AI skill · Volume 2 · Workflow K1
Can we do this work, and may we under our accreditation scope?
It gives two verdicts for each need a customer has: can we do it, and may we under our accreditation scope. Both are shown in one table, with the scope line each rests on.
It is workflow K1 of the twelve in AI for Key Account Management, sold on its own as one AI skill file (.zip) with a two-page start-here guide. Everything it writes is a draft for a person to check.
What you give it, and what comes back.
You attach: your scope annexe, your method list and the needs recorded for the account.
You get back: Two verdicts for each customer need: can we do it, and may we under our accreditation scope.
It does not: decide whether to pursue the work. It gives the verdicts, with the scope line behind each.
Your accreditation scope annexe, ideally as a table of standard, method, product and location; your method and competency list; the needs recorded for this account; and any certificates the account already holds.
One run, start to finish
What it looks like when you use it.
Run in Claude (Opus 5, high effort), in our own Claude account with the skill installed on 20 September 2026. The laboratory, its scope annexe and the account are invented for this example, and the run is shown as it came back, unedited. Your assistant's wording will differ: AI answers change between assistants and between runs.
input · what was given to the skill
Our scope annexe, invented extract. Electrical safety for household appliances, EN 60335-1 and EN 60335-2-14, laboratory in Utrecht. EMC for household appliances, EN 55014-1 and EN 55014-2, Utrecht. Food contact migration for plastics, EU 10/2011, Utrecht. No battery testing. No inspection body accreditation.
The account's needs, invented. ApplianceExample Group asked for electrical safety and EMC for a kitchen range, battery safety for a new cordless line, an annual factory inspection at their Malaysian supplier, food contact testing for a new plastic jug, and a certificate of conformity for retail buyers.
output · what came back
Two verdicts per need. Neither is a commercial decision. Capability belongs to the technical manager, permission belongs to the quality manager.
Source for both columns: the scope annexe extract you supplied, unsourced for date.
what to notice
It caught a trap in our own input. We wrote "kitchen range" without thinking, and the run pointed out that the annexe covers EN 60335-2-14, kitchen machines, while a range may be a cooker under a different part 2 standard — so the first verdict might be wrong, and a technical manager has to say which appliance it is. That is the sentence that stops a laboratory quoting work its scope does not cover.
Two verdicts, never merged: can we do it, and may we under our scope. Need 5 came back as a question rather than a verdict, because "certificate of conformity" means three different things. And the run refused to read a blank register as proof that nothing exists.
The skill, or the report?
This workflow is not sold on its own. It comes with AI for Key Account Management, which sets out the method and the evidence for all twelve of its workflows, and every licence includes all twelve as ready-made skill files at no extra cost.