Assemble an approved employment-offer package

Implementation guide · untested

Source-supported actions are attributed evidence. Proposed steps, prompts, synthetic examples and checks are original editorial guidance; the workflow has not been run.

Why this agent / simpler alternative

Agent contribution

A recruiter can give one assistant a controlled set of offer facts and ask it to carry those facts through several different document formats. Its useful judgment is locating conflicts, identifying missing terms and adapting the explanation to the role, while the approved source controls every consequential field.

Simpler alternative

Use mail merge and a fixed slide template when offers differ only in a few fields. A deterministic template is easier to audit than an agent if there is little narrative personalization.

Unsuitable when

The compensation approval is missing, legal clauses need interpretation, candidate suitability is being decided, or confidential candidate information is not approved for the selected system.

Source-supported scope

Anthropic provides a draft-package recipe with human review and optional reuse. It is not a recorded successful offer or signed agreement.

Setup — required, optional and unknown

Required

1. Claude Cowork with access to a working folder.

2. Editorial pilot: a restricted folder containing one fictional candidate and an output subfolder; identify the recruiter who owns the review.

3. Editorial pilot: a current employer-approved template and a single authoritative approval for compensation, currency, role and start date.

4. For the local-folder route, Anthropic documents that the desktop app must stay open; cloud access also has surface and plan conditions.

Optional

1. The Academy recipe offers the Human Resources plugin; connectors are unnecessary for its file-based start.

2. Editorial addition: an anonymized previous package to specify formatting, plus a field dictionary distinguishing base salary, variable pay and equity.

Unknown

1. Model, plan cost and organization-specific plugin availability were not established.

2. Counsel approval, signature routing and employment-law applicability must be determined by the employer; this guide does not establish them.

Inputs and access

1. Name

   candidate_brief

   Format

   One PDF or DOCX; fictional pilot fields: candidate_id, preferred_name, role, hiring_manager, approved_role_specific_points

   Source or owner

   Recruiter

   Access scope

   One candidate only; omit birth date, identity documents, health and family information

   Permission needed

   Employer authorization for this specific candidate material in the chosen agent service

2. Name

   offer_template

   Format

   DOCX with named fields and clearly marked protected clauses

   Source or owner

   HR/legal template owner

   Access scope

   Read-only source; write new draft separately

   Permission needed

   Permission to use the employer template; no authority to change protected legal text

3. Name

   approved_terms

   Format

   XLSX or CSV with field, value, unit, currency, approval_reference, approved_at

   Source or owner

   Compensation approver

   Access scope

   Only approved offer terms

   Permission needed

   Approval to process these terms; no authority to raise compensation or infer equity value

4. Name

   benefits_and_style

   Format

   Current benefits PDF plus optional approved writing sample

   Source or owner

   HR communications owner

   Access scope

   Only material relevant to this offer

   Permission needed

   Permission to reuse; external delivery remains separate

5. Name

   output_contract

   Format

   Text manifest naming offer-draft.docx, email-draft.txt, call-deck.html, field-register.csv and issues.txt

   Source or owner

   Recruiter

   Access scope

   Private output folder only

   Permission needed

   Explicit authorization for draft file creation; no send, signature or sharing

Documented source actions

1. 1

   Read the working folder.

   Input: Approved files

   Output: Offer, email and HTML drafts.

   Checkpoint: Human review.

   Source: working-folder and prompt sections ↗

2. 2

   Customize a reusable skill; optionally schedule.

   Input: Reviewed approach

   Output: Repeated draft packages.

   Checkpoint: Detailed schedule testing unknown.

   Source: reusable-skill and scheduling sections ↗

Proposed implementation steps — unexecuted

1. 1

   List every input, version, owner and access scope. Create a manifest distinguishing immutable sources from draft outputs; confirm the candidate_id matches across files.

   Input: Fictional candidate brief, approved template and terms

   Output: intake-manifest with one candidate and the precise output destination

   Checkpoint: Stop if candidate IDs disagree, a required input is absent or permission to process candidate data is missing.

2. 2

   Build a field register for title, reporting line, location, base amount, currency, pay period, variable pay, equity terms, start date and expiry. Record the exact source cell or passage for each.

   Input: Manifest and approved_terms table

   Output: field-register.csv with value, source, approval and unresolved status

   Checkpoint: A later email or a similar past offer cannot override an approval. Conflicting amounts remain unresolved; leave missing fields visibly blank.

3. 3

   Populate a new offer draft using only approved fields. Preserve protected clauses and compare all non-placeholder text against the template.

   Input: Template and verified field register

   Output: offer-draft.docx plus a clause-change report

   Checkpoint: No invented probation, notice, immigration, benefit eligibility or signature terms. Any protected-clause difference blocks further use.

4. 4

   Draft an invitation email and a short call deck. Use only approved professional points; mark the artifacts DRAFT and describe unapproved fields as unresolved.

   Input: Candidate brief and the same field register

   Output: email-draft.txt and call-deck.html with shared field IDs

   Checkpoint: The email is a file in the review folder, not a draft created in a third-party mailbox. No recipient gets a message or access.

5. 5

   Compare every repeated amount, currency, title and date. Open the draft files for layout review; inspect wrapped salary lines, missing symbols and text hidden by slide layout.

   Input: All three drafts and field register

   Output: qa-report with field-by-artifact comparisons and presentation issues

   Checkpoint: Every consequential value must match its approved source; a missing or conflicting value blocks the package even if two artifacts agree.

6. 6

   Prepare a handoff naming the compensation reviewer, template reviewer and final recruiter approver. Keep the package private until those people resolve the issues.

