Cover the thing that would close you: 10 AI skills for insurance and risk
claim-evidence
evidence a claim from the day it happens, not the day you claim
How the two work together
Claude thinks it through. Paste the Claude prompt into Claude Code, or drop the folder into your skills folder. Claude does the judgement: what to look for, what is worth doing, what is right.
Codex gets it done. At the hand-off point Claude runs Codex on your machine with one command and passes it the Codex prompt. Codex does the mechanical part and hands the result back. Claude checks it before you see it.
No API key to set up: Claude calls the Codex you already have installed. If Codex is not installed, Claude does that half itself and tells you.
Prompt for Claude
--- name: claim-evidence description: Builds the evidence file a commercial insurance claim needs to be paid without delay, covering the claims condition clauses in a typical policy, what the Insurance Act 2015's fair presentation duty means once a loss has happened, the FCA's rule against unreasonable rejection, and a practical evidence-gathering sequence of photographs, receipts, stock records and a written incident log. Use after any damage, theft or interruption event, or to have the evidence in place before the loss, not after it. --- # The proof a claim needs before the insurer asks for it, not after You give this a description of the loss, the documents and photographs you hold, your policy's claims condition clauses, and the dates things happened. You get back an evidence checklist mapped to the clauses, a notification timeline against their deadline, a proof-of-loss pack built only from supplied documents, and a list of what is missing. It will not value the loss or decide what is paid, and it hands the employee-injury log and policy mapping to this pack's accident-book and cover-audit skills rather than repeating them. ## What it does 1. **Read the claims condition clause first, verbatim.** Most commercial policies require notice "as soon as possible" or within a stated number of days, often as a condition precedent to cover. Copy the clause with its section number and record whether it is a condition precedent. 2. **Notify within the clause's deadline, in writing, and record the mitigation taken separately.** A notification duty arises once there is a genuine, not fanciful, risk of a claim. Record the loss date, notice date and method against the deadline. Many policies also indemnify reasonable mitigation costs, sometimes on condition the insurer is given prior written notice before the cost is incurred; record what was done and whether that notice was given. 3. **Gather proof of loss the way a loss adjuster actually tests it.** For buildings, repair invoices, quotations and evidence of what was there before. For stock, purchase invoices, a physical count or a reconciliation from trading records, since "the onus of proof of loss rests with the insured" and a commercial claimant can reasonably be expected to hold purchase records "going back... typically at least 6 years". 4. **Timestamp photographic and CCTV evidence, and record the retention window.** Photographs of damage and the scene, each dated, alongside CCTV with the date recorded and the date it will be overwritten. A retention window that lapses before the claim is reported destroys evidence that otherwise existed. 5. **Keep a plain written incident log as the spine of the file, cross-referenced to the accident-book skill where an injury is also involved, which builds that log itself.** 6. **Separate the fair presentation question from the claim.** The Insurance Act 2015 duty sits alongside, not inside, the claims conditions; record what was declared at inception or renewal against what is now claimed, and flag any difference for the broker rather than resolving it here. 7. **Hand the mechanical work to Codex and keep the judgement here.** Run, from the folder holding the documents and the incident log: ``` codex exec --sandbox danger-full-access --skip-git-repo-check -C "<working folder>" - < CODEX.md ``` Claude hands over the clause verbatim, the notification dates, the mitigation record, the evidence inventory and the fair presentation comparison. Codex returns the checklist, the timeline, the proof-of-loss pack and a gaps file. Codex estimates no value and decides no entitlement. ## Then it checks 1. The claims condition clause is quoted verbatim with its section number, and marked as a condition precedent or not. 2. The notification date is compared against the clause's own deadline, and any gap is stated, not excused. 3. Every item of proof of loss is traceable to a supplied document, with no invented receipt, count or valuation. 4. Every photograph and CCTV entry carries a date and, for CCTV, a retention window. 5. The fair presentation comparison names any material difference without resolving it. Any check fails: name it, redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop. ## Rules - Public information only. - Never invent a fact, a number or a quote. - Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is. - Never value the loss, suggest a settlement figure, or state what the insurer will pay. - Never decide whether a claim is fraudulent. Record the facts and leave the conclusion to the insurer and the broker. - Never treat a missed notification deadline as curable here. Record the breach and its date. - Never repeat the accident-book skill's injury classification or the cover-audit skill's policy mapping; reference each instead. - This output is a working document for the owner's own FCA authorised broker or loss adjuster to check. It is not advice on the claim's value and not a statement it will be paid. ## Built from - FCA Handbook, ICOBS 8.1, https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/8/1.html, 8.1.1R effective 06/01/2008, 8.1.2B effective 01/08/2017, read 14 October 2026: fair, prompt claims handling and unreasonable rejection, steps 1 and 6. - Insurance Act 2015, section 12, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/12, read 14 October 2026: fraudulent claim remedies, step 6. - Insurance Act 2015, section 3, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/3, read 14 October 2026: the duty of fair presentation, step 6. - Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, Mike Weatherhead, "Validation of Quantum", CILA Property SIG, https://cila.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/cila-property-sig-validation-of-quantum.pdf, dated March 2018, read 14 October 2026: the onus of proof and the evidence sequence, step 3.
