agentleFS
modeled-information-formatmodeled-information-format/mif-docs-plugin/skills/sustainability-report/SKILL.md

sustainability-report

Skill1 starsChanged 35 days agoMITView on GitHub

Write a GRI-Standards sustainability/ESG report — GRI 1 Foundation, GRI 2 General Disclosures, GRI 3 Material Topics (the materiality determination), topic standards across the GRI 200 (economic) / 300 (environmental) / 400 (social) series, and a mandatory GRI content index mapping every disclosure to its location. Use when the deliverable must reproduce the GRI sustainability-reporting structure. Reproduces the GRI structure only, never GRI assurance. Anti-trigger; for a SOC-2-shaped internal controls review use compliance-audit, for a Reg-S-K/Form-10-K annual disclosure use regulatory-disclosure — neither carries the GRI topic-standard frame or the content index this genre requires.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Add a materiality-matrix figure — a Mermaid quadrantChart, or a plain material-topic list when a quadrant view isn't warranted — when the …

    line 41
  2. Very specific:

    Every claim traces to a cited MIF finding @id and its source URL.

    line 48
  3. Distinctive:

    Verify the current GRI Standards (Universal and applicable Topic Standards) live at authoring time.

    line 70

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

sustainability-report

Produces a GRI-Standards sustainability/ESG report: a disclosure-oriented document that reports an organization's economic, environmental, and social impacts against the Global Reporting Initiative's topic standards, ties every disclosure to a stated materiality determination, and indexes every disclosure to its location so a reader can audit coverage at a glance. Its center of gravity is the GRI content index — the report is not conformant without one mapping every GRI disclosure it makes to where that disclosure lives.

This genre follows the GRI Standards' own reporting architecture (GRI 1/2/3 Universal Standards plus the GRI 200/300/400 Topic Standards). It is a convention, not a certification: the template reproduces the GRI structure only. It does not assert assurance, third-party verification, or full "in accordance with GRI" conformance — that requires meeting every applicable GRI requirement, which cannot be guaranteed from a findings corpus alone. Present output as GRI-structured, not GRI-assured.

Pattern (industry: GRI Standards sustainability/ESG report)

  1. GRI 1 — Foundation — the reporting principles in play and how this report applies them (accuracy, balance, comparability, verifiability).
  2. GRI 2 — General Disclosures — the organizational profile, governance structure, strategy, and stakeholder engagement.
  3. GRI 3 — Material Topics — the materiality determination: how material topics were identified and prioritized, not merely listed.
  4. Topic Standards — disclosures for each material topic, drawn from the GRI 200 (economic), GRI 300 (environmental), and GRI 400 (social) series, each with quantified performance and a stated reporting boundary.
  5. GRI Content Index — the distinguishing back matter: a table mapping every GRI disclosure made in the report to its location (and any omission, with a reason).

Add a materiality-matrix figure — a Mermaid quadrantChart, or a plain material-topic list when a quadrant view isn't warranted — when the materiality determination supports one. Performance tables per topic standard are numbered, captioned, and referenced in the text.

Rules that keep it a sustainability report

  • Every claim traces to a cited MIF finding @id and its source URL; no orphan facts. The GRI content index doubles as the disclosure map — each indexed disclosure points to the finding(s) behind it.
  • State impacts, omissions, and limitations honestly; the genre reproduces structure, not assurance, and must say so. An undisclosed material impact is a defect, not an omission of convenience.
  • Report verification verdicts explicitly: annotate weakened or inconclusive findings rather than silently dropping them; exclude only falsified findings from the reported facts.
  • Hedge uncertain claims and present ranges when sources disagree; state the reporting boundary (entities, sites, time period covered) for every quantified disclosure.
  • Exhaustive coverage: build the report from the full surviving-findings corpus — every surviving finding gets its own evidence (claim, citation, entities), never condensed to a cherry-picked subset. A silently dropped finding is a defect.
  • The GRI Content Index is mandatory back matter, not optional — a report without it is not conformant with this genre.
  • Any figure, chart, or diagram is a fenced mermaid code block — never ASCII art, an image link, or Graphviz/DOT. Plain tabular matter stays a Markdown table. A required figure is never silently omitted — say so in prose when the data cannot support it.
  • Verify the current GRI Standards (Universal and applicable Topic Standards) live at authoring time; do not bake a specific standard year into the report as settled fact.

Anti-triggers — do not use this genre for

  • An internal controls/process conformance review (auditor's-report framing, tests-of-controls matrix, management's assertion) — that is compliance-audit; it never carries the GRI topic-standard frame or a GRI content index.
  • A statutory annual disclosure in Reg S-K / Form 10-K item order (Business, Risk Factors, MD&A, Financial Statements) — that is regulatory-disclosure; it is a mandatory public-company filing shape, not a voluntary ESG/impact narrative organized by GRI topic standards.
  • A single already-made decision with no comparison or disclosure structure to show — that is adr.

MIF frontmatter

type: semantic — a sustainability report is declarative disclosure knowledge tied to a reporting period, not a time-bound event or a step sequence. Climb to L2 with namespace (sustainability-report/<area>), modified, title, and tags when the drafting context supplies them. Gate every output with mif-validate at its target level; the floor is --level 1.

Why machine-readable — the point of MIF here

Question an agent asksAnswered by (frontmatter)
Is this disclosure still current for this reporting period?temporal.validFrom / ttl
Where did the evidence come from; can I trust it?provenance (W3C-PROV) + citations[]
What formalizes it or relates to it (e.g. the audit or the filing it feeds)?typed relationships[] (relates-to, realized-by)
Which disclosures were measured vs. asserted, and under what verdict?citations[] tied to each topic-standard claim

The same document still reads as a human sustainability report and projects losslessly to JSON-LD and back — one artifact, two readers.

The L1 -> L3 climb (two exemplars)

  • templates/good-l1.md — L1 floor: id, type, created + body. A complete, valid report, but opaque to a machine consumer.
  • templates/good.md — L3 (highest this genre supports): adds namespace, modified, temporal validity, W3C-PROV provenance, citations[] tied to the topic-standard disclosures, and a typed relationships[] graph (e.g. relates-to the regulatory disclosure the data feeds). Validate with mif-validate --level 3.

Author at the highest level the drafting context supports (grade down rather than fabricate). templates/bad.md shows the antipattern: a report that makes topic-standard disclosures with no GRI Content Index anywhere to map them.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.