Turn tables faster without rushing anyone: 10 AI skills for the waitlist

no-show-policy-notice

charge a no-show fee that's a loss, not a penalty

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: no-show-policy-notice
description: Builds a no-show notice you can defend. Fixes the charge to a provable loss, checks it against the Consumer Rights Act 2015's grey list of potentially unfair terms, shows the figure before booking, and logs who saw it and when. Never writes a figure with no stated basis, and never calls wording "guaranteed enforceable": no UK court has tested a restaurant no-show fee. Use before you publish, print or quote a no-show or cancellation charge.
---

# A no-show charge that survives a complaint

Give it your no-show figure and how you calculate it. Get back a notice worded to the test a court would apply, and a log row proving the guest saw it before they booked.

## What it does

1. **Fix the charge to a loss you can show your working for.** Schedule 2 names a term "requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum" as potentially unfair.

2. **Build it from what the no-show cost, less what was recovered.** "A cancellation fee is more likely to be fair if it reflects your likely loss and doesn't punish the customer for cancelling." If it cannot be explained in one sentence of arithmetic, it is a penalty.

3. **Show the figure before the guest commits.** "Your terms should appear before the customer is locked in, not only after the booking is confirmed."

4. **Test it against the fairness rule.** A term is unfair where "contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance" to the consumer's detriment (s.62(4)): charging the guest while giving nothing back if the venue cancels fails that test.

5. **Use the regulator's own standard.** The CMA told venues they "should not require unjustifiable, non-refundable deposits or impose unreasonable cancellation charges", and that "unfair terms are not legally binding on consumers, who can challenge them in court."

6. **Write the notice once, plainly**: figure, trigger, how it is taken. **Log the send**: reference, channel, timestamp.

## Then it checks

1. The figure has a one-sentence arithmetic basis.
2. The notice is shown before, not after, the booking is confirmed.
3. No wording claims a guarantee or cites a court decision.
4. The venue-cancels case is covered, even briefly.
5. The send log has a row for the booking.

Any check fails: redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop.

## Rules
- Public information only. Never invent a fact, number or quote. Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is.
- Never call a charge guaranteed enforceable; no UK court decision has tested one.
- Never set a figure with no stated loss basis, or charge where no notice was shown before booking.
- Working document for the owner's solicitor or trade body to check before reliance. Not legal advice.

## Built from
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, s.62, legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62, read 4 Nov 2026: fairness test, step 4.
- Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sch.2, legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted, read 4 Nov 2026: para 6, step 1.
- CMA, "Wedding venues advised to play fair", gov.uk/government/news/wedding-venues-advised-to-play-fair, 2 Mar 2016, read 4 Nov 2026: step 5.
- Sprintlaw, "Cancellation Fees & No-Shows UK", sprintlaw.co.uk/articles/cancellation-fees-no-shows-uk/, 17 Oct 2026, read 4 Nov 2026: steps 2-3.

Prompt for Codex

# no-show-policy-notice

## You are given
The venue's no-show/late-cancellation figure in GBP, and its arithmetic basis from Claude: covers held, margin per cover, and anything recovered by resale or walk-ins. The channels the notice appears on (`booking page`, `confirmation sms`, `confirmation email`, `phone script`, `printed menu`). The final notice wording for each channel. The venue's booking terms, if any, to check a venue-cancels case is covered. A sample of recent bookings with channel and timestamp of when the notice was shown, if logged.

## Produce
Write into a `./no-show-policy-notice-output/` folder:

1. `fee-basis.csv`: `fee_gbp`, `covers_held`, `margin_per_cover_gbp`, `amount_recovered_gbp`, `calculated_loss_gbp`, `fee_exceeds_loss_by_gbp`, `basis_one_sentence`. A positive `fee_exceeds_loss_by_gbp` is flagged in `gaps.md`.
2. `notice-check.csv`: `channel`, `notice_text_verbatim`, `shown_before_booking_confirmed`, `contains_guarantee_claim`, `guarantee_words_found`, `contains_figure`, `contains_trigger_condition`. `guarantee_words_found` searches the literal tokens `guaranteed`, `enforceable`, `legally binding`, `will be upheld`, `court has confirmed` and records each hit.
3. `reciprocity-check.md` - whether the booking terms cover what happens if the venue cancels, quoted verbatim, or `not found`.
4. `send-log.csv`: `booking_ref`, `channel`, `notice_text_shown`, `timestamp`, `before_or_after_confirmation`. Appended, never overwritten.
5. `gaps.md` - a numbered list of: any `fee_exceeds_loss_by_gbp` above zero; any guarantee word found; any notice shown after confirmation; a missing reciprocity clause; any sample booking with no logged notice.

## Rules
- Codex calculates, checks and records. It never sets the fee, writes the notice wording, or decides the venue's loss; those come from Claude.
- Never write that a charge is guaranteed enforceable, and flag any supplied text that does.
- Never invent a court decision, case name or statutory provision not supplied.
- Amounts are calculated exactly, never estimated.
- Use British English, GBP and DD Month YYYY dates. No em dashes; flag any supplied text containing one in `gaps.md`.
- Every file ends with: this is a working document for the owner to check against their booking terms, and for their solicitor or trade body to check before reliance. Not legal advice.