Prompt for Codex
# claim-evidence ## You are given The loss event's date, location and cause as stated by the owner. The claims condition clause quoted verbatim with its section number and whether it is a condition precedent. The notice date given to the insurer and the method used. The mitigation record: action taken, date, cost, and whether prior written notice was given where required. Every proof-of-loss document, named, dated and described (invoice, quotation, stock count, bank statement, plan, prior photograph). Every photograph and CCTV entry with its date and, for CCTV, the retention window. The owner's comparison of what was declared at inception or renewal against what is now claimed, with any difference identified. All judgement calls are already made and supplied to you. ## Produce Write into a `./claim-evidence-output/` folder: 1. `claims-condition.md` recording, on separate lines: the clause quoted verbatim, its section number, whether it is a condition precedent (`yes`, `no` or `not stated`), and the deadline it states in the owner's own words. 2. `notification-timeline.csv` with columns: `date_of_loss`, `date_notice_given`, `method`, `deadline_from_clause`, `within_deadline`. `within_deadline` is `yes`, `no` or `cannot be determined`, calculated only where both dates and deadline length are supplied. 3. `mitigation-record.csv` with columns: `action_ref` (M001 upward), `action_taken`, `date`, `cost_gbp`, `prior_notice_required`, `prior_notice_given` (each `yes`, `no` or `not stated`). 4. `proof-of-loss.csv` with columns: `item_ref` (P001 upward), `item_description`, `document_type` (one of `purchase invoice`, `repair invoice or quotation`, `stock count`, `stock reconciliation`, `bank or credit card statement`, `plan or prior photograph`, `other`), `document_date`, `source_document`. No row without a named `source_document`. 5. `photographic-evidence.csv` with columns: `photo_ref`, `description`, `date_taken`, `is_cctv` (`yes`/`no`), `cctv_retention_window` (empty where not CCTV). 6. `fair-presentation-comparison.md` recording, on separate lines, each difference the owner identified between what was declared and what is now claimed, with the item reference it relates to, and a line stating that this comparison is not a determination of fraud or breach. 7. `gaps.md` a numbered list of: any claims condition deadline with no supplied length; any notification date missing; any mitigation action with `prior_notice_required` as `yes` and `prior_notice_given` as `no` or `not stated`; any proof-of-loss item with no source document; any photograph with no date; and any CCTV entry with no retention window. ## Rules - Codex transcribes, compares dates against supplied deadlines, and sorts. It never values a loss, never decides fraud, and never decides timeliness where the deadline is ambiguous or not stated. - Never fill `document_date` or `cost_gbp` from an estimate; leave empty and record the gap. - Never record `within_deadline` as `yes` or `no` where the deadline length was not supplied; record `cannot be determined`. - British English, GBP as `GBP`, DD Month YYYY dates, no em dashes. - Every file ends: this is a working document for the owner's own FCA authorised broker or loss adjuster. It is not advice on value and not a statement the claim will be paid. ## Return The absolute path of every file written, the row count of each CSV, the notification timeline result, the count of mitigation actions where required prior notice was not given, the count of proof-of-loss items by document type, the count of photographs with no CCTV retention window recorded, every difference listed in `fair-presentation-comparison.md`, and the `gaps.md` item count.
Built from the best public work on this
Sources for claim-evidence
Everything below was opened and read on 14 October 2026.
1. Financial Conduct Authority Handbook, ICOBS 8.1
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/ICOBS/8/1.html, read 14 October 2026.
ICOBS 8.1.1R, effective 06/01/2008, sets four general obligations on an insurer handling a claim, including that a firm must "handle claims promptly and fairly", must "not unreasonably reject a claim (including by terminating or avoiding a policy)", and must "settle claims promptly once settlement terms are agreed". ICOBS 8.1.2B, effective 01/08/2017, adds that rejecting a consumer claim for breach of a condition or warranty is unreasonable "unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach", for contracts entered into or varied on or after that date. ICOBS 8.1.2A gives examples of unreasonable rejection, including rejection "for misrepresentation, unless it is a qualifying misrepresentation".
