| name | sop-author |
| description | Use this skill to write or review a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) / safe system of work — the repeatable, trainable method for how a task is done safely. Triggers on "SOP", "standard operating procedure", "safe operating procedure", "safe system of work", "write a procedure", "document the process for X", "procedure document", "work instruction", or "review/update this SOP". Produces the structure — purpose & scope, roles, the step-by-step method with hazards and controls integrated, competency sign-off, and document control. For a single job's pre-start hazard sheet use task-analysis-author; for a critical-risk bow tie use critical-risk-manager. NZ/AU workplace context. Not legal advice. |
SOP Author (safe systems of work)
Purpose
Write or review a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) — the documented, repeatable, trainable
method for how a task is performed safely and consistently. A good SOP is written for the person
doing the work, integrates the relevant hazards and controls, defines the competency required,
and is kept current under document control. It is a standing document (how the task is always done)
— distinct from a Task Analysis (the hazards of this job today) and a bow tie (a critical-risk
analysis).
When to use
- Documenting how a recurring task should be done safely, as a basis for training and consistency.
- Reviewing/updating an existing SOP (refresh the steps, controls, and document control).
- Turning a method that "lives in someone's head" into a repeatable, auditable procedure.
When NOT to use
- A single job's pre-start hazard sheet the crew signs onto →
../task-analysis-author/ (TA/JSA).
- A critical (fatal) risk barrier analysis →
../critical-risk-manager/ (bow tie) — the SOP then
embeds the resulting critical controls.
- A pure legal-duty question →
../worksafe-nz-specialist/ / ../safework-au-specialist/.
Method
Elicit the real process first. An SOP invented from assumptions is worse than none. Interview the
people who actually do the task — don't draft from a generic template. If they struggle to describe it
in the abstract, ask them to walk through the last time they did it: "what did you do first, then
what?" Concrete recent memory surfaces the real steps, the decision points, and the bits people forget.
Capture the trigger, the tools/plant used, where it branches, where mistakes happen, and what "done
right" looks like — then write. Ask for anything missing rather than guessing.
- Define purpose and scope — what the procedure covers, who it applies to, and any boundaries
(what it does not cover).
- Set up document control — scope, version, issue date, author, reviewer, owner/approver, next
review date, and a record-of-amendments table. An SOP with no version control rots silently.
- Identify roles and responsibilities — who does what in the procedure (operator, supervisor,
spotter, etc.) — by role, not by name.
- Write the method as numbered steps/sections — the actual sequence, in plain language for the
person doing the work. Start each step with an action verb (Check, Isolate, Confirm, Don,
Lift); one clear instruction per step; say what to do and what "good" looks like. Mark decision
points explicitly ("If the load exceeds X, stop and …; otherwise continue to step N"). List any
prerequisites (access, permits, plant checks) before step 1.
- Integrate hazards and controls — for the task's in-scope hazards, weave the controls into
the relevant steps using the hierarchy of controls. For critical (fatal) risks, call them out
explicitly and list the critical controls the worker must apply — sourced from the bow tie
(
../critical-risk-manager/) and/or the organisation's risk register.
- Define competency and sign-off — what the worker must understand/demonstrate, with a
competency checklist per section and a trainee/trainer (or worker/supervisor) declaration so
sign-off records that the person is competent. For critical risks, include a dedicated sign-off
for each critical control.
- Set the review cycle — when the SOP is reviewed (e.g. on change of plant/process/people, after
an incident, and at a defined maximum interval).
See references/sop-structure.md for the full section-by-section structure and good-practice
principles.
Jurisdiction note
The method is jurisdiction-neutral, but an SOP is one way a PCBU provides the safe systems of work,
information, training and supervision it owes (NZ HSWA s 36; AU model WHS s 19). Controls must
reflect the duty to eliminate risk SFAIRP and otherwise minimise it (NZ s 30 / AU s 17). Route duty
questions to ../worksafe-nz-specialist/ / ../safework-au-specialist/.
Output format
A structured SOP with, in order: title · document control (scope/version/dates/author/
reviewer/owner/next review) · record of amendments · purpose & scope · roles &
responsibilities · numbered procedure (with hazards/controls integrated and critical risks
called out) · competency sign-off per section · declaration / final sign-off · review
cycle. Produce it as portable, structured Markdown by default.
Brand-neutral by default. Do not invent or apply any company's house style, colours, logos,
template, or internal system/process names. If the user supplies their own template and brand, apply
that separately (and keep it out of this public, company-agnostic skill).
Hand-offs
- Critical-risk controls to embed →
../critical-risk-manager/ (bow tie + control assurance).
- A specific job's pre-start hazard sheet →
../task-analysis-author/ (TA/JSA).
- Competency/licence requirements for the task →
../high-risk-work-specialist/.
- Duties →
../worksafe-nz-specialist/ (NZ) / ../safework-au-specialist/ (AU). Route via
../hse-advisor/.
Disclaimer
This skill produces an SOP draft — not legal advice and not a verified safe system of work. A
competent person must validate the method, hazards, controls and competency requirements against the
actual site, plant and people, and keep the SOP current. A written SOP does not by itself make work
safe or discharge any duty holder's obligations — the work must actually be done the way the SOP says,
by competent people, with the controls genuinely in place.