## Return
Each file's absolute path and row count. The calculated loss, the fee, and whether it exceeds the loss, in GBP. Channels checked and any showing the notice after confirmation. Every guarantee word found, with channel. The reciprocity-check verdict. Bookings with no logged notice. The new `send-log.csv` row, and the `gaps.md` item count.

Built from the best public work on this

Sources for no-show-policy-notice

Everything below was opened and read on 4 November 2026.

1. Consumer Rights Act 2015, section 62

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/62, Act of Parliament, read 4 November 2026.

Section 62(1) states "An unfair term of a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer." Section 62(4) gives the test: a term is unfair where, "contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance" in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the consumer's detriment. Section 62(5) says fairness is judged "by reference to all the circumstances existing when the term was agreed."

Used in step 4 and step 5 of the skill: a no-show notice that charges the guest in full but gives nothing back if the venue cancels is the shape of imbalance this section targets.

Where the skill departs: section 62 also covers unfair consumer notices (62(2), (6)), which matters for signage and website wording rather than a booking-time charge, and is not taught separately here.

2. Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2 (grey list)

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/schedule/2/enacted, read 4 November 2026.

Schedule 2 Part 1 lists terms that "may be regarded as unfair" without being automatically unfair in every case. Paragraph 6 covers "requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum" in compensation. Paragraph 4 covers "permitting the trader to retain sums paid by the consumer where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract," without an equivalent payment to the consumer where the trader is the one who cancels.

Used in step 1 (the figure must not be disproportionate) and step 4 (the charge should not be one-sided). These two paragraphs are the whole legal shape of a no-show fee: is it too high, and is it one-way.

Where the skill departs: the grey list runs to twenty paragraphs covering unrelated terms (jurisdiction clauses, unilateral variation, arbitration). Only the two relevant to a no-show charge are used.

3. Competition and Markets Authority, "Wedding venues advised to play fair"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/wedding-venues-advised-to-play-fair, published 2 March 2016, read 4 November 2026.

The CMA's press release on its warning to wedding and event venues over deposits and cancellation charges. Nisha Arora, then CMA Senior Director, is quoted: businesses "should not require unjustifiable, non-refundable deposits or impose unreasonable cancellation charges." The release also states plainly that "unfair terms are not legally binding on consumers, who can challenge them in court," and that the CMA's own guidance sets out when terms "look more defensible": deposits that reserve the service and stay a small share of the price, and charges tied to the business's actual loss.

Used in step 5, as the regulator's own working standard for "justifiable" and "reasonable."

Where the skill departs: this is a 2016 advisory action against wedding and event venues specifically, not a finding against any single restaurant, and not a court ruling. The skill states that distinction rather than borrowing the warning as if it were a decided case.

4. Sprintlaw, "Can You Charge A Cancellation Fee For No-Shows?"

https://sprintlaw.co.uk/articles/cancellation-fees-no-shows-uk/, published 17 October 2026, read 4 November 2026.

A UK legal-services firm's practitioner guide to no-show fees. Two lines carry the skill's practical test: "A cancellation fee is more likely to be fair if it reflects your likely loss and doesn't punish the customer for cancelling," and "Your terms should appear before the customer is locked in, not only after the booking is confirmed."

Used in steps 2 and 3, as the operational translation of the Act's fairness test into "show your working" and "show it early."

Where the skill departs: this is commentary from a legal services firm, not a primary source, and the skill treats it as persuasive practice guidance rather than as binding law. The primary authority for the legal test remains sources 1 and 2.

Best public prompt we found for this job

The closest public artefact is the `write-spec` skill in Anthropic's `knowledge-work-plugins` repository, raw source at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/main/product-management/skills/write-spec/SKILL.md. The repository has 34,655 stars, read from api.github.com on 4 November 2026. It is a product-spec skill, not a legal-notice skill, but the job has the same shape: state a requirement precisely enough that nobody downstream can read it two ways.

The useful part is its discipline about vague wording: "Success metrics should be specific and measurable, not vague." It also says to avoid ambiguous words such as "fast", "user-friendly" and "intuitive", and instead to "define what these mean concretely."

We took that discipline directly: a no-show notice that says "a reasonable charge may apply" is the legal-notice equivalent of "fast" and "intuitive", and this skill refuses to write one without the figure and the trigger stated.

We did not copy its structure otherwise. `write-spec` is written for a product team that owns the requirement and can iterate it; a no-show notice is read once by a guest who has no chance to ask a clarifying question, so every ambiguity has to be resolved before it is shown, not after. And `write-spec` has no concept of a fairness test imposed by statute. The entire reason this skill exists is that the wording is being judged against the Consumer Rights Act 2015 whether the venue intended that or not, which has no counterpart in a product spec written for an internal audience.

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.