# Compare Employee Handbook Against State Requirements > Guides the analyst through a jurisdiction-specific handbook compliance gap analysis that compares each handbook policy against the applicable state statutory requirements and assigns severity ratings. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-employee-handbook-against-state-requirements` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-employee-handbook-against-state-requirements` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-employee-handbook-against-state-requirements/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-employee-handbook-against-state-requirements --- # Skill: Compare Employee Handbook Against State Employment Law Requirements ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Identify every jurisdiction implicated by the handbook and census data before comparing policy language. - Treat each state as a separate compliance lens; do not assume a federal baseline answers the state question. - If the sources show only one relevant state, state that expressly and analyze only that state. - Map each handbook policy to the operative state rule, then test whether the handbook’s wording, coverage, exceptions, and implementation guidance are complete. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Analyst identifies that a policy area exists in the handbook without verifying that the handbook’s specific terms satisfy the applicable state requirement. - Analyst applies federal law standards to a state that has enacted stricter or supplemental requirements, failing to identify the delta between federal and state obligations. - Analyst treats final pay timing as a single rule rather than recognizing that many states impose differentiated requirements depending on the separation type; each separation type must be checked against the applicable state rule. - Analyst omits the enforceability analysis for restrictive covenant provisions even though the handbook's applicability to the employee population may exceed statutory thresholds for enforceability. - Analyst spots a deficiency but does not tie it to the relevant headcount, eligibility class, separation category, training cadence, benefit period, or other source-derived threshold. - Analyst summarizes a gap without identifying the controlling statute, regulation, or other authority that makes the gap legally material. - Analyst produces recommendations without specifying who should own the fix or when the fix must be completed. - Analyst collapses multiple state-specific or employee-class-specific rules into one generic statement, hiding the actual compliance delta. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Use the controlling Colorado authority for each issue, including the relevant statute, regulation, agency rule, or other recognized authority identified in the source set or known by practice. - State minimum wage analysis should test the handbook against Colorado’s operative wage rule, not a generic federal floor. - Final pay analysis should distinguish separation categories and check each category against the applicable Colorado timing rule. - Leave analysis should distinguish state-created leave entitlements, eligibility triggers, duration, job-protection features, and any coordination with federal leave concepts. - Harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and training provisions should be checked against Colorado’s protected categories, training expectations, and notice practices. - Restrictive covenant provisions should be checked for Colorado enforceability limits, including any employee-class or compensation-based restrictions that affect whether the policy can be enforced as written. - Payroll, wage statement, meal/rest break, expense reimbursement, lactation, accommodation, cannabis, confidentiality, and records-retention provisions should be tested against any Colorado-specific requirement that supplements general employment-law practice. - If the handbook uses internal policy language that is narrower than the legal rule, treat the omission as a drafting gap even if the policy is operationally workable. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Jurisdiction identification: list the state in scope, the employee populations covered by the census data, and any policy areas whose applicability varies by location or classification. - Policy-by-policy gap analysis: for each handbook section, identify the controlling rule, summarize the handbook language, compare the two, and state the gap. - Threshold and scope check: whenever the rule turns on headcount, earnings, hours, service, exempt status, position type, location, or separation type, measure the handbook against that threshold before calling it compliant. - State-by-state sub-analysis: if more than one state appears in the record, organize the discussion by policy area and then by state within that policy area. - Severity assignment: rate each gap using a stated ordinal scale and apply that scale consistently across the analysis. - Consequence framing: for each gap, explain the operational, regulatory, wage, leave, or litigation consequence that follows from the mismatch. - Recommended fix: propose concise corrective language or implementation steps that would align the handbook with the governing Colorado rule. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - For final pay, analyze the relationship between separation type and payment deadline; do not treat resignation, discharge, and other separation events as interchangeable. - For leave and benefit policies, distinguish eligibility date, notice period, certification step, leave duration, and reinstatement or continuation consequences. - For wage and hour policies, distinguish regular pay practices, overtime handling, deductions, reimbursements, and statement content; a fix in one area does not cure defects in another. - For covenant and confidentiality provisions, distinguish current employees, former employees, low-wage employees, and other protected or excluded groups where Colorado law draws different lines. - For training and notice provisions, distinguish initial onboarding, annual cadence, and event-triggered notice obligations. - Where a policy’s legality depends on employee count or census composition, tie the analysis to the relevant population and explain the coverage effect. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Deliver the work as a compliance gap analysis, not a narrative memo. - Start with a short executive summary that identifies the most serious themes and the overall compliance posture. - Include a legend for the severity scale at the top, using an ordinal set such as Critical / High / Medium / Low. - Present the analysis in a comparison format for each issue: - State Requirement - Current Handbook Language - Gap Description - Severity - Recommended Fix - Authority - Consequence - Prioritize the highest-severity gaps first. - When multiple states are relevant, keep the main organization by policy area and use state-specific sub-entries rather than separate full reports by state. - Include explicit citations to the controlling authority for each legal proposition relied upon. - End with a Recommended Actions block that assigns each fix to a role and a timing anchor drawn from the source set or, if none exists, a practical urgency milestone. - Keep the wording precise and implementation-oriented; avoid generalities that do not tell the reviewer what must change.