How to use this function

Review an advisory memo with Clara

Learn to check whether an advisory document answers its assignment and whether its recommendation follows from the available evidence.

The explanation and a short practice take about 5–8 minutes. Processing and your questions can extend the session.

Start this course

Codex

Open Codex on your computer with Clara installed and select @Clara in a chat.
Copy the request below, paste it into the chat and send it.
Turn on Codex voice in this chat. The assistant will guide you to open the second working chat in another window: listen and ask questions here, and watch the work and results there.

Request to send to Clara

Clara, start the prepared lesson “Review an advisory memo with Clara” in English. Teach me to use this function with the included fictional files. Use this chat to explain the steps and answer my questions. Create or resume a second working chat to run the current workflow, and guide me to open it in another window. Help me turn on voice. Show me the actual results, then let me try the practice exercise.

The fictional lesson files are already included in the plugin. You can also take the lesson in writing. This button copies the request; the lesson starts when you send it in Codex.

Start in Claude Cowork

Open Cowork with Clara installed and a connected folder for the lesson. Copy and send this request: the lesson takes place in writing in one conversation.

Request to send to Clara

Clara, start the prepared lesson “Review an advisory memo with Clara” in English, in writing in this single Cowork conversation. Use the included fictional files. Explain each step, run the current function and show me the actual results. Pause for my questions and guide me through the practice exercise. Do not use voice or a second chat.

When to use it

An external memo recommends launching Ciclo Arco’s daily collection service. We will review the whole short memo against the owner’s request and source notes.

A supplied Markdown memo and local evidence. Its original drafting history is unavailable, so the review matches claims to evidence now supplied.

Files and request

Open external-memo-en.md, assignment-en.md and notes-en.md. The memo is the document under review; the other files establish what was requested and what is known.

Clara, review this memo against the assignment and supplied notes. Explain whether it is usable, what needs correction and which decisions remain with the owner.

Run the workflow

Clara establishes the review contract, preserves the memo and prepares an inventory of its contents and the selected evidence.
The current review workflow examines scope, claims, reasoning, recommendation, limitations and readiness. The voice thread connects findings to the exact memo passages and source notes.
Open the review package. Read the overall delivery status, material findings and proposed corrections. The original stays intact; a revised memo requires its own review.

Use the result

Readable review package: overall conclusion, source comparisons, corrections and remaining uncertainty.
Validation audit and inventories: what was reviewed and whether the review record is complete.

Compare the daily-service recommendation with actual customer statements and vehicle availability. A complete review record does not itself approve the memo or prove its claims.

Pause and check

Before reviewing, distinguish the deliverable from its supporting evidence.
At delivery, explain the readiness conclusion and find the passage and source behind a material finding.

These pauses help you learn how to use the function. They are not a technical detail quiz.

Try it yourself

Add update-en.md and request a new review of the unchanged external memo with the expanded evidence. Preserve the first review and compare their findings.

The new review reflects the vehicle’s unavailability and makes its delivery consequence clear. State what must change before the memo can support the owner’s decision.

Provide the document, its assignment and supporting sources. Read the overall review and material findings, then review any separate correction before using it.