Sales Call Recording Consent Metadata
Check your supplied consent policy and recording metadata for missing supporting records.
Sales operations
Find where your forecast fields and customer emails disagree.
A downloadable skill for your AI agent.
Conflicting expected-close dates.
Source references, missing information, and questions to review stay with the findings.
Open your download and follow the start guide. Use an AI agent that can load skill files and run the included tools.
Forecast fields and customer emails. Confirm the case and period you want to check.
Copy the request below into your agent. Add the files and any task details it needs.
Check the findings against the original records. Choose where to save the report and follow up on open questions.
Use the Sales Forecast Date Contradiction skill. Review the attached records: forecast fields and customer emails. Prepare this result: conflicting expected-close dates. Include a source reference for each finding. List missing information and questions that need my review. Ask me to confirm the scope and where to save the report before you start.
It puts records for the same item side by side. It keeps both original values when they differ, so you can check the source.
Forecast fields and customer emails.
For this task, keep one review row for each opportunity + close date field. Record forecast date, customer statement, and source date. Keep the source location beside each value.
Separate identity evidence, stage claims, customer commitments, approved discounts, and executed contracts. Preserve conflicts between records.
Do not merge contacts on names alone. Use sourced commercial rules and treat forecasting judgments as review items.
A changed value does not show which source is correct. Semantic equivalence and identity aliases need an explicit mapping and review.
This synthetic example shows the included check in use. Your agent uses its findings to complete your task report.
Synthetic example records
| Starting record | forecast date: source-A |
|---|---|
| Record to check | forecast date: source-B |
A difference needs review
This result comes from the checking tool in your download.
These are synthetic records from the bundled example.
{"id": "e1", "key": "opportunity + close date field / SYNTHETIC-001", "value": {"forecast date": "source-A"}}{"id": "o1", "key": "opportunity + close date field / SYNTHETIC-001", "value": {"forecast date": "source-B"}}After purchase, extract the ZIP. Run these commands from the skill folder. Use a new output folder.
python3 scripts/checks.py
python3 scripts/audit.py assets/example.json \
--files-root assets/sample-files --output-dir example-result
Expected exit code: 1. Code 0 means no helper finding. Code 1 means a finding or review item. Code 2 means incomplete or invalid input.
The check uses the records you supply. Review each finding against the original documents.
Ask your agent to save the completed task report in a folder you choose. The report template includes the result, source references, missing information, and next actions.
Tonotes does not receive your work documents through this website. Documents you share with an AI service follow that service's storage settings.
US$11 includes one skill in a ZIP with 18 files. You receive the instructions and tools to run the task with your own records.
Use an agent that supports SKILL.md instructions and Python 3.10 or later with SQLite. Your AI-agent service is separate.
Start with forecast fields and customer emails. Confirm the case, period, and source versions before the review.
Use account legal entity, contact, opportunity, quote version to keep records distinct. The agent records the original value, an exact quote, and the source location.
Match each item, then compare its supplied values. Run the Python helper on the structured records. Check each finding against its source.
Prepare the task result: conflicting expected-close dates. Include missing evidence, unresolved questions, and the next action for each open item.
Eight synthetic cases check the tool locally. Live-agent accuracy on real documents has not been tested.