sow-generator
Skill378 starsChanged 53 days agoMITView on GitHub
Generates professional Statements of Work from a project brief. Use when a user needs to create an SOW, scope a project, define deliverables and milestones, or produce a consulting engagement document.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- TeqfocusAdmin/ClaudeSkillsRepotheir own version, first seen Sep 22, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- TeqfocusAdmin/ClaudeSkillsRepo★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository229 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditorSkill
- agent-armySkill
- agent-eval-harnessSkill
- agent-swarm-deployerSkill
- agent-team-builderSkill
- agent-to-agentSkill
- ai-coding-guardrailsSkill
- ai-readiness-assessmentSkill
- animateSkill
- api-documentation-writerSkill
- api-endpoint-scaffolderSkill
- api-load-testerSkill
- athlete-social-media-managerSkill
- before-you-buildSkill
- bi-measure-builderSkill
- board-deck-generatorSkill
- bookkeeping-closeSkill
- bracket-predictorSkill
- brand-consistency-checkerSkill
- brand-voice-analyzerSkill
- browser-test-loopSkill
- budget-optimizerSkill
- cash-flow-forecasterSkill
- champion-identifierSkill
- churn-autopsySkill
- claude-design-criticSkill
- claude-design-system-architectSkill
- claude-landing-composerSkill
- claude-md-writerSkill
- client-health-dashboardSkill
- client-proposal-generatorSkill
- code-review-proSkill
- cold-email-sequence-generatorSkill
- color-palette-extractorSkill
- commercial-lease-analyzerSkill
- company-announcement-writerSkill
- competitor-content-analyzerSkill
- competitor-intel-agentSkill
- competitor-price-trackerSkill
- compliance-checkerSkill
- contact-hunterSkill
- content-repurposerSkill
- context-budgetSkill
- contract-analyzerSkill
- contract-redlinerSkill
- conversation-archaeologistSkill
- cowork-calendar-defragSkill
- cowork-contract-renewal-radarSkill
- cowork-data-room-builderSkill
- cowork-deal-roomSkill
- cowork-expense-auditSkill
- cowork-folder-organizerSkill
- cowork-hiring-screenerSkill
- cowork-home-inventorySkill
- cowork-inbox-triageSkill
- cowork-invoice-chaserSkill
- cowork-medical-bill-auditorSkill
- cowork-qbr-builderSkill
- cowork-rfp-responseSkill
- cowork-sop-writerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 28
Verify against the quality checklist below, then write the finished SOW to sow.md in the working directory (or a user-specified path).
- Distinctive: line 35
No emojis anywhere in the document.
- Distinctive: line 42
All user-provided inputs are reflected accurately
- Distinctive: line 44
Every in-scope item has corresponding deliverables
- Distinctive: line 45
Every deliverable has measurable acceptance criteria
- Distinctive: line 46
Every milestone has a date, associated deliverables, and payment trigger (if applicable)
- Distinctive: line 52
All cross-references resolve correctly
- Distinctive: line 53
No placeholder brackets remain except those explicitly deferred by the user
- Distinctive: line 54
Document reads as a cohesive narrative, not a filled-in template
- Distinctive: line 60
Ask clarifying questions whenever the scope is ambiguous enough that the SOW could be interpreted in materially different ways.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Statement of Work Generator
Generate complete, client-ready Statements of Work from a project brief, meeting the standards of Big Four consulting firms, top-tier agencies, and enterprise procurement. Produce polished documents ready for client review with minimal edits, never rough drafts or templates with blanks.
Contents
references/required-inputs.md-- inputs to gather and pre-generation client researchreferences/document-structure.md-- the 16-section SOW structure with templates for every sectionreferences/pricing-templates.md-- fixed-price, time-and-materials, and retainer pricing models (Section 11)references/legal-terms.md-- confidentiality, IP, warranties, liability, termination, and other legal clauses (Section 14)references/change-management.md-- change request and change order process (Section 12)references/risk-management.md-- risk register and escalation path (Section 13)
Workflow
- Gather the required inputs. Read
references/required-inputs.md. If any required item is missing, ask for it explicitly. Do not guess at critical commercial terms. - Research the client. Use WebSearch per
references/required-inputs.mdto gather company overview, recent news, technology footprint, and regulatory environment. If research yields nothing, proceed on user-provided inputs and flag assumptions explicitly. Never fabricate company information. - Select the pricing model from
references/pricing-templates.mdbased on engagement type (default: fixed-price). - Generate all 16 sections following
references/document-structure.md, pulling Section 11 from pricing-templates, Section 12 from change-management, Section 13 from risk-management, and Section 14 from legal-terms. Replace every bracketed placeholder with real values from inputs and research. Leave brackets only where the user explicitly deferred. Mark gaps with[ACTION REQUIRED: ...]. - Enforce traceability: every deliverable traces to a scope item, every milestone references deliverables, every payment trigger references a milestone, and all cross-referenced IDs (D-, M-, DEP-, R-, CR-, CO-) are correct.
- Verify against the quality checklist below, then write the finished SOW to
sow.mdin the working directory (or a user-specified path).
Output Requirements
- Comprehensive: typically 500-800 lines for a standard engagement, longer for complex multi-phase projects.
- Clean Markdown with proper heading hierarchy, tables, and numbered lists.
- Professional, precise, unambiguous third-person prose. Define any non-standard jargon on first use.
- No emojis anywhere in the document.
- Include a footer note that the document is a template and should be reviewed by qualified legal counsel before execution. Never provide legal advice.
Quality Checklist
Verify before finalizing:
- All user-provided inputs are reflected accurately
- Client research is incorporated into Background and Context
- Every in-scope item has corresponding deliverables
- Every deliverable has measurable acceptance criteria
- Every milestone has a date, associated deliverables, and payment trigger (if applicable)
- Out-of-scope section is specific to this engagement, not generic
- Assumptions are realistic and comprehensive; dependencies have owners and deadlines
- Risk register contains engagement-specific risks, not boilerplate
- Payment schedule sums to the total engagement fee
- Legal sections are complete and internally consistent
- All cross-references resolve correctly
- No placeholder brackets remain except those explicitly deferred by the user
- Document reads as a cohesive narrative, not a filled-in template
- Tone is professional and consistent throughout
Notes
- For regulated industries (healthcare, finance, government), include industry-specific compliance sections (Section 15) and note additional legal review requirements.
- Ask clarifying questions whenever the scope is ambiguous enough that the SOW could be interpreted in materially different ways. Ambiguity in an SOW is a professional failure.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

