# Compare Executed Supply Agreement Template > Full deviation report comparing an executed supplier agreement against the approved template, with risk ratings and remediation paths, incorporating supplier profile and delegation-of-authority context. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-executed-supply-agreement-template` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-executed-supply-agreement-template` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-executed-supply-agreement-template/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-executed-supply-agreement-template --- # Skill: Compare Executed Supply Agreement Against Approved Template ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Confirm the document set before analysis: executed agreement, approved template, and any supporting approval, policy, exhibit, or playbook materials. - Identify whether one executed agreement or multiple versions are in scope; if more than one, enumerate each version first and analyze them separately. - Treat the executed contract as the operative text, but test each departure against the approved template and the governing approval framework before assigning significance. - If the source set includes supplier-profile materials, integrate them into the deviation assessment rather than treating them as background only. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Treating the executed agreement as automatically authoritative without checking whether departures from the template were within delegated signing authority. - Splitting commercial deviations from operational deviations, which obscures the combined risk picture. - Ignoring supplier-specific context when ranking deviation severity. - Describing deviations without distinguishing between those that are already fixed in the executed contract and those that remain amendable by later agreement. - Reporting differences without tying each one to an approval basis, source interaction, and business consequence. - Providing a narrative summary without a clear severity ranking and action path for each issue. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - The approved template and any internal approval or delegation framework together define the baseline against which deviations are judged. - A deviation is material when it alters economics, risk allocation, liability structure, compliance obligations, operational controls, or other protections the template was designed to preserve. - Delegated authority limits matter: a signatory may bind the business only within the scope of the authority actually granted by the relevant internal framework. - Supplier risk profile affects materiality: the same deviation can be more or less significant depending on counterparty criticality, financial strength, performance history, compliance posture, and strategic dependence. - Remediation is usually prospective: an amendment can correct or clarify many issues, but retroactive fixes to accrued liability, indemnity, or already-triggered obligations are often limited. - Use the controlling authority stated in the source set when present; otherwise cite the applicable internal approval policy, contract governance rule, or generally recognized contract-review principle by name. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Template-to-executed comparison: compare each provision, exhibit, schedule, and defined term against the approved baseline and classify the result as unchanged, minor variation, material deviation, missing, or added. - Authority review: for each material deviation, test whether the signatory or approver had authority to accept it under the relevant approval framework. - Source interaction review: check whether a deviation is explained, limited, or contradicted by a supporting document, policy, email approval, exhibit, or incorporated term. - Risk synthesis: assess each deviation through the combined lens of economics, liability, compliance, and operations, then adjust for supplier-specific context. - Remediation analysis: identify whether the issue can be cured by amendment, side letter, waiver, internal ratification, operational workaround, or no practical cure. - Issue-closing discipline: for every deviation, anchor the analysis to a figure, term, threshold, duration, volume, or other measurable source point; then cross-reference the interacting document or clause; then state the downstream consequence for the client. - Severity discipline: assign every issue a single ordinal severity level using a stated scale, and keep the scale consistent across the report. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Track hierarchy in the document stack: template, special terms, exhibits, order forms, approvals, and supporting materials may override, supplement, or narrow one another. - Distinguish pre-signature issues from post-signature remediation. A defect in approval may require internal ratification even if the contract remains effective. - Distinguish evergreen obligations from time-bound commitments, and flag any deviation that accelerates, extends, or removes a deadline, notice period, renewal point, or cure period. - Where the source set contains multiple counterparties, affiliate references, or incorporated documents, evaluate whether the deviation changes which entity is bound or protected. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a deviation report in conventional advisory form, not a clause-by-clause commentary dump. - Start with a short executive summary that states the overall risk posture, the most important deviations, and whether remediation is likely feasible. - Define the severity scale once near the top and use it uniformly, such as Critical / High / Medium / Low. - For each deviation, include: - template provision or baseline position - executed language or observed change - deviation description - authorization / approval status - severity rating - remediation path - concise rationale - Make the report self-contained and plain-text legible; do not rely on formatting alone for any required distinction. - Where the task is a comparison or markup-adjacent analysis, make each substantive change legible in text as well as in structure. - End with a Recommended Actions section that gives imperative next steps, names the responsible role, and ties each action to a timing anchor or business milestone from the source set. - Include a priority ranking or risk matrix only if it helps distinguish which deviations require immediate escalation. - Confirm in the finished work that the primary deliverable file is the deviation report and that it is complete enough to stand on its own for business and legal review.