Code Of Conduct

Professional Code of Conduct

What it is: the professional conduct policy the business runs on, and the register that records who has read it, who has been trained, what was reported, what was investigated, and what was followed up.

Overview

Works out the smallest useful conduct policy for the business in front of it, then builds it only when asked. The default output is a short recommendation, not a policy document. The acknowledgement and breach register - CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, Notion mapping - is produced on request, from one field list so the four cannot drift apart.

Layer: Layer 7: Protect. Fits: Starter stage. Table code: n/a.

The rule this table exists to enforce: a code of conduct is not a document, it is a promise that people can be held to. That requires three separate things kept apart in the register: that someone was given the policy, that they understood it, and that a report is investigated and followed up. A ticked acknowledgement that only means a PDF was opened is not a third of anything - it is nothing.

The second rule, and the one that is not negotiable: a person is never judged by this skill. Investigation, findings, sanctions and sign-off are human decisions made under the business's own procedure and applicable law. The register records that a step happened and who did it. It never records a conclusion.

When to Use This Skill

• code of conduct, workplace policy, ethics policy, values and behaviour
• professional standards, expected behaviour, acceptable use
• staff handbook section on conduct
• complaint, grievance, misconduct, breach, warning
• policy acknowledgement, training record, sign-off sheet
• "our staff are not professional", "customers complained about behaviour"
• contractor, supplier and partner conduct expectations

Do not use it for: the disciplinary process itself, which belongs to disciplinary-pip-tracker in the operational pack; a formal legal drafting task; or investigation, adjudication or any decision about a person.

How It Works

Follow the shared execution contract. The module-specific rules below define only domain fields, decisions, calculations, and safety constraints.

Step 1 - Identify intent

Read the request and pick the intent before asking anything.

• "write" / "set up" / "we need" -> artifacts wanted; go to Step 2.
• "we have one" / "review" / "is this ok" -> a check, not a build.
• "someone complained" / "what do we do" -> an incident, not a policy question. Answer from the business's procedure, escalate to a human, and do not build anything.
• "a breach happened" / "handle" -> a case. This skill does not handle cases.

Ask only if this is the highest-value missing fact; otherwise proceed without an opener:

Q: How many people work in the business, and does it have any employees at all yet?

Step 2 - Ask only what is missing

Treat ambiguous replies as unanswered and ask which explicit option the user means. Record unknown values as Unknown; Unknown is not zero. A record must not be Done when a required check fails.

Skip anything already answered. Ask the rest one at a time, and stop as soon as the remaining answers would not change the policy.

• People - How many employees, and are there contractors, interns or agency staff? / Are any in a regulated profession? / Is anyone in a union or covered by a collective agreement?
• Setting - Office, site, retail floor, remote, or mixed? / Does anyone work with children, vulnerable adults, or handle money, medication or data?
• Rules - Any existing employee handbook, or HR provider? / Any sector code, licensing body or accreditation with its own conduct rules? / Any written disciplinary procedure already in place?
• Law - Which country are the employees in? / Has anyone advised on what employment law requires - notice, right to be accompanied, right to appeal?
• Practical - Who receives a complaint, and who is independent enough to investigate? / How is a breach recorded today, if at all? / Does the business want the policy to cover social media and personal conduct outside work?

Never invent an answer. Employee names, roles, jurisdictions, legal references, union names, awarding bodies and disciplinary outcomes the user has not supplied are Unknown. This skill never supplies legal text.

Step 3 - Hold the internal context

module: code-of-conduct
intent: null            # set up | review | report | import
scale: null             # Starter | Growth | Scale, only if the answer changes it
areas:
  "People": null
  "Setting": null
  "Rules": null
  "Law": null
  "Practical": null
requested_outputs: []
confirmed_facts: []
open_questions: []

Step 4 - Recommend the smallest workflow

Build an already requested artifact without asking again. For advice-only requests, give a short recommendation and offer the relevant artifact.

Recommended approach: A two-page policy that a person can actually read: the standard of behaviour in plain terms, what is not acceptable, what to do if they see or experience it, who to contact, and what happens next. Issued at joining, acknowledged in writing, reviewed annually, and a short induction session rather than a training module nobody attends. Complaints go to a named person who is not the person complained about. Keep the existing disciplinary procedure separate and cross-referenced.

Why this one: A short policy that is read and understood is worth more than a long one that is signed on day one and forgotten. And it only works if the reporting line is real - a policy that says "report to the manager" with no alternative when the manager is the subject is not a policy, it is a dead end written into a document.

Workflow: Legal basis and existing rules checked → Policy drafted in plain language → Reporting route and an independent contact named → Issued and acknowledged in writing → Induction session run → Complaints procedure kept separate and cross-referenced → Register maintained → Policy reviewed annually and on any change in law or size → Cases handled by a human under the disciplinary procedure

Step 5 - Build only on request

Once the user asks for it, derive the fields from the confirmed context and emit the requested artifacts. For machine-readable text, keep prose outside the data; for files, provide a usable link. Report material validation failures or limitations separately.

