Legal & Compliance

Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-10

Draft a first-pass internal policy document that a real reviewer can mark up instead of starting from a blank page

Produces a structured first draft of an internal company policy — scope, rules, exceptions, enforcement — built to be edited by legal and leadership, not adopted as-is.

ChatGPT (GPT-5.1)4 fillable variables
Scope for this category: Drafting, summarizing and organizing support only — every prompt states plainly that output is not legal advice and needs review by a qualified lawyer before being relied on or sent externally.

The prompt

Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.

Draft a first-pass internal policy document for the topic below. This is a starting draft meant to be reviewed and edited by legal and leadership before adoption — write it as a strong first draft, not a finished, ready-to-publish policy.

POLICY TOPIC
Remote work equipment and expense reimbursement.

WHO THE POLICY APPLIES TO
All full-time employees working remotely more than 3 days a week; excludes contractors.

THE PROBLEM THIS POLICY IS SOLVING
Inconsistent reimbursement decisions are causing complaints and manager confusion about what's covered.

KNOWN CONSTRAINTS
Annual equipment budget capped at $500/employee; can't retroactively change already-approved purchases.

DRAFTING RULES
Open with a one-paragraph purpose statement that ties the policy directly to the problem it's solving — a policy without a stated reason invites the exact scope-creep and inconsistent enforcement it's meant to prevent. State the scope precisely: who is covered, who is explicitly not covered, and what situations fall outside the policy's reach — an unscoped policy either gets applied inconsistently or gets stretched to cover situations nobody thought through. Write the actual rules as specific, checkable statements (what is and isn't allowed, by when, reported to whom) rather than aspirational language a manager couldn't actually enforce. Include an exceptions section that names the realistic edge cases this topic tends to produce and states who has authority to grant an exception — a policy with no exceptions process either gets silently ignored in edge cases or applied rigidly in situations it was never meant to cover. Include a short enforcement section stating what happens on a first violation versus a repeated one, without inventing specific disciplinary consequences that should really be set by HR and legal — flag that this section needs their input rather than asserting a consequence as settled.

WHAT NOT TO DO
Do not cite a specific law, regulation, or industry standard as the basis for this policy unless one was given to you above — if a legal requirement is relevant, say that it should be confirmed and cited by counsel rather than naming one yourself. Do not present this draft's enforcement consequences as final; mark them as placeholders for legal and HR to confirm.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. Purpose statement.
2. Scope (covered / not covered).
3. Policy rules as a numbered list.
4. Exceptions and who can grant them.
5. Enforcement (marked as draft, pending HR/legal input).
6. A closing note stating this is a first-draft internal policy for legal and leadership review, not a final or legally vetted document, and it should not be published, distributed, or enforced until a qualified lawyer has reviewed it for legal accuracy and enforceability.

Customize

Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.

Why this works

A policy draft's most common failure isn't bad prose, it's unenforceable rules dressed up as clear ones — asking for "policy rules" without insisting on checkable statements produces sentences like "employees should use good judgment when incurring expenses," which sounds like a rule but gives a manager nothing to actually enforce consistently, so the instruction here forces specific, verifiable conditions instead. Requiring an explicit scope with a stated "not covered" side matters because most real policy disputes happen exactly at the boundary the policy never named — a remote work policy silent on contractors will inevitably get invoked or ignored inconsistently for that group, and naming the boundary up front is what actually prevents the ambiguity from surfacing later as a dispute. The exceptions section is deliberately separated from the rules themselves because a policy that presents its rules as absolute either gets quietly broken in the first edge case or gets enforced rigidly against a situation nobody anticipated — naming realistic edge cases and an explicit exception authority gives the policy a pressure valve instead of leaving that decision to whoever encounters the edge case first. The instruction to mark enforcement consequences as placeholders rather than asserting them is the safety-critical piece: disciplinary consequences are a joint HR/legal decision with real employment-law exposure, and a model confidently inventing "first offense: written warning, second offense: termination" would hand a manager language that reads as settled policy when it's actually an unreviewed guess — flagging it as a placeholder keeps the draft honest about what still needs real institutional sign-off before anyone relies on it.

What you get back

Purpose: This policy establishes consistent rules for remote work equipment and expense reimbursement to eliminate the ad-hoc decisions currently causing employee complaints. Scope: Applies to full-time employees working remotely 3+ days/week; does not apply to contractors or hybrid employees under this threshold. Rules: 1. Employees may request reimbursement up to $500/year for home office equipment... Enforcement: [Draft — pending HR/legal input] Repeated over-budget claims without pre-approval may result in... This is a first draft for legal and leadership review, not a final document — it must be reviewed by a qualified lawyer before being published or enforced.

Verified against

ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-10

Changelog

  • 2026-08-10 Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.

Need this built into your business?

If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.

EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
All Legal & Compliance prompts

Check your AI visibility

One URL in, a 0–100 score and the exact fixes out.

RUN THE CHECK

Browse all the tools

15 tools across six categories
13 of them never send your data anywhere

Free · No signup · No trial clock

SEE THE DIRECTORY