   Input: QA report and unresolved list

   Output: review-checklist with artifact names, decisions needed and source pointers

   Checkpoint: This pilot ends at private drafts. Sending an offer, requesting signature, creating a recurring task or sharing a skill requires separate explicit authorization.

Original starter prompt — proposed

Origin

editorial_proposal

Text

Prepare a private review bundle for fictional candidate {candidate_id} using only {input_folder} and the field precedence in {terms_file}. First list missing or conflicting terms. Build a source-linked field register, then a filled copy of {template_file}, an email text file and an HTML call deck in {output_folder}. Protect all non-placeholder clauses. Repeat compensation and dates only when the approval reference is present. Mark every artifact DRAFT. If sources disagree, show the disagreement and do not choose a value. Do not send messages, use signature services, share files, change permissions, connect accounts or schedule tasks. Finish with a cross-artifact comparison and a reviewer checklist.

Placeholders

1. candidate_id

2. input_folder

3. terms_file

4. template_file

5. output_folder

Limitations

Original proposed prompt, not the Academy prompt. It does not establish legal compliance or reproduce a tested workflow. Use fictional data first and obtain appropriate authorization before real candidate data enters any service.

Synthetic worked example — not an agent run

Status

synthetic

Label

Illustrative draft review bundle, invented candidate and terms; not agent-generated or an employment offer

Artifact url

Not specified.

Content

Candidate id

DEMO-001

Candidate name

Taylor Chen

Artifacts

1. offer-draft.docx

2. email-draft.txt

3. call-deck.html

4. field-register.csv

5. issues.txt

Field register

1. Field

   role

   Value

   Implementation Specialist

   Source

   terms.csv row 2

   Review status

   matches

2. Field

   base_salary

   Value

   72000 CAD per year

   Source

   terms.csv row 3; approval DEMO-A17

   Review status

   matches

3. Field

   start_date

   Value

   Not specified.

   Source

   brief.pdf says 2026-11-02; terms.csv is blank

   Review status

   blocked_pending_approval

Email excerpt

Taylor, we would like to arrange a conversation about the Implementation Specialist role. This draft is awaiting internal review before we contact you.

Cross artifact check

Role and annual CAD base match in all applicable artifacts. Start date omitted from all drafts pending approval.

Release status

BLOCKED: approved start date missing; no file sent or shared.

Costs and effort — unmeasured

Verified prices

Setup work

1. Prepare and maintain the approved field register and immutable template; identify a review owner.

2. Configure a restricted pilot folder and confirm the selected Cowork surface can access it.

Recurring work

1. Check that approval references and benefits versions are current for each candidate.

2. Review sensitive fields and legal-template integrity; resolve discrepancies before considering external release.

Unknowns

1. Subscription and model usage charges, actual preparation and review duration, and exception frequency were not measured.

2. Source time labels are not measured savings or a promise about this pilot.

Failure modes

1. Signal

   A recruiter email contains a newer salary than the approved compensation sheet.

   Consequence

   The agent may silently select an unauthorized offer amount.

2. Signal

   Base salary is copied as monthly pay or the currency symbol is dropped.

   Consequence

   The offer and presentation may imply a materially different commitment.

3. Signal

   Unresolved start-date placeholders disappear during document filling.

   Consequence

   A polished file can conceal missing approval.

4. Signal

   A legal paragraph is paraphrased or copied from an old example.

   Consequence

   The draft no longer matches the employer-approved template.

Recovery steps

1. Trigger

   Conflicting or unapproved term

   Action

   Mark the field unresolved, retain both source pointers and ask the designated approval owner for a corrected authoritative input.

   Stop condition

   Do not finalize that field until the decision is documented.

2. Trigger

   Clause or formatting corruption

   Action

   Discard the affected draft copy and regenerate from the untouched template, then repeat the text comparison and visual check.

   Stop condition

   Stop if the protected template cannot be preserved.

3. Trigger

   Output written outside the authorized folder

   Action

   Pause processing and inventory affected files; have the authorized owner contain access using the normal incident procedure.

   Stop condition

   Do not send or broaden access to resolve the problem.

Source-observed and proposed approval boundaries

Source observed

The recipe keeps candidate delivery and signature behind human review.

Editorial recommendations

1. Authorize the specific candidate information and destination service before real-data processing.

2. Compensation decisions, changes to protected terms and candidate selection remain with authorized humans.

3. Reviewing this guide does not authorize account connections, external drafts, message sending, signature requests, public links or scheduled processing.

Unexecuted validation plan

Fixture

Proposed fixture only: one fictional candidate, one template, a terms CSV with a missing start date, a benefits PDF and a stale email containing a different salary. No fixture run has occurred.

Acceptance checks

1. All approved terms include file/cell or passage references; the stale email cannot override the salary approval.

2. All drafts preserve the protected template text and explicitly retain the unresolved start-date blocker.

3. Repeated role, salary amount, currency and pay frequency agree; each artifact can be opened and read.

4. No send, signature, sharing, account-connection or scheduling action appears in the execution log of a future authorized test.

Stop conditions

1. An unauthorized term is inferred.

2. A protected clause is modified.

3. The system requires broader candidate-data access or attempts an external action.

Executed

No

Limits

1. This is an editorial implementation candidate, not a legal template or a measured hiring outcome.

2. Original publication date and model version remain unknown. No workflow or connector was executed.

3. Canadian employment applicability and tenant-specific data residency were not verified.

Guide source links

https://academy.claude.com/use-cases/offer-process ↗
Original recipe or report; see documented_steps locators.

https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15520349-use-claude-cowork-on-web-desktop-and-mobile ↗
Local folder access requires the desktop app; surface and plan caveats.