This is the regulatory backbone for steps 1 and 7: it is the rule an owner can point to if a claim is rejected on a technicality unconnected to the actual loss, and it is why the skill records the claims condition clause and the fair presentation comparison as separate, named facts rather than blending them into a single judgement.
Where the skill departs: ICOBS 8.1 also covers claims handling for pure protection and life policies and the FCA's wider supervisory expectations under the Treating Customers Fairly initiative, neither of which is repeated here since the skill is built for a single commercial property, stock or interruption claim.
2. Insurance Act 2015, section 12
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/12, read 14 October 2026.
Section 12(1) sets the remedies for a fraudulent claim: the insurer is not liable to pay it, may recover sums already paid, and may treat the contract as terminated from the time of the fraudulent act, under which the insurer need not return premiums paid and may refuse all liability for a relevant event occurring after that time. Section 12(3) preserves the parties' rights for events before the fraudulent act.
This section is the reason the skill never assesses or asserts fraud: it is a legal conclusion with severe consequences that belongs to the insurer's own investigation and, where disputed, a court, not to a document-gathering exercise built from an owner's own supplied facts.
Where the skill departs: the section also addresses group insurance and the position of other insured persons under the same contract, which does not arise for a single independent hospitality business and is not covered here.
3. Insurance Act 2015, section 3
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/4/section/3, read 14 October 2026.
Section 3(1) requires that "before a contract of insurance is entered into, the insured must make to the insurer a fair presentation of the risk". Section 3(3) and 3(4) require disclosure of every material circumstance the insured knows or ought to know, made clearly and in good faith. This is the duty of fair presentation already built out in detail by this pack's own under-insurance and cover-audit skills; this skill uses it narrowly in step 7, to compare what was declared at the point the policy was taken out or last renewed against what is now being claimed, and to flag a material difference for the broker rather than to restate the whole duty.
Where the skill departs: the proportionate remedies in Schedule 1 that follow a breach of this duty, and the qualifying breach test in section 8, are the under-insurance skill's ground and are not repeated in this claims-evidence file.
4. Chartered Institute of Loss Adjusters, Mike Weatherhead, "Validation of Quantum, Means by which quantum may be proved or demonstrated"
CILA Property Special Interest Group, https://cila.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/cila-property-sig-validation-of-quantum.pdf, dated March 2018 on its own title page, copyright CILA 2018, read 14 October 2026.
This is the practical heart of step 4. It states plainly that "the onus of proof of loss rests with the insured" and that the insured must demonstrate "not only... loss or damage has arisen from the operation of an insured event" but "the extent and value of such loss". For buildings, it notes that repairs "can be quantified either by estimates or invoices" and that even after total destruction "it is nearly always the case there is still sufficient remaining to determine what was there before", including aerial and street views and local authority planning records. For contents and stock, it lists reasonable proof of ownership as "receipts... warranties... photos where item(s) can be seen... videos... bank or credit card statements... instruction manuals... original boxes or packaging", and states that for a business "it is far more reasonable to expect a business to have and retain records of items purchased going back a good few years, typically at least 6 years". It also describes stock reconciliation as an accounting method of determining stock at the time of loss from trading records, and recommends a detailed sketch with the insured, forensic examination of debris, and plant and equipment registers for significant items.
Where the skill departs: the paper is written for a professional loss adjuster's own training and includes extensive discussion of adjuster judgement calls about an insured's honesty, fraud indicators, and how to probe inconsistencies in an insured's account. This skill does not reproduce that judgement framework, since it is written for the policyholder assembling evidence, not the adjuster testing it; it takes only the evidence types and the commercial retention expectation.
The best public prompt found
No skill in either the anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins or anthropics/skills repository builds an insurance claim evidence file. The closest structural analogy in anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins is the `compliance-tracking` skill in the operations category (`https://api.github.com/repos/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/contents/operations/skills`), whose description covers producing "evidence collection plans" and audit checklists against a named compliance framework. Its repository star count, read from `https://api.github.com/repos/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins` on 14 October 2026, was 29,622.
The analogy is loose: that skill collects evidence against an information-security or data-protection framework such as SOC 2 or ISO 27001, with no concept of a claims condition clause, a condition precedent, a notification deadline, or a loss adjuster's test for proof of loss. A wrong answer in an evidence collection plan for an audit produces a finding to remediate before the next audit cycle; a wrong answer in an insurance claim evidence file can mean a real financial loss goes unpaid, so the generic framework-evidence shape was not carried over beyond the idea of a dated, sourced evidence list feeding a decision made by someone else.
Want this running in your business?
I optimise how businesses run — your sales, your visibility, your social media — and build bespoke software where nothing off the shelf fits. The first conversation is free. Work starts from £150 a day.
Foxera