Templates For construction project admin teams

Run a lessons-learned review, for construction project admin teams

Turn your notes on a finished project or event into a blame-free review, with what happened, what went well, what got in the way and why, one change to try for each problem, and the questions the notes cannot answer.

This is the version for construction project admin teams. The steps and checks are the same as in the general template; each prompt carries one added line about your setting, and the examples are from your kind of work.

Sample results: runs and scores on this page are illustrations while testing is set up. How we test

Bring: What the project set out to do, What happened

Use This TemplatePrepare a prompt for your own AI chat.

Who it is for: Project managers, coordinators and site administrators who write up a closeout review after a project, a phase or a big pour, so the next job starts with what this one learned.
Time: 20 minutes

Edit this version

Other Formats and Files

The Step 1 chat prompt under Use This Template is the quick start. Choose a full prompt chain, checklist, Claude skill or n8n file when that destination fits your work. Checked Instructions, below, run the whole job with a hard check after every step.

Choose one format

Prompt chain
Copy each step into ChatGPT or Claude, one after another.
Checklist
Follow the steps and check off the checks by hand.
Claude skill
A folder Claude loads, so it follows the steps by itself.
n8n file
Import into n8n and connect your own AI account.

This job also comes as Checked Instructions: the whole job in one set, with a hard check after every step. See the Checked Instructions on the general template.

Using a download:How to use this in n8n How to install a Claude skill

The same job, with and without the template

Sample

This comparison uses the Typical sample. Try an input below for a result guide matched to each sample.

One plain prompt

Run a lessons-learned review on these notes: what went well, what did not, and what to change next time. (The same goal and notes are pasted below.)

Lessons learned: Elm Street clinic addition

What went well

We finished safely and the punch list was closed in 9 days.
The owner's rep liked the walk-throughs.

What went wrong

The truss supplier delivered late and caused the delay.
The architect was slow to answer RFIs.
The curtain wall submittal was a mess.
The wiring crew let us down in January.

Recommendations

Communicate better and plan earlier.
Add a 4-week buffer to every delivery.
Aim for 3-day RFI answers.

Problem:It blames the supplier and the architect, gives vague advice with no owner, and adds numbers the notes never gave (a 4-week buffer and a 3-day RFI target).

With this template

Summary: The clinic addition reached substantial completion on March 20, against a planned date of March 6. A late truss delivery, six rain days, a curtain wall submittal that was returned twice, slow RFI answers and ceiling conflicts found late made the schedule harder to hold.

What went well

There were no lost-time injuries, and weekly safety talks were held every Monday.
The owner's rep liked the weekly walk-throughs.
The punch list was closed in 9 days.

What got in the way

Swipe sideways to see all columns

What got in the way	Why it happened	Change to try	Owner (a role)	How we will know
The roof trusses arrived 2 weeks after the date on the order.	The supplier said they had a backlog.	Ask for a delivery date in writing when ordering long-lead items and agree what happens if it slips.	Procurement lead	A written delivery date is on file for each long-lead order.
6 days were lost to rain in November, 3 of them already allowed for.	The notes give rain as the cause and do not say how the other 3 days were absorbed.	Review how the schedule allows for weather before work starts.	Project manager	The schedule shows its weather allowance at the start of the job.
The curtain wall submittal was returned twice, and the glass order went in 3 weeks later than planned.	Not in the notes.	Find out why the submittal was returned twice before choosing a change.	Project coordinator	The reason is written down.
RFI answers took 9 days on average, and the contract says 5 days.	Not in the notes.	Find out why RFI answers took longer than 5 days before choosing a change.	Project coordinator	The reason is written down.
Four conflicts between the ceiling ductwork and the lights were found when the ceiling was being framed, and each needed an RFI.	The conflicts were not found before framing started.	Hold a drawing overlay check of the ceiling before framing starts.	Superintendent	The overlay check is held and recorded before framing begins.
The wiring crew was short two people for a week in January.	Not in the notes.	Find out why the crew was short before choosing a change.	Project manager	The reason is written down.

Questions the notes do not answer

Why was the curtain wall submittal returned twice?
Why did RFI answers take longer than the 5 days in the contract?
Why was the wiring crew short two people for a week in January?

Check this draft with the people who were there before you share it.

