problem, it is a margin problem that surfaces in month three of performance. This skill inventories every promise in a draft, maps each one to the requirement that justifies it, and prices the difference where the promise is stronger than the requirement. ## When to use this skill Use this skill after drafting and before the Red Team, on any volume that makes performance commitments. Run it again on any section rewritten during review recovery. Run it always on **AI-generated or AI-assisted draft content**. Generated proposal prose overcommits substantially more than human prose, and it does so in one direction: fluent future-tense verbs read as confidence, so a model optimising for confident prose accumulates obligations. The draft sounds strong and the delta is invisible until award. Distinguish it from adjacent skills: - `checking-submission-compliance` asks whether the proposal will be *accepted*. This skill asks what the proposal *obligates you to do*. - `reviewing-color-teams` asks whether the proposal is persuasive and scoreable. This skill is indifferent to persuasion; a beautifully written unbounded guarantee is exactly what it exists to catch. - `shredding-solicitations` establishes what was required. This skill depends on that output and does not re-derive it. ## Inputs **Required:** - The draft under audit — one volume, one section, or the full package. - `10-compliance-matrix.md`, for the authoritative list of requirements. **Preferred upstream artifacts:** - `08-solution-design.md`: to test whether each promise is actually staffed and funded as written. - `16-cost-narrative.md`: to test cost-technical consistency on any promise with a price consequence. - `05-win-strategy.md`: to distinguish a deliberate, funded differentiator from an accident. Read `../../shared/glossary.md`, `../../shared/federal-solicitation-primer.md`, and `../../shared/pursuit-workspace.md` if not already read this session. ## Intake Ask these as a numbered list. 1. **Scope.** Which volumes or sections are in scope, and is the draft final or still moving? 2. **Provenance.** Which parts were drafted by a person and which by a tool? Name the tool if known. This changes where to look hardest, not whether to audit. 3. **Delivery reality.** Who will perform this work after award, and have they read the draft? An unread promise is an unverified one. 4. **Incorporation risk.** Does the solicitation state that the proposal will be incorporated into the resulting contract, in whole or in part? Quote the language if present. 5. **Known stretch.** Is there any commitment the team already knows is ambitious? Start there. ## Workflow ``` Commitment Audit: - [ ] Step 1: Extract every candidate obligation - [ ] Step 2: Classify each one - [ ] Step 3: Map each to its requirement - [ ] Step 4: Price the delta where the promise is stronger - [ ] Step 5: Test supportability against the solution and cost volumes - [ ] Step 6: Test measurability and stated conditions - [ ] Step 7: Write the commitment register (19-commitment-audit.md) ``` **Step 1: Extract.** Read the draft for verbs, not for argument. Mark every `will`, `shall`, `guarantee`, `ensure`, `maintain`, `provide`, `deliver`, `commit`, `warrant`, `achieve` and `exceed`, plus every number attached to one. Run `scripts/scan_commitments.py ` first for a deterministic pass, then read for what a regex cannot catch: promises made in the present tense, promises implied by a graphic or a table, and promises buried in a resume or a past performance write-up. **Step 2: Classify.** Sort each hit into one of four kinds, using `references/commitment-patterns.md`: - **Obligation** — a performance promise with a measurable outcome. - **Absolute** — `100%`, `zero`, `never`, `always`, `24/7`, `no downtime`. These are uninsurable by construction; one ordinary bad day is a documented failure. - **Number** — a figure with a unit, a percentage or a currency attached. - **Filler** — `strive`, `endeavor`, `best effort`, `world-class`. No metric, no obligation, no score, and it is consuming page count in a page-limited volume. **Step 3: Map.** For each obligation, absolute and number, find the requirement it answers and quote that requirement verbatim from the compliance matrix. If no requirement exists, record `NONE FOUND` — do not infer one. Then record whether the promise is *weaker than*, *equal to*, or *stronger than* the requirement. **Step 4: Price the delta.** For every promise stronger than its requirement, state what the difference costs to perform over the full period of performance: staffing, licences, equipment, vessel or field access, recurring hosting, warranty exposure. A delta with no stated cost has not been audited, only noticed. Note also whether the extra earns evaluation credit — a stronger promise that Section M does not reward is pure cost. **Step 5: Supportability.** For each promise, test it against `08-solution-design.md` and `16-cost-narrative.md`: is it staffed and funded *exactly as written*? The classic failure is a response-time or availability commitment whose staffing plan funds a single shift. Flag every promise the solution does not support as a solution problem or a bid problem, not a wording problem. **Step 6: Measurability and conditions.** For each promise ask who measures it, by what method, and under what conditions. A performance figure that depends on conditions outside the offeror's control — feed composition, site conditions, weather windows, wave resource, a customer-supplied input — must state those conditions or it becomes an unconditional promise. Rewrite candidates belong in the register, not in the draft; this skill does not edit the proposal. **Step 7: Write.** Write `19-commitment-audit.md` using `templates/commitment-audit.md`. ## Output One artifact: `19-commitment-audit.md` — the commitment register, plus four ranked lists: promises stronger than the requirement (ranked by delta cost), promises with no requirement behind them, promises the solution does not support, and promises that cannot be measured as written. Present the user with: the count of candidate obligations, the three most expensive deltas with what each costs, every unsupported promise, and a clear statement of which items are wording fixes and which are solution or bid decisions. ## Utility scripts - `scripts/scan_commitments.py [--json]`: deterministic scan for commitment verbs, absolutes, numbers with units and filler. Reports line numbers, a count per category, and obligations per 250 words so a long volume and a single section can be compared. Standard library only. The scan is a starting point and deliberately over-matches. Finding the verb is mechanical; deciding whether the promise is affordable is not, which is why every hit is a candidate for human judgement rather than a finding. ## References - `references/commitment-patterns.md`: the recurring overcommitment patterns, what each sounds like in a draft, and the defensible form. - `templates/commitment-audit.md`: the commitment register artifact template. ## Guardrails - **Do not rewrite the proposal.** This skill produces an inventory and a recommendation. Editing the draft is `running-review-recovery`, and softening language on the author's behalf hides the decision they need to make. - **Never soften silently.** If a promise should be narrowed, say so explicitly and show the before and after in the register. A quiet edit is how a real differentiator gets deleted. - **`NONE FOUND` is a finding, not a gap in the audit.** A promise with no requirement behind it is the most common and most expensive pattern. Record it plainly rather than searching for a justification. - **Stronger is not automatically wrong.** A promise beyond the requirement that is scored, funded and deliberate is a differentiator. The register records the cost and lets the capture lead decide; it does not moralise about ambition. - **The compliance matrix governs.** Requirements come from `10-compliance-matrix.md` and the solicitation, never from memory or inference. - **Price consequences belong to the cost volume.** Where a delta has a cost, flag it for `narrating-cost-volumes` rather than estimating a number this skill cannot substantiate.