360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

Erisa Plan Fiduciary Review Memo

核心功能是分阶段收集计划信息、委员会情况及各模块数据,完成投资监控、费用合理性、服务提供商评估、合规核查等多维度审查,生成规范模板的受托审查备忘录草稿并标注关键缺陷。适用于401(k)、403(b)等ERISA计划的受托合规审查,服务对象含计划发起人、委员会成员等。输入为分步反馈的计划数据,输出为带律师审查提示的Markdown草稿,需经律师确认后使用。

archlab-space
archlab-space
热度 22.84
最近更新 2026-05-30 08:58:08
分类:效率依赖:纯提示词应用场景:法律文档 / 报告撰写 / 会议纪要 / 任务管理

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add erisa-plan-fiduciary-review-memo
Metadata
name
erisa-plan-fiduciary-review-memo
description
Use this skill when an ERISA plan sponsor, retirement committee member, plan administrator, or benefits counsel needs to draft a fiduciary prudent-process review memo for a 401(k), 403(b), defined-benefit, or health-and-welfare plan. Covers investment monitoring, fee reasonableness analysis, service-provider review, plan-document compliance flags, and committee decision logging aligned to ERISA §§ 402–408, DOL regulations, and the 2024 fiduciary rule.

ERISA Plan Fiduciary Review Memo

Converts plan data, committee inputs, and review materials into a DRAFT fiduciary prudent-process memo that documents the committee's monitoring activities, fee-reasonableness conclusions, and investment decisions. Produces a review-ready packet for plan counsel to verify before final committee adoption.

Flow

Phase 1 — Plan and Committee Intake

Ask one question at a time. Wait for each answer before proceeding.

  1. Plan identification: plan name, employer name, plan type (401(k) / 403(b) / DB pension / 457 / health-and-welfare), EIN, plan number, plan year.
  2. Committee: committee name, meeting date, quorum confirmed (yes/no), attendees (name and title — no SSNs or personal data).
  3. Review scope: which modules apply this cycle? Options: (A) Investment Monitoring, (B) Fee Reasonableness / 408(b)(2), (C) Service-Provider Review, (D) Plan Document and Operational Compliance, (E) Cybersecurity and Participant Data Review.
  4. Prior memo reference: date of last review memo and whether any open action items carried forward.

Confirm the scope with the user before starting analysis phases.

Phase 2 — Investment Monitoring (Module A)

Collect for each investment option:

  • Fund name and ticker
  • Asset class and benchmark
  • 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year returns vs. benchmark
  • Expense ratio vs. category median
  • Morningstar rating or equivalent (if available)
  • Watch-list status from prior review

For each fund, apply the monitoring matrix:

Signal Threshold Flag
Underperformance vs. benchmark > 100 bps over 3 of 4 periods Watch
Expense ratio > 25th percentile vs. category median Watch
Manager/strategy change Any Review Required
Fund closure or merger Announced Immediate Action

Output a fund-by-fund table: Fund Name | Asset Class | Performance Flag | Fee Flag | Status (OK / Watch / Remove / Replace).

For Watch or Remove funds, document the committee's deliberation rationale and next-review timeline. Never recommend a specific replacement fund — flag the gap for investment advisor input.

Phase 3 — Fee Reasonableness / 408(b)(2) Review (Module B)

Collect:

  • Total plan assets
  • Recordkeeper name, annual fee structure (per-participant or basis-point), and whether a competitive benchmarking study was completed in the past 3 years
  • Any revenue-sharing or indirect compensation arrangements
  • List of covered service providers (CSP) and whether 408(b)(2) disclosures were received

Apply checks:

  1. Confirm 408(b)(2) disclosures received from all CSPs — flag any missing disclosures as a CRITICAL deficiency.
  2. Compare recordkeeper per-participant cost to plan-size market range (use tiered benchmarks: < 100 participants, 100–499, 500–2,499, 2,500–9,999, 10,000+).
  3. Flag if no benchmarking study was done in the past 3 years.
  4. Document committee conclusion: fees reasonable / fees require further benchmarking / fees require RFP.

Phase 4 — Service-Provider Review (Module C)

Collect service-provider list: recordkeeper, trustee, investment advisor/consultant, TPA (if applicable), auditor (if applicable).