A selected Notion output is rendered by notion-manual-import, so route the Notion step there. When the user selects Notion, hand that step to @notion-manual-import: it holds the CSV, the property mapping, the import steps and the verification checklist, and it renders the Field Reference below instead of defining a table of its own. Do not restate the mapping here and do not improvise the import steps. Manual CSV and mapping outputs need no connection. For requested workspace changes, follow the shared contract: verify actual tool access and the target before writing. A user saying "connected" is not tool evidence. Never ask for a Notion password or token.

Record ID,Person Reference,Role,Policy Version,Policy Type,Issued Date,Acknowledged Date,Understood,Questions Raised,Training Completed Date,Breach Category,Investigation Status,Action Taken,Follow Up Date,Reviewer,Status,Notes
,EMP-EXAMPLE-001,Example Role,1.0,Code of conduct,2026-09-27,2026-09-27,Yes,None recorded,2026-09-27,Not applicable,Not applicable,None,2026-10-27,Example Reviewer,Done,Example row - replace every value before use.

-- Engine assumption: PostgreSQL. For another engine use the engine's auto-increment
-- equivalent and keep the rest portable.
CREATE TABLE conduct_record (
  record_id BIGINT PRIMARY KEY,
  person_reference VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  role VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  policy_version VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  policy_type VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  issued_date DATE,
  acknowledged_date DATE,
  understood BOOLEAN,
  questions_raised TEXT,
  training_completed_date DATE,
  breach_category VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  investigation_status VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  action_taken VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL,
  follow_up_date DATE,
  reviewer VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
  status VARCHAR(50) NOT NULL,
  notes TEXT,
  created_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW(),
  updated_at TIMESTAMP DEFAULT NOW(),
  CONSTRAINT conduct_acknowledged_after_issued CHECK (acknowledged_date IS NULL OR issued_date IS NULL OR acknowledged_date >= issued_date),
  CONSTRAINT conduct_investigation_status CHECK (investigation_status IN ('Not applicable','Reported','Under review','Investigation in progress','Closed - no further action','Closed - escalated','Blocked')),
  CONSTRAINT conduct_action_taken CHECK (action_taken IN ('None','Verbal reminder','Written warning','Formal warning','Referred to disciplinary procedure','Retraining','Escalated to external body','Unknown')),
  CONSTRAINT conduct_status CHECK (status IN ('Not started','In progress','Blocked','Done','Cancelled'))
);

CREATE INDEX idx_conduct_record_status ON conduct_record (status);
CREATE INDEX idx_conduct_record_investigation ON conduct_record (investigation_status);
CREATE INDEX idx_conduct_record_follow_up ON conduct_record (follow_up_date);

{
  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
  "title": "Professional Code of Conduct",
  "type": "object",
  "additionalProperties": false,
  "properties": {
      "Record ID": { "type": "integer" },
      "Person Reference": { "type": "string" },
      "Role": { "type": "string" },
      "Policy Version": { "type": "string" },
      "Policy Type": { "type": "string" },
      "Issued Date": { "type": "string", "format": "date" },
      "Acknowledged Date": { "type": "string", "format": "date" },
      "Understood": { "type": "boolean" },
      "Questions Raised": { "type": "string" },
      "Training Completed Date": { "type": "string", "format": "date" },
      "Breach Category": { "type": "string" },
      "Investigation Status": { "type": "string" },
      "Action Taken": { "type": "string" },
      "Follow Up Date": { "type": "string", "format": "date" },
      "Reviewer": { "type": "string" },
      "Status": { "type": "string" },
      "Notes": { "type": "string" }
  },
  "required": [
      "Person Reference",
      "Role",
      "Policy Version",
      "Policy Type",
      "Breach Category",
      "Investigation Status",
      "Action Taken",
      "Reviewer",
      "Status"
  ]
}

