drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk – OpenClaw Skill

---

name: drivers-hours-wtd-infringement-coach-uk description: Creates a 1-page driver-facing tacho/WTD infringement note plus corrective actions and review date. USE WHEN you need to explain infringements and schedule follow-up.

Drivers’ Hours & WTD Infringement Coach (UK)

PURPOSE

Turn tacho/WTD infringement evidence into a friendly, professional 1-page driver note plus corrective actions and a review date, applying the company RAG escalation rule.

WHEN TO USE

• “Explain this tacho infringement to the driver and draft the message.”
• “Check this shift pattern for EU Drivers’ Hours and WTD risk.”
• “Do a weekly tacho and WTD compliance review for these drivers.” (driver-facing outputs needed)
• “Draft a coaching note for repeated breaks/rest issues.”
• “Summarise these infringements into actions and review dates.”

DO NOT USE WHEN…

• Generic questions like “What are the drivers’ hours rules?” with no driver context or artefact needed.
• Generic HR/disciplinary process requests not tied to a specific compliance case.
• Fuel-saving/defensive driving tips unrelated to compliance deliverables.

INPUTS

• REQUIRED:
  • Driver identifier (name/ID) and role (e.g., HGV/PCV), and period covered (start/end dates)
  • Infringement list (from .ddd/CSV/PDF summary) including dates/times and type
  • Working time context (duty/shift length, POA if recorded, breaks) if WTD-relevant
• OPTIONAL:
  • Prior RAG history (count of ambers/reds in last X weeks/months per your policy)
  • Any driver explanation already given
  • Relevant internal SOP excerpt (paste text) for local rules
• EXAMPLES:
  • “Driver A, week 2026-01-05 to 2026-01-11: 2x insufficient break, 1x daily rest short by 45 mins…”

OUTPUTS

• driver-infringement-note.md (max ~1 page): explanation + expectations + support
• corrective-action-plan.md: actions, owner, due dates, review date
• Success criteria:
  • Tone: friendly & professional (UK spelling)
  • No assumptions: facts are attributed to provided records
  • Includes a clear review date and next steps

WORKFLOW

1. Validate inputs
   • Confirm: driver ID, date range, infringement types, and source (PDF/CSV notes).
   • IF any are missing → STOP AND ASK THE USER for the missing items.
2. Summarise facts only
   • List infringements in plain English (what happened + when), without blame.
   • IF records conflict (e.g., two sources disagree) → STOP AND ASK THE USER which source is authoritative.
3. Classify severity for RAG
   • Apply the company rule in references/rag-escalation-rule.md.
   • IF RAG status depends on missing prior history → STOP AND ASK THE USER for counts/previous outcomes.
4. Draft the driver-facing note (max 1 page)
   • Use assets/driver-note-template.md.
   • Include: what the rule expects, what the record shows, why it matters, and what to do next time.
5. Propose corrective actions
   • Use assets/corrective-action-plan-template.md.
   • Actions must be specific, practical, and measurable (e.g., break planning, reminder prompts, route/shift adjustments).
6. Schedule review
   • Choose a review date proportional to risk:
     • Green/Amber: typically next weekly review window
     • Red: sooner review + manager check-in (and potential investigation trigger per your policy)
7. Output pack
   • Produce the two .md artefacts with consistent filenames.
   • IF the user asks to edit existing files → ASK FIRST before making edits.

OUTPUT FORMAT

# driver-infringement-note.md
Driver:
Period covered:
Source records:

## What we saw in the record (facts)
- [date/time] — [plain English infringement]
- …

## What the rules require (plain English)
- …

## What to do next time (practical steps)
- …
- …

## Support we can offer
- …

## Status and next review
RAG status:
Next review date:
Manager/Compliance follow-up:

DEPENDENCIES

• None required beyond the provided extracts/summaries.
• If the user provides files (.ddd/CSV/PDF), rely on the user’s summary unless your environment includes a trusted parser.

SAFETY & EDGE CASES

• Never accuse or assume intent; stick to evidence.
• If there is any possibility of an employment action (discipline), recommend using the investigation skill pack and keep this note factual/coaching-focused.
• Don’t invent legal thresholds; only explain what’s in the provided evidence + internal policy text.

EXAMPLES

• Input: “Explain insufficient break x2 and rest shortage x1 for Driver A”
  • Output: driver-infringement-note.md + corrective-action-plan.md with review date next week
• Input: “Repeated break issues; prior 3 ambers”
  • Output: Note + actions; status indicates escalation path per RAG rule; recommends investigation workflow if needed