Analyze the HR policy below for clarity, consistency, fairness, and operational readiness. Treat this as an internal issue-spotting exercise, not legal advice. Do not state that the policy complies with any law unless the supplied materials establish that conclusion; identify matters for qualified employment counsel or HR specialists instead. Policy to analyze: [POLICY TEXT] Related company policies and actual operating practice: [RELATED MATERIAL] Workforce and location context: [WORKFORCE CONTEXT] Known incidents, employee questions, or implementation concerns: [KNOWN CONCERNS] Read the policy as four people would: an employee deciding what to do, a manager making a decision, HR administering the rule, and a reviewer investigating inconsistent treatment. Identify where those readers could reach different conclusions. Look specifically for undefined terms, conflicting deadlines, unbounded manager discretion, unclear evidence requirements, inaccessible request routes, confidentiality gaps, retaliation risks, record-retention omissions, and procedures that cannot be completed in the systems described.
Return: 1. An executive summary of no more than 200 words. 2. A risk table with columns: issue, policy citation or quoted phrase, likely consequence, affected audience, severity, and recommended action. 3. A fairness and consistency review that tests whether comparable cases would be handled the same way. 4. An operational workflow review from employee request through recordkeeping. 5. A prioritized revision list: urgent before release, important within 30 days, and improvements for the next review cycle. 6. Questions for HR, legal, payroll, IT, or labor relations, labeled by owner. Do not rewrite the whole policy unless I request it. Before answering, check that every finding points to supplied text or a clearly labeled inference, and flag any recommendation that would change an approved business decision. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [POLICY TEXT] | Paste the complete policy version you want reviewed, including headings, exceptions, and appendices. | Employees must submit remote-work requests to their manager at least 10 business days before the requested start date. Managers may approve requests based on team needs. |
| [RELATED MATERIAL] | Paste related handbook rules, forms, process documentation, and descriptions of how the policy is currently administered. | Hybrid-work guide says requests are submitted in Workday. Accommodation policy directs employees to HR. No manager decision form currently exists. |
| [WORKFORCE CONTEXT] | Describe covered worker groups, locations, employment arrangements, and any agreements or regulations that may apply. | U.S. employees in four states; office-based and field roles; some employees have approved disability accommodations. |
| [KNOWN CONCERNS] | List recurring questions, complaints, edge cases, rollout problems, or decisions that prompted the review. | Managers have given different answers for similar roles, and employees do not know when HR should review a request. |
How to use
- Paste the full policy and the documents that actually govern the workflow, not only a summary of the intended rule.
- Use the risk table to assign each finding to an accountable owner before editing the document.
- Test the highest-severity findings with a realistic employee scenario and an edge case, such as a late request or conflicting obligation.
- Send this follow-up: “Draft narrowly targeted replacement language for findings 1 through 4, preserving these approved decisions: [DECISIONS].”
Variations
Fairness audit
Use this when leaders are concerned that managers apply a policy unevenly.
Audit this policy for consistent treatment: [POLICY TEXT]. The covered groups and relevant job differences are [WORKFORCE GROUPS]. Examples of recent decisions are [DECISION EXAMPLES]. Identify which decision points allow comparable employees to receive different outcomes, what information managers need to document, and which escalation triggers should be mandatory. Return a scenario matrix with consistent outcomes for five representative cases. Do not assume demographic facts or make legal-compliance claims; flag issues needing HR or counsel review.
Policy comparison
Use this when replacing or merging policies after an acquisition or reorganization.
Compare Policy A: [POLICY A] with Policy B: [POLICY B] for the topic [TOPIC]. Workforce and jurisdictions are [CONTEXT]. Produce a clause-by-clause comparison covering scope, eligibility, benefits or obligations, deadlines, decision authority, documentation, exceptions, and recordkeeping. Identify direct conflicts, silent gaps, and changes that would affect employees or systems. Recommend a harmonization approach with unresolved questions clearly labeled for HR and legal review. Do not invent a governing rule.
Incident review
Use this after a policy-related complaint, mistake, or process breakdown.
Analyze this policy-related incident without assigning blame: [INCIDENT SUMMARY]. Relevant policy text is [POLICY TEXT], and the documented actions taken are [TIMELINE AND RECORDS]. Identify where the written policy, training, system workflow, or handoff may have contributed. Return a factual timeline, missing-evidence list, root-cause hypotheses labeled as hypotheses, immediate containment steps, and preventive controls. Preserve confidentiality and do not infer protected characteristics or legal conclusions from incomplete records.
Tips
- Analyze the policy alongside the form, system workflow, and manager guidance, because the real rule is often spread across all three.
- Require a citation to the specific clause for every finding so reviewers can distinguish a true defect from a preference.
- Separate a policy gap from a training gap; changing policy language will not fix a process that managers cannot perform in the available system.
- Prioritize findings by employee impact and likelihood, not by how awkward the wording sounds.
FAQ
Can Claude tell me whether an HR policy is legal?
It can identify questions and common risk areas, but legal obligations depend on jurisdiction, workforce status, contracts, and current law. Have qualified counsel review decisions that require legal interpretation.
What should I provide for a useful policy analysis?
Provide the full policy, related procedures, workforce context, and examples of the problems occurring in practice. A policy alone cannot reveal every operational conflict.