For each provider assess:

  • Contract expiration date — flag if < 12 months from meeting date
  • Any unresolved service failures or complaints
  • Fidelity bond coverage vs. plan assets (minimum: greater of $1,000 or 10% of plan assets, cap $500,000 ordinary / $1,000,000 if employer securities)

Flag missing fidelity bond coverage as a CRITICAL deficiency.

Phase 5 — Plan Document and Operational Compliance (Module D)

Ask the user to confirm or provide:

  • Plan document restatement date (flag if > 6 years old for pre-approved plans)
  • Whether all plan amendments were timely adopted (IRS and legislative deadlines)
  • Any operational failures identified since last review (loans, distributions, eligibility errors, ADP/ACP failures)
  • Whether a Form 5500 was timely filed (flag any late or amended filings)
  • Whether required participant notices were distributed (SAR, SPD, fee disclosures, blackout, QDIA, auto-enrollment)

Produce a compliance checklist: Item | Status (OK / Deficiency / Unknown) | Recommended Action.

Flag any uncorrected operational failures for immediate referral to ERISA counsel and consideration of a VCP or DFVCP self-correction filing.

Phase 6 — Cybersecurity and Participant Data Review (Module E)

Ask whether:

  • The recordkeeper provided its current SOC 1 Type II report
  • Any participant data breaches or phishing incidents occurred since last review
  • The plan has a written cybersecurity policy aligned to DOL's 2021 guidance

Flag gaps as High or Medium risk per DOL's three-pronged framework (Hire service providers with strong cybersecurity practices / Maintain prudent annual reviews / Follow tips for online security).

Phase 7 — DRAFT Memo Assembly

Produce the DRAFT fiduciary review memo with the following structure:

DRAFT — PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
[PLAN NAME] RETIREMENT COMMITTEE
FIDUCIARY REVIEW MEMORANDUM
Meeting Date: [DATE]    Plan Year: [YEAR]
Prepared by: [NAME/TITLE]    Review Status: DRAFT — For Committee Adoption

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
   [2–3 sentence summary of major findings and committee actions]

2. COMMITTEE QUORUM AND ATTENDANCE
   [Attendee table]

3. INVESTMENT MONITORING RESULTS
   [Fund table with performance/fee flags and committee action per fund]

4. FEE REASONABLENESS ANALYSIS
   [408(b)(2) checklist, benchmarking result, committee conclusion]

5. SERVICE-PROVIDER REVIEW
   [Provider table with contract expiration, fidelity bond status]

6. PLAN DOCUMENT AND OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE
   [Compliance checklist with statuses and actions]

7. CYBERSECURITY REVIEW
   [Risk flags and remediation timeline if applicable]

8. OPEN ACTION ITEMS
   [Item | Owner | Target Date]

9. NEXT REVIEW DATE

ATTORNEY REVIEW BLOCK
This memo is a DRAFT. It must be reviewed by qualified ERISA counsel before
committee adoption, execution, or filing use. This is not legal advice.
Plan counsel: ________________  Review date: ________________

Phase 8 — Quality Gate

Before outputting the memo, confirm:

  • All CRITICAL deficiencies are bolded and placed in the Open Action Items table
  • No personal data (SSNs, account numbers, birth dates) appears in the memo
  • The attorney review block is present and unsigned
  • The DRAFT watermark appears in the header

Key Rules

  • Never submit a Form 5500, file a VCP application, or transmit any document on behalf of the plan. This is a drafting aid only.
  • Never provide a legal opinion or make binding fiduciary determinations — always route CRITICAL deficiencies and compliance failures to ERISA counsel.
  • Never store, repeat, or include participant SSNs, account numbers, birth dates, or medical data in any output.
  • Always mark output DRAFT until committee adoption is confirmed by counsel.
  • Ask one question at a time during intake phases. Do not front-load all questions.
  • If the user provides a prior memo for comparison, extract open action items and carry them forward automatically.

Output Format

Single markdown document structured per the Phase 7 template. Use tables for investment monitoring, fee reasonableness, and open action items. Bold all CRITICAL deficiencies. End with the unsigned attorney review block.

Precede the memo with a one-paragraph Drafting Notes section flagging any information gaps that must be resolved before committee adoption.

Feedback

If this skill did not meet your needs or you encountered a gap, please open an issue at https://github.com/archlab-space/Open-Skill-Hub/issues. Surface this link only when the user expresses an unmet need or dissatisfaction — never in normal interactions.