Claude Project: Build a Persistent Underwriting Analysis Assistant

What This Builds

A Claude Project pre-loaded with your book of business context, underwriting guidelines, and preferred risk analysis frameworks, so every session starts with complete underwriting context. Instead of re-explaining your appetite, line of business, and authority limits each time, your assistant already knows your parameters and produces consistent, underwriting-appropriate analysis from the first prompt.

Prerequisites

• Claude Pro account ($20/month, claude.ai)
• Familiarity with your carrier's underwriting guidelines and appetite
• Your top 3-5 submission types and the key risk factors you evaluate for each
• Important: Never upload actual submission documents, loss runs, or insured financial statements. Describe contents in general terms only.

The Concept

A Claude Project is like having a trained junior underwriting assistant who has read your underwriting manual and knows your book before their first day. You configure it once. with your line of business, key risk factors, standard coverage conditions, and referral thresholds, and every future conversation inherits that knowledge. The result: faster submission analysis, consistent referral memo language, and fewer context-setting exchanges before you get to the actual work.

Build It Step by Step

Part 1: Create the Project

1. Log into claude.ai with your Pro account
2. Click Projects → New Project
3. Name it: "Underwriting Assistant: [Your Line/Territory]"
4. Open Project Instructions

Part 2: Write Your Project Instructions

Customize with your actual book and authority parameters:

You are an underwriting analysis assistant for [Your Name], a commercial lines underwriter at [Carrier Name] handling [line of business, e.g., commercial property and general liability for mid-market accounts in the Southeast].

## Book Context
- Lines of business: [e.g., commercial property, general liability, commercial auto, umbrella]
- Account size: [e.g., $25K–$500K premium accounts]
- Primary industries: [e.g., manufacturing, retail, hospitality, light industrial]
- Territory: [e.g., Southeast US — FL, GA, SC, NC, TN]
- Referral authority: [e.g., accounts over $100K premium or TIV over $50M require regional manager sign-off]

## Underwriting Approach
- Risk selection philosophy: [describe your company's appetite, e.g., preferred risks with 5-year loss ratio under 60%, avoid accounts with prior CAT losses in coastal zones]
- Key risk factors by class: [describe your top concerns for each class — e.g., for property: construction type, roof age, sprinkler status; for GL: revenue, operations, prior claims]
- Standard coverage conditions: [e.g., we write ISO standard forms with manuscript endorsements for key accounts; minimum deductibles by class]
- Common exclusions applied: [list the exclusions you regularly add — e.g., mold exclusion on older properties, assault and battery exclusion on hospitality risks]

## What I Do In This Workspace
1. Analyze submission documents I describe and draft preliminary risk assessments
2. Draft referral memos for accounts requiring higher authority
3. Draft declination letters and correspondence to agents/brokers
4. Summarize loss runs I describe and identify loss trends
5. Research industry exposures and typical risk characteristics
6. Draft renewal file notes and coverage condition rationales

## Critical Rules
- NEVER ask me to upload actual submission documents, financials, or loss runs
- All account descriptions I provide are general — do not treat them as specific insured data
- Always note when a recommendation requires professional underwriting judgment and authority approval
- Do not make final underwriting decisions — provide analysis frameworks and draft documentation
- Flag when described characteristics fall outside typical appetite parameters

Part 3: Add an Appetite Reference Document

Create a short reference document that describes your appetite by class:

## Quick Appetite Reference

### Preferred Risks (quote standard)
- [Class]: [risk characteristics that indicate a preferred account]
- [Class]: [same]

### Refer Up (requires regional manager sign-off)
- Accounts over $[X] premium
- TIV over $[X]M
- Prior large losses (single loss over $[X])
- Unusual or specialty operations

### Decline (outside appetite)
- [List your firm hard declines — e.g., habitational risks over 4 stories, prior arson, EPLI claims within 3 years]

Upload as a text file to the Project's Knowledge section.

Part 4: Test and Calibrate

Run 3 test prompts and compare output to what you'd produce manually:

Test 1. Submission analysis: "Analyze this commercial property submission: 1978 masonry building, flat roof (original), 15,000 sq ft, fire sprinklered, used as a light manufacturing facility. 5-year loss history: one fire claim $45K three years ago, otherwise clean. Quote or decline?"

Expected: Structured risk analysis hitting the key property risk factors with a preliminary recommendation.

Test 2. Declination letter: "Draft a declination letter to a retail agent for a commercial auto fleet account. 45 vehicles including 12 semi-trucks. Outside our appetite for heavy auto. Professional, relationship-preserving tone."

Expected: A professional declination letter that doesn't burn the agent relationship.

Test 3. Referral memo: "Draft a referral memo for a $185K premium commercial property account, a 3-story mixed-use building, TIV $32M. Asking for property, GL, and umbrella. Recommend quoting, good loss history, strong insured."

Expected: A complete referral memo with risk summary, coverage request, and recommendation that a regional manager can act on.

Real Example: Quarterly Renewal Sprint

Setup: 45 accounts renewing in Q2; 3 weeks to complete analysis, set coverage conditions, and communicate with agents.

Without the Claude Project: Each renewal analyzed individually, referral memos written from scratch, declination letters re-drafted each time.

With the Claude Project. daily workflow:

Morning triage (20 min): Paste 8 renewal submissions described in brief → "Flag which of these need referral vs. quote authority based on our appetite." → Claude identifies 2 referrals, 5 quotes, 1 likely decline.

Referral memos (15 min each): Describe the account → Claude drafts the referral memo → review and add specific pricing rationale → send to regional manager.

Declination letters (8 min each): Describe why the account is declining → Claude drafts professional letter preserving agent relationship → approve and send.

Renewal file notes (5 min each): Describe coverage changes being made → Claude drafts the file note explaining the underwriting rationale → saved to policy system.

Output: 45 renewals processed in 3 weeks vs. typical 5-6 weeks with individual drafting.

What to Do When It Breaks

• Analysis doesn't reflect my actual appetite → Your Project Instructions appetite description is too generic. Add 3-5 specific examples: "For manufacturing risks, we prefer accounts with dedicated safety officers and 3+ years with no GL claims over $25K."
• Referral memos are missing standard sections → Add a referral memo template to the Project Instructions: "Every referral memo must include: Risk Summary, Coverage Requested, Premium Indication, Loss History Summary, Key Risk Factors, Recommendation."
• Declination letters are too terse → Add: "Declination letters should preserve the agent relationship. Include: appreciation for submission, reason for decline (general, not specific), invitation to submit other accounts that may fit appetite."
• Claude asks for actual submission data → Strengthen your confidentiality rules: "Proceed with all general descriptions I provide. never ask for actual insured names, policy numbers, or document uploads."

Variations

• Simpler version: Use Claude Pro without Projects. set custom instructions in your profile for general underwriting context. Less specific to your book but no setup required.
• Extended version: Create separate Projects per line of business. one for property, one for GL/umbrella, one for commercial auto. Each loads with line-specific risk factors and referral thresholds.

What to Do Next

• This week: Build the Project with your actual appetite context; test on 3 current submissions
• This month: Refine the appetite reference document based on what the Project gets right vs. wrong
• Advanced: Combine with the prompt chain guide to build a submission-to-quote-to-correspondence pipeline

Advanced guide for insurance underwriter professionals. All underwriting decisions require professional judgment and appropriate authority approval.