Skill: kowl64/drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk (version 1.0.0)

--- name: drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk description: Creates a 1-page driver-facing tacho/WTD infringement note plus corrective actions and review date. USE WHEN you need to explain infringements and schedule follow-up. --- # Drivers’ Hours & WTD Infringement Coach (UK) ## PURPOSE Turn tacho/WTD infringement evidence into a friendly, professional 1-page driver note plus corrective actions and a review date, applying the company RAG escalation rule. ## WHEN TO USE - “Explain this tacho infringement to the driver and draft the message.” - “Check this shift pattern for EU Drivers’ Hours and WTD risk.” - “Do a weekly tacho and WTD compliance review for these drivers.” (driver-facing outputs needed) - “Draft a coaching note for repeated breaks/rest issues.” - “Summarise these infringements into actions and review dates.” DO NOT USE WHEN… - Generic questions like “What are the drivers’ hours rules?” with no driver context or artefact needed. - Generic HR/disciplinary process requests not tied to a specific compliance case. - Fuel-saving/defensive driving tips unrelated to compliance deliverables. ## INPUTS - REQUIRED: - Driver identifier (name/ID) and role (e.g., HGV/PCV), and period covered (start/end dates) - Infringement list (from .ddd/CSV/PDF summary) including dates/times and type - Working time context (duty/shift length, POA if recorded, breaks) if WTD-relevant - OPTIONAL: - Prior RAG history (count of ambers/reds in last X weeks/months per your policy) - Any driver explanation already given - Relevant internal SOP excerpt (paste text) for local rules - EXAMPLES: - “Driver A, week 2026-01-05 to 2026-01-11: 2x insufficient break, 1x daily rest short by 45 mins…” ## OUTPUTS - `driver-infringement-note.md` (max ~1 page): explanation + expectations + support - `corrective-action-plan.md`: actions, owner, due dates, review date - Success criteria: - Tone: friendly & professional (UK spelling) - No assumptions: facts are attributed to provided records - Includes a clear review date and next steps ## WORKFLOW 1. **Validate inputs** - Confirm: driver ID, date range, infringement types, and source (PDF/CSV notes). - IF any are missing → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** for the missing items. 2. **Summarise facts only** - List infringements in plain English (what happened + when), without blame. - IF records conflict (e.g., two sources disagree) → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** which source is authoritative. 3. **Classify severity for RAG** - Apply the company rule in `references/rag-escalation-rule.md`. - IF RAG status depends on missing prior history → **STOP AND ASK THE USER** for counts/previous outcomes. 4. **Draft the driver-facing note (max 1 page)** - Use `assets/driver-note-template.md`. - Include: what the rule expects, what the record shows, why it matters, and what to do next time. 5. **Propose corrective actions** - Use `assets/corrective-action-plan-template.md`. - Actions must be specific, practical, and measurable (e.g., break planning, reminder prompts, route/shift adjustments). 6. **Schedule review** - Choose a review date proportional to risk: - Green/Amber: typically next weekly review window - Red: sooner review + manager check-in (and potential investigation trigger per your policy) 7. **Output pack** - Produce the two .md artefacts with consistent filenames. - IF the user asks to edit existing files → **ASK FIRST** before making edits. ## OUTPUT FORMAT ```text # driver-infringement-note.md Driver: Period covered: Source records: ## What we saw in the record (facts) - [date/time] — [plain English infringement] - … ## What the rules require (plain English) - … ## What to do next time (practical steps) - … - … ## Support we can offer - … ## Status and next review RAG status: Next review date: Manager/Compliance follow-up: ``` ## DEPENDENCIES - None required beyond the provided extracts/summaries. - If the user provides files (.ddd/CSV/PDF), rely on the user’s summary unless your environment includes a trusted parser. ## SAFETY & EDGE CASES - Never accuse or assume intent; stick to evidence. - If there is any possibility of an employment action (discipline), recommend using the investigation skill pack and keep this note factual/coaching-focused. - Don’t invent legal thresholds; only explain what’s in the provided evidence + internal policy text. ## EXAMPLES - Input: “Explain insufficient break x2 and rest shortage x1 for Driver A” - Output: `driver-infringement-note.md` + `corrective-action-plan.md` with review date next week - Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers” - Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed


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