One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/tuanpa-nhg-eng/nhg-ipms --skill audit-finding-tuanpa-nhg-eng
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: audit-finding
Source: https://github.com/tuanpa-nhg-eng/nhg-ipms/tree/main/.claude/skills/audit-finding
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/tuanpa-nhg-eng/nhg-ipms --skill audit-finding-tuanpa-nhg-eng

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Turning raw exceptions from audit working papers into formal, defensible audit findings is slow and inconsistent. This Skill standardizes the process by enforcing the 5C structure (Criteria, Condition, Cause, Consequence, Corrective action), a High/Medium/Low rating scale, and a consolidated findings register. ## Core Features & Use Cases - 5C Finding Drafting: Writes each finding with objective conditions, cited criteria, root-cause analysis (5-Whys), consequences, and measurable corrective actions with owners and deadlines. - Severity Rating & Escalation: Rates findings High/Medium/Low with documented justification, and applies the roll-up rule (3+ Medium findings with the same root cause may merge into one High finding). - Findings Register: Produces one file per finding plus a summary table tracking code, title, rating, source working paper, and auditee response status. - Use Case: After fieldwork confirms an exception in a working paper, ask the assistant to convert it into a formal finding; it verifies evidence linkage, drafts the 5C content, rates severity, and records the auditee's response. ## Quick Start Convert the confirmed exception in working paper WP-03 into a formal 5C audit finding with a severity rating and corrective action.

Frequently Asked Questions about audit-finding

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I write an audit finding using the 5C structure?

Write the Condition first (objective facts with n/N figures), then Criteria (cited regulation or standard), Cause (root cause via 5-Whys), Consequence, and Corrective action. Each finding must link to at least one working paper with a confirmed exception.

How are audit finding severity ratings determined?

Findings are rated High, Medium, or Low against a defined rating scale, with one sentence documenting the justification. Three or more Medium findings sharing the same root cause can be proposed for merging into one High finding, subject to team lead approval.

What makes a good corrective action recommendation in an audit finding?

A corrective action must address the root cause, be specific and measurable, assign a responsible role, and set a deadline matching severity (High ≤ 30 days, Medium ≤ 90, Low ≤ 180). Vague actions like 'strengthen awareness' are rejected as unmeasurable.

What happens if the audited unit disagrees with a finding?

Both positions are recorded honestly along with each side's evidence in the auditee response section. The severity rating is never lowered merely because the unit objects; disagreement is documented, not suppressed.

When should audit work stop and escalate suspected fraud?

When evidence suggests intentional misconduct or fraud, the normal process stops immediately, the suspected party is not notified, and the chief auditor decides the handling path. The skill only supports evidence preservation and never concludes fraud on its own.