| CSV column | Notion property | Set after import |
|---|---|---|
| Record ID | Text (preserve source ID) | Keep imported IDs as Text; optionally add a separate Unique ID property |
| Person Reference | Text | Leave as Text. An employee reference, never a name. This table must be importable without exposing who people are |
| Role | Text | Leave as Text. The role as it appears in the policy's scope section |
| Policy Version | Text | Leave as Text. "1.0" - the version that person actually signed |
| Policy Type | Select (add options after import) | Convert to Select, add options: "Code of Conduct", "Acceptable Use", "Data Protection", "Information Security", "Health and Safety", "Anti-Bribery", "Conflicts of Interest", "Social Media", "Grievance Procedure", "Whistleblowing", "Safeguarding" |
| Issued Date | Date | Convert to Date. When the person was given it |
| Acknowledged Date | Date | Convert to Date. When it came back signed |
| Understood | Checkbox | Convert to Checkbox. Confirmed in a conversation, not inferred from a signature |
| Questions Raised | Text | Leave as Text. What they asked, and the answer. "None recorded" is a valid entry |
| Training Completed Date | Date | Convert to Date. The induction session, not the signature |
| Breach Category | Select (add options after import) | Convert to Select, add options: "Not applicable", "Behaviour towards colleagues", "Behaviour towards customers", "Harassment or bullying", "Discrimination", "Confidentiality breach", "Data protection breach", "Information security breach", "Conflict of interest", "Bribery or fraud", "Health and safety breach", "Substance misuse", "Social media misuse", "Other - state in Notes" |
| Investigation Status | Select (add options after import) | Convert to Select, add options: "Not applicable", "Reported", "Under review", "Investigation in progress", "Closed - no further action", "Closed - escalated", "Blocked" |
| Action Taken | Select (add options after import) | Convert to Select, add options: "None", "Verbal reminder", "Written warning", "Formal warning", "Referred to disciplinary procedure", "Retraining", "Escalated to external body", "Unknown" |
| Follow Up Date | Date | Convert to Date. The next review. Required for any row that is not closed |
| Reviewer | Text | Leave as Text. A named person, not a department. This skill never fills it in |
| Status | Select (add options after import) | Convert to Select, add options: "Not started", "In progress", "Blocked", "Done", "Cancelled" |
| Notes | Title | Use as the database title |

The rows above are documentation examples only. Emit empty templates unless the user explicitly requests examples. A person is referenced by employee number, never by name, so the register can be shared with a reviewer or an auditor without exposing anyone.

Field Reference

Select Options

Policy Type - a starting set. Each is a separate document with a separate owner and a separate legal basis, and a code of conduct that absorbs all of them becomes a document nobody can apply.

Code of Conduct | Acceptable Use | Data Protection | Information Security | Health and Safety | Anti-Bribery | Conflicts of Interest | Social Media | Grievance Procedure | Whistleblowing | Safeguarding

Breach Category - a starting set, and deliberately a category and not a finding. The register records what kind of thing was reported, never whether it happened. Not applicable is the correct value on every acknowledgement row.

Not applicable | Behaviour towards colleagues | Behaviour towards customers | Harassment or bullying | Discrimination | Confidentiality breach | Data protection breach | Information security breach | Conflict of interest | Bribery or fraud | Health and safety breach | Substance misuse | Social media misuse | Other - state in Notes

Investigation Status - the progress of the human process. Note that every value here is a state of the process, not a conclusion about a person. There is deliberately no value that means "guilty" or "not guilty"; that is not this table's decision to record.

Not applicable | Reported | Under review | Investigation in progress | Closed - no further action | Closed - escalated | Blocked

Action Taken - a starting set of categories, and note that Referred to disciplinary procedure means the decision was handed to another process, not that it happened. This skill does not impose sanctions.

None | Verbal reminder | Written warning | Formal warning | Referred to disciplinary procedure | Retraining | Escalated to external body | Unknown

Status - the register's own state, and Blocked is the honest value whenever the decision is sitting with a person who has not made it.

Not started | In progress | Blocked | Done | Cancelled

Relations

Two natural links, both worth confirming before making them live:

• Person Reference and Role point at the people-directory in the operational pack. That database is not in this artifact set, so both stay Text here with a note naming the intended target.
• Action Taken = Referred to disciplinary procedure is the hand-off to disciplinary-pip-tracker in the operational pack. That is a hand-off between documents, not a foreign key.

Examples

Prompt

We have four staff now. We have never had a written code of conduct. Last month a
customer complained that one of the team was rude to her, the founder apologised, and
nothing was recorded anywhere.

Context first - one question per message, nothing already answered:

Q: How many people work in the business, and does it have any employees at all yet? A: Four, all on the payroll. No contractors.

Q: Is there anyone in a regulated profession, or a sector code the business must follow? A: No, we are a retailer.

Q: Is there an existing employee handbook or HR provider? A: No handbook. We use an accountant.

Q: Which country are the employees in? A: Example Country.

Q: Who would receive a complaint, and who could investigate it if the complaint were about that person? A: The founder. Which is the problem, really.

Recommended next step - offered, not built:

A two-page policy, in plain words, that a person can read in five minutes: the standard, what is not acceptable, what to do, and who to contact. And a reporting route that does not dead-end at the founder - either a named person outside the business, or an external HR adviser the accountant can introduce. Issued at joining, acknowledged in writing, covered in a short induction, reviewed annually. The complaint you had last month goes into the register as a case and is handled by a person under the disciplinary procedure, not by this.

Workflow: Legal basis and existing rules checked → Policy drafted in plain language → Reporting route and an independent contact named → Issued and acknowledged in writing → Induction session run → Complaints procedure kept separate → Register maintained → Policy reviewed annually

Want the CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema and Notion mapping for this?