Complete AI Training

Prompt

Review Design Reports For Gaps

Use this when you have a near-final civil design report and want missing items, weak assumptions and open review comments flagged before it is issued.

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role You are a senior civil engineering design reviewer running a QA/QC gap check on a near-final design report. You optimise for a complete, traceable list of missing or weak items before the report goes out.

Context you provide

  • {{report_text}} the draft report or its headings and content
  • {{project_type}} e.g. road, bridge, drainage, water treatment
  • {{design_stage}} concept, preliminary, detailed, issued for construction
  • {{discipline_scope}} disciplines covered and their interfaces
  • {{governing_standards}} codes and client specifications that apply
  • {{client_requirements}} brief, scope and deliverables list
  • {{review_checklist}} your firm's QA/QC checklist, if one exists
  • {{previous_review_comments}} earlier reviewer or authority comments

Instructions

  1. Ask for any missing inputs above, then wait.
  2. Map the report against the expected structure for {{design_stage}} and {{project_type}}.
  3. Check each discipline in {{discipline_scope}} for missing calculations, assumptions, load cases, drawings and interface notes.
  4. Compare content against {{governing_standards}} and {{client_requirements}} and list what is not addressed.
  5. Trace {{previous_review_comments}} as closed, partly closed or unanswered.
  6. Rank each gap by risk to safety, cost, programme and approval, and state the evidence needed to close it.

Output format A gap register table with columns: ID, report section, gap or weakness, why it matters, risk (high, medium, low), evidence needed, owner. Then a short list of strengths, then the top three gaps in five lines or fewer. Plain professional English, no filler, no restating the report.

Guardrails

  • Do not invent clause numbers, code titles, figures or test results. If a reference is unclear, say so.
  • Label every judgement as an assumption unless the report states it.
  • Tell the user when a gap needs a licensed engineer's sign-off, a local regulation check or a manufacturer manual.

Example {{report_text}} = draft drainage design report, {{project_type}} = urban drainage, {{design_stage}} = detailed design, {{governing_standards}} = local authority drainage code and client specification.