# Review Quarterly Report For Sec Compliance > Form 10-Q compliance review focused on checking whether the filing’s cover page, financial statements, and MD&A disclosures follow the required form and whether period-specific disclosure items are handled consistently with the applicable accounting and SEC framework. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/review-quarterly-report-for-sec-compliance` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/review-quarterly-report-for-sec-compliance` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/review-quarterly-report-for-sec-compliance/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/review-quarterly-report-for-sec-compliance --- # Skill: Review Quarterly Report for SEC Compliance — Form 10-Q ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the assignment as a filing-compliance and issue-spotting review, not a merits memo. - Separate cover-page mechanics, financial statement presentation, note disclosures, MD&A updates, and follow-through on prior regulator comments. - Identify whether the source set contains one filing, one reporting period, and one comment history; if multiple periods or comment rounds appear, enumerate them first and analyze each separately. - Anchor every issue to the exact 10-Q location and the controlling authority invoked by the defect. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - A review may note that a restructuring discussion exists without checking whether the disclosure includes the full required elements, including movement in the related liability and cumulative costs versus expected costs. - A review may fail to carry forward issues flagged in earlier regulator correspondence and therefore miss unresolved filing defects. - A review may treat a cash flow classification error as a style issue instead of a substantive reporting problem when activity is placed in the wrong cash flow category. - A review may identify a disclosure gap but stop at description, without tying the gap to the applicable rule, the affected period or line item, and the practical consequence for the filing. - A review may omit severity gradation, making it harder to distinguish filing blockers from lower-risk drafting corrections. - A review may miss that quarterly disclosure obligations are dynamic and must be tested against the most recent annual report, interim changes, and the current filing package together. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Cover page accuracy: the filer category, registration status, share count presentation, and period-end information must be consistent with the issuer’s current status and the filed form requirements. - Quarterly filing architecture: the review should test the cover page, financial statements, notes, and MD&A as a single compliance package rather than as isolated excerpts. - Restructuring disclosure: if a restructuring charge appears in the period, the note should describe the plan, categories of charges, liability rollforward, and cumulative costs recognized compared with expected costs under the applicable accounting guidance. - Subsequent-event disclosure: if a material event occurs after the balance sheet date but before filing, the filing should address timing, consideration, and any preliminary accounting under the relevant subsequent-event and business-combination guidance. - Non-GAAP presentation: any non-GAAP subtotal must be clearly labeled and reconciled to the most directly comparable GAAP measure under the applicable SEC presentation rules. - EPS disclosure: when diluted EPS equals basic EPS because instruments are anti-dilutive or the issuer reports a loss, the note should disclose the number of anti-dilutive securities excluded from diluted share count under the EPS disclosure framework. - Cash flow classification: the statement of cash flows must place significant cash movements in the correct operating, investing, or financing category under the governing cash-flow presentation standards. - Risk factor currency: if circumstances materially changed since the most recent annual report, the quarterly filing should update risk factors or explain why no material change occurred under the quarterly-report disclosure regime. - Prior comment letter follow-through: unresolved matters raised by the regulator in earlier correspondence must be checked against the current draft for closure, partial response, or continuing omission. - Every legal or SEC conclusion should be tied to the relevant rule, form requirement, or accounting framework rather than stated in conclusory form. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start by mapping the source set: draft 10-Q, checklist, prior 10-K, partner instructions, and prior comment letter. - For each identified issue, use a three-part closeout: cite the affected disclosure amount, period, or other scale from the source materials; cross-reference the related note, schedule, or prior comment; and state the filing consequence if the defect remains. - Apply the relevant authority for each issue, not just a generic “SEC compliance” label. - Test the cover page first, then the financial statements and notes, then MD&A and risk factors, then prior-comment follow-through. - If a disclosure item can arise in more than one place, check all relevant locations rather than assuming one section cures another. - If only one candidate issue is present for a given topic, say so affirmatively and explain why the issue is singular on the source record. - Assign an ordinal severity to every issue using a single scale defined once at the top of the memorandum, and keep that severity consistent throughout. - Use the most direct corrective step that would make the filing compliant on its face. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Compare the draft 10-Q against the immediately preceding annual report for changed-risk-factor analysis and for consistency in accounting policy or presentation. - Compare the current draft with the prior comment letter to determine whether each outstanding point was addressed, narrowed, or ignored. - Compare the current interim period to the balance sheet date and filing date when testing subsequent events. - Compare non-GAAP and GAAP presentations within the same filing to ensure the reconciliation is complete and the subtotal label is not misleading. - Compare basic and diluted EPS inputs to determine whether anti-dilutive securities disclosure is triggered. - Compare operating, investing, and financing classifications across the cash flow statement and supporting notes when testing for misclassification. - Compare restructuring charges, liabilities, and cumulative costs across the note and any related MD&A discussion to see whether the disclosure tracks the economic reality over time. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a form-check memorandum, not a generic issue list. - Begin with a short executive summary and a legend for severity levels. - Include a concise source-set summary identifying the documents reviewed and any key assumptions. - Present a table of issues by filing location or topic, with columns for location, issue, authority, severity, consequence, and recommended fix. - Follow the table with short narrative discussion for each issue, using the same severity label and citing the controlling authority by name and section or rule. - For each issue, include: where it appears in the 10-Q, what is missing or wrong, the applicable SEC or accounting framework, why it matters for the filing, and the corrective action. - Close with an explicit Recommended Actions section that assigns next steps to the appropriate role from the source set and ties each action to a practical timing anchor, such as before filing, before circulation, or before the next draft. - Keep the draft conventionally structured and internally cross-referenced so a reviewer can locate each defect quickly.