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.