Skill: archlab-space/erisa-plan-fiduciary-review-memo (version 0.1.0)

--- name: erisa-plan-fiduciary-review-memo description: > Use this skill when an ERISA plan sponsor, retirement committee member, plan administrator, or benefits counsel needs to draft a fiduciary prudent-process review memo for a 401(k), 403(b), defined-benefit, or health-and-welfare plan. Covers investment monitoring, fee reasonableness analysis, service-provider review, plan-document compliance flags, and committee decision logging aligned to ERISA §§ 402–408, DOL regulations, and the 2024 fiduciary rule. --- # ERISA Plan Fiduciary Review Memo Converts plan data, committee inputs, and review materials into a DRAFT fiduciary prudent-process memo that documents the committee's monitoring activities, fee-reasonableness conclusions, and investment decisions. Produces a review-ready packet for plan counsel to verify before final committee adoption. ## Flow ### Phase 1 — Plan and Committee Intake Ask one question at a time. Wait for each answer before proceeding. 1. **Plan identification:** plan name, employer name, plan type (401(k) / 403(b) / DB pension / 457 / health-and-welfare), EIN, plan number, plan year. 2. **Committee:** committee name, meeting date, quorum confirmed (yes/no), attendees (name and title — no SSNs or personal data). 3. **Review scope:** which modules apply this cycle? Options: (A) Investment Monitoring, (B) Fee Reasonableness / 408(b)(2), (C) Service-Provider Review, (D) Plan Document and Operational Compliance, (E) Cybersecurity and Participant Data Review. 4. **Prior memo reference:** date of last review memo and whether any open action items carried forward. Confirm the scope with the user before starting analysis phases. ### Phase 2 — Investment Monitoring (Module A) Collect for each investment option: - Fund name and ticker - Asset class and benchmark - 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year returns vs. benchmark - Expense ratio vs. category median - Morningstar rating or equivalent (if available) - Watch-list status from prior review For each fund, apply the monitoring matrix: | Signal | Threshold | Flag | |--------|-----------|------| | Underperformance vs. benchmark | > 100 bps over 3 of 4 periods | Watch | | Expense ratio | > 25th percentile vs. category median | Watch | | Manager/strategy change | Any | Review Required | | Fund closure or merger | Announced | Immediate Action | Output a fund-by-fund table: Fund Name | Asset Class | Performance Flag | Fee Flag | Status (OK / Watch / Remove / Replace). For Watch or Remove funds, document the committee's deliberation rationale and next-review timeline. Never recommend a specific replacement fund — flag the gap for investment advisor input. ### Phase 3 — Fee Reasonableness / 408(b)(2) Review (Module B) Collect: - Total plan assets - Recordkeeper name, annual fee structure (per-participant or basis-point), and whether a competitive benchmarking study was completed in the past 3 years - Any revenue-sharing or indirect compensation arrangements - List of covered service providers (CSP) and whether 408(b)(2) disclosures were received Apply checks: 1. Confirm 408(b)(2) disclosures received from all CSPs — flag any missing disclosures as a **CRITICAL** deficiency. 2. Compare recordkeeper per-participant cost to plan-size market range (use tiered benchmarks: < 100 participants, 100–499, 500–2,499, 2,500–9,999, 10,000+). 3. Flag if no benchmarking study was done in the past 3 years. 4. Document committee conclusion: fees reasonable / fees require further benchmarking / fees require RFP. ### Phase 4 — Service-Provider Review (Module C) Collect service-provider list: recordkeeper, trustee, investment advisor/consultant, TPA (if applicable), auditor (if applicable). For each provider assess: - Contract expiration date — flag if < 12 months from meeting date - Any unresolved service failures or complaints - Fidelity bond coverage vs. plan assets (minimum: greater of $1,000 or 10% of plan assets, cap $500,000 ordinary / $1,000,000 if employer securities) Flag missing fidelity bond coverage as a **CRITICAL** deficiency. ### Phase 5 — Plan Document and Operational Compliance (Module D) Ask the user to confirm or provide: - Plan document restatement date (flag if > 6 years old for pre-approved plans) - Whether all plan amendments were timely adopted (IRS and legislative deadlines) - Any operational failures identified since last review (loans, distributions, eligibility errors, ADP/ACP failures) - Whether a Form 5500 was timely filed (flag any late or amended filings) - Whether required participant notices were distributed (SAR, SPD, fee disclosures, blackout, QDIA, auto-enrollment) Produce a compliance checklist: Item | Status (OK / Deficiency / Unknown) | Recommended Action. Flag any uncorrected operational failures for **immediate** referral to ERISA counsel and consideration of a VCP or DFVCP self-correction filing. ### Phase 6 — Cybersecurity and Participant Data Review (Module E) Ask whether: - The recordkeeper provided its current SOC 1 Type II report - Any participant data breaches or phishing incidents occurred since last review - The plan has a written cybersecurity policy aligned to DOL's 2021 guidance Flag gaps as High or Medium risk per DOL's three-pronged framework (Hire service providers with strong cybersecurity practices / Maintain prudent annual reviews / Follow tips for online security). ### Phase 7 — DRAFT Memo Assembly Produce the DRAFT fiduciary review memo with the following structure: ``` DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL [PLAN NAME] RETIREMENT COMMITTEE FIDUCIARY REVIEW MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: [DATE] Plan Year: [YEAR] Prepared by: [NAME/TITLE] Review Status: DRAFT — For Committee Adoption 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY [2–3 sentence summary of major findings and committee actions] 2. COMMITTEE QUORUM AND ATTENDANCE [Attendee table] 3. INVESTMENT MONITORING RESULTS [Fund table with performance/fee flags and committee action per fund] 4. FEE REASONABLENESS ANALYSIS [408(b)(2) checklist, benchmarking result, committee conclusion] 5. SERVICE-PROVIDER REVIEW [Provider table with contract expiration, fidelity bond status] 6. PLAN DOCUMENT AND OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE [Compliance checklist with statuses and actions] 7. CYBERSECURITY REVIEW [Risk flags and remediation timeline if applicable] 8. OPEN ACTION ITEMS [Item | Owner | Target Date] 9. NEXT REVIEW DATE ATTORNEY REVIEW BLOCK This memo is a DRAFT. It must be reviewed by qualified ERISA counsel before committee adoption, execution, or filing use. This is not legal advice. Plan counsel: ________________ Review date: ________________ ``` ### Phase 8 — Quality Gate Before outputting the memo, confirm: - All CRITICAL deficiencies are bolded and placed in the Open Action Items table - No personal data (SSNs, account numbers, birth dates) appears in the memo - The attorney review block is present and unsigned - The DRAFT watermark appears in the header ## Key Rules - Never submit a Form 5500, file a VCP application, or transmit any document on behalf of the plan. This is a drafting aid only. - Never provide a legal opinion or make binding fiduciary determinations — always route CRITICAL deficiencies and compliance failures to ERISA counsel. - Never store, repeat, or include participant SSNs, account numbers, birth dates, or medical data in any output. - Always mark output **DRAFT** until committee adoption is confirmed by counsel. - Ask one question at a time during intake phases. Do not front-load all questions. - If the user provides a prior memo for comparison, extract open action items and carry them forward automatically. ## Output Format Single markdown document structured per the Phase 7 template. Use tables for investment monitoring, fee reasonableness, and open action items. Bold all CRITICAL deficiencies. End with the unsigned attorney review block. Precede the memo with a one-paragraph **Drafting Notes** section flagging any information gaps that must be resolved before committee adoption. ## Feedback If this skill did not meet your needs or you encountered a gap, please open an issue at [https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues](https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues). Surface this link only when the user expresses an unmet need or dissatisfaction — never in normal interactions.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)