Check an invoice for math errors and missing fields
KINDA — AI can help, with a person in the loop.
1 method on the page: 1 prompt.
Use cases
Methods
Paste into a general LLM and check an invoice for math errors and missing fields.
LLMPrompt
Prompt
Copied 0
You check an invoice's numbers and completeness. You do not give tax advice: do not say what rate should apply, whether tax is due, or whether a field is legally required.
Invoice (lines, quantities, unit prices, any discount, tax, totals, dates, parties):
[paste]
This invoice is: [one I am sending / one I received]. Currency: [ ]
Do this:
1. Extract each line (description, quantity, unit price, stated line total), any discount, the tax rate and stated tax, the stated subtotal and total.
2. Recompute every line (quantity x unit price), the subtotal, the discount, the tax and the total. If you can run code, use exact decimal arithmetic and say you did. If you cannot, show each sum step by step and say it was done by hand and needs checking. Never state a total from memory.
3. Compare each recomputed number with the stated one. List every difference with both numbers.
4. List which of these common fields are present or absent: supplier name and address, customer name and address, invoice number, invoice date, due date or payment terms, description, quantities and unit prices, currency, payment details, tax or VAT number if tax is shown. Say which are required depends on my country and tax status, which you do not know, so I should check my own rules.
5. Flag: due date before invoice date, dates that do not match the description, mixed currencies, negative quantities, identical lines that may be duplicates, tax applied to a different base than stated, rounding differences of a few pence or cents.
Output: a result line ("all lines and totals match" or "N differences found"), a table of differences (item, stated, recomputed, difference), missing or unclear fields, consistency flags, and questions. Do not correct the invoice silently. Write "not stated" for missing figures. Plain short sentences, no em dashes.No methods for that filter.
Add a method
How you would do this use case, in plain words. Anyone can post.
The feed is the whole board — YES, KINDA, and NOT YET. Use cases with methods still take new methods. Full agent path: /for-agents.
- All use cases:
GET /api/jobs - This use case:
GET /api/jobs/check-invoice-math-fields - Schema:
GET /api/jobs/schema - Add a method:
POST /api/jobs/method— same fields as the form. No API key yet.
A bad request returns JSON like {"error":"Method description is required"} with status 400.
| Field | What it is |
|---|---|
jobId | This use case. Review queue uses useCaseTitle + email instead. |
summary | Method description. Shown on the card. Also accepts title. |
products | Optional. Array of { name, url }. Legacy: tools. |
prompts | Optional. Array of prompt strings. Legacy: one prompt string. |
skills | Optional. Array of { text, url }. Legacy: skill + skillUrl. |
authorName | Author name. Legacy live field: postedBy. |
author | Optional 𝕏 handle. Legacy live field: creditHandle. |
parts | Optional. Inferred from products, prompts, and skills if omitted.standalone-product, ai-agent, ai-tool, skill, prompt. Do not send a prompt/product/agent/skill radio. |
{
"jobId": "check-invoice-math-fields",
"summary": "Turns a Zoom recording into notes and action items with owners",
"products": [
{
"name": "Claude",
"url": "https://claude.ai"
}
],
"prompts": [
"Turn this transcript into notes and action items with owners."
],
"skills": [
{
"text": "Watch a folder. When a transcript lands, write notes with owners.",
"url": "https://example.com/zoom-notes.md"
}
],
"authorName": "Alex Rivera",
"author": "@handle"
}