Tools

SOP Completeness Checker

Assess what the document actually says across boundary, ownership, execution, control and maintenance. The checker flags missing fields and produces a copyable revision list in your browser.

Uli PrantzBuilds and operates all-agents
Published
Key takeaways

Key takeaways

  • The checker uses twelve visible criteria scored clear, partial or missing; there is no hidden model judgment.
  • A missing trigger, finish condition, accountable owner or exception path is a hard gap even when the total score is high.
  • A high score means ready for a dry run, not approved, compliant or safe for automation.
  • Inputs stay in your browser and the action report can be copied without an account.
The SOP Completeness Checker scores twelve visible fields across boundary, ownership, execution, control and maintenance. Mark each field clear, partial or missing based only on the current document. Missing trigger, finish, owner or exception path overrides the percentage because an operator cannot safely complete the path without them. The result is a revision list, not approval.

Check the current SOP

Mark what the current process documentation says—not what an experienced operator remembers. Clear = explicit and testable; partial = implied or inconsistent; missing = absent.

1 · Boundary

Purpose and scope

The procedure states the outcome, where it applies and where it does not.

2 · Boundary · hard gap

Trigger

A worker can tell exactly when to start, from an event or schedule.

3 · Boundary · hard gap

Finish condition

The final accepted state is observable, not just “done”.

4 · Ownership · hard gap

Accountable owner

One role owns correctness and can change or stop the procedure.

5 · Ownership

Decision authority

Approvals and deviations name the role allowed to decide.

6 · Execution

Inputs and sources

Every required input names its field, format and source of truth.

7 · Execution

Unambiguous steps

Steps use action verbs and identify the object changed or checked.

8 · Execution

Thresholds

Words such as high, late or material have testable values.

9 · Control · hard gap

Exception paths

Missing, invalid, duplicate and rejected inputs have owned destinations.

10 · Control

Evidence record

The run records what happened, when, to what and under which version.

11 · Maintenance

Tested by another person

A qualified person other than the author has followed the current version.

12 · Maintenance

Version and review

The document has an owner, effective version and review/change route.

Result · 12/24 · 50%

Rewrite the operating boundary

Boundary

3/6

Ownership

2/4

Execution

3/6

Control

2/4

Maintenance

2/4

Next improvements

  • Purpose and scope: Add one outcome sentence plus explicit in-scope and out-of-scope cases.
  • Trigger: Name the event, schedule or state change that starts the procedure.
  • Finish condition: Name the record, status or receipt that proves completion.
  • Accountable owner: Name one accountable role rather than a team or inbox.
  • Decision authority: For every approval or deviation, name the role with authority to refuse.
  • Inputs and sources: Replace document names with exact fields, formats and systems of record.

How the completeness score works

Each clear answer receives two points, partial receives one and missing receives zero. The total is divided by 24. Below 60% means rewrite the operating boundary; 60–84% means targeted clarification; 85% or more is ready for a dry run—unless a hard gap is missing.

The hard gaps are trigger, finish condition, accountable owner and exception paths. The override is intentional. A procedure with beautiful version control and detailed normal steps still cannot run consistently when nobody can tell when to start, when to stop, who decides or where failure goes.

Use the label as a work queue, never as certification.
ResultMeaningNext action
Rewrite the boundaryToo much execution still depends on memory.Interview an operator and capture start, finish, sources and failure paths.
Targeted clarificationThe path exists but named fields remain implied or inconsistent.Fix the listed gaps and run a fresh case.
Ready for a dry runThe document is explicit enough to test with another qualified operator.Run normal and failure cases; revise every verbal clarification.

Answer from the document, not from experience

  • Clear: the field is explicit, unambiguous and testable in the current effective version.
  • Partial: it is implied, spread across documents, inconsistent or still needs local knowledge.
  • Missing: the current document supplies no dependable answer.

If the process owner can explain a gap aloud, the answer remains missing or partial. The purpose is to expose information that disappears when that person is absent. Use the copied report as the agenda for a working session, then repeat the check against the revised version.

What to do after the score

  1. 01Repair hard gaps first
    Start with trigger, finish, owner and exceptions; prose polish cannot compensate for a broken boundary.
  2. 02Test with a new operator
    Use a normal case plus missing, duplicate and rejected inputs. Record assumptions.
  3. 03Update and version the SOP
    Turn every verbal clarification into a controlled change with an effective version.
  4. 04Map it only after the dry run
    Use the Workflow Mapper to identify owners, inputs, outputs and safe destinations step by step.

Limitations and when not to use this

  • The tool checks declared structure, not whether instructions are correct, efficient, lawful or safe.
  • Scores are an educational heuristic designed for comparison within one team; they are not certification or evidence of conformity with a standard.
  • The browser does not submit answers to all-agents. Even so, describe fields and roles rather than entering confidential records.

Sources

  1. Guidelines for Quality Management: Standard Operating ProceduresFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Accessed 1 August 2026
  2. ISO 9001:2015 — Quality management systemsInternational Organization for Standardization Accessed 1 August 2026

Translate the procedure

Turn the checked document into trigger, state, rule and exception fields.

Translate the procedure
About the author

Uli Prantz

Builds and operates all-agents

Uli Prantz builds all-agents, the process-automation platform this site documents. He writes about the operational side of automating recurring business work: where deterministic code beats model judgment, where it does not, and where a human still has to approve.

Bring one process. We will scope it in 30 minutes.

You leave the call knowing whether it is a fit, what can become code and what still needs a person.

Book a discovery call