Check:Every quote is word for word from the notes: Eleven events from the notes are in the timeline.
Check:Each effect is went well or got in the way: Nine rows, each Effect one of the two allowed words: 6 got in the way and 3 went well. The finish date and the change order total are skipped as final results.
Check:Every change has an owner and a way to know: Six rows, each with a change, an owner role and a way to know filled in.
Check:The review ends with the reminder to check it with the people involved: The closing line is there: Check this draft with the people who were there before you share it.
Check:Every number in the review is in the notes: Every number in the review (20, 6, 2, 3, 9 and 5) is in the notes.
Check:No line puts the fault on a person: No line names a person or a firm as a cause or says anyone failed; the rows name roles and what the situation lacked.
Check:Each change fits its cause and names an action: Each of the six changes answers the cause in its own row; where the cause is Not in the notes (the curtain wall, the RFI answers and the wiring crew), the change is to find out why.
For your read:The people involved read it before it is shared: Will you ask the superintendent and the procurement lead whether the rows match what they remember, and find out why the wiring crew was short?

Use This Template

Add your material below. Logic Lab prepares Step 1; you copy it into your own AI and check the answer there. The site does not run the workflow.

Example materialSample

Choose a sample

Typical: Closeout notes for a clinic additionEasy: A single slab pour dayTricky: Closeout notes that blame people and mention a claim

Short notes on one pour with one small delay and everything else on plan.

What the project set out to do (needed)What happened (needed)

Step 1 Chat Prompt

Review the exact prompt, then paste it into your own AI. For later steps, use the chat chain in Other Formats and Files.

You are a calm note-taker who records what happened and nothing more.
The notes are from a construction project closeout or a phase review, and the changes are for the next project or the next phase, not for blaming a firm or a person.

Your task is to list the events in the notes in the order they happened.

What the project set out to do: Learn from the level 1 slab pour

The notes:
Level 1 slab pour, Thursday. Pour started at 7 am and finished at 2 pm, as planned. The pump was ready on time. Truck 3 arrived 40 minutes late. The finishing crew stayed until 4 pm. The slab cured with no problems.

Rules:
- One row for each event. Quote the words about it from the notes, word for word, as short as you can. Do not reword.
- In "When", write the date or time the notes give, or Not in the notes.
- If the notes give two accounts of the same thing, write one row for each account and begin the second row's "What happened" with "Another account:". Do not decide which is right.
- In "What happened", write the event as a plain fact. Do not say who was at fault, and do not use words such as failed, forgot, careless, mistake or should have.
- Do not add an event the notes do not mention.

Return one markdown table and nothing else:
| When | What happened | Quote |

Send to AICopy and open ChatGPTCopies this result and opens a blank chat. Paste and review it there.

Before Step 2, check: Every quote is word for word from the notes.

What This Sample Should Produce

One thing got in the way: truck 3 was 40 minutes late. Everything else went well. Give one change to try, such as agreeing truck times in writing, and do not blame the supplier.

A result guide for this invented input, not an AI reply.

Want to see where the materials, steps and checks fit? Watch the general template being built.

The steps, and the check on each

Step 1: Lay out what happened
List the events in the order they happened, each quoted from the notes, with no judgment yet.
Hands back: A table of the events in order, each quoted from the notes.
Check:Every quote is word for word from the notes
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 2: Sort what went well from what got in the way
Pick out the events that mattered, mark each one, and say what in the situation made it happen.
Hands back: A table that marks each event that mattered as went well or got in the way, with the cause from the notes.
Check:Each effect is went well or got in the way
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 3: Turn each problem into a change
For every event that got in the way, write one change to try, a role to own it and a way to tell it worked.
Hands back: A table with one change, one owner role and one way to know for each problem.
Check:Every change has an owner and a way to know
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Step 4: Write the review
Put the summary, what went well, the changes and the open questions in one short review a team can read together.
Hands back: A short review with a summary, what went well, a table of problems and changes, and the open questions.
Check:The review ends with the reminder to check it with the people involved
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).

After the last step

Check:Every number in the review is in the notes
A plain rule. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Check:No line puts the fault on a person
A second look by the AI. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Check:Each change fits its cause and names an action
A second look by the AI. If it fails, run the step again (the n8n file does this for you).
Check:The people involved read it before it is shared
You check this one. If it fails, it is flagged for you.

What you need first

What the project set out to do(needed)
One line on what you were trying to achieve, with any target.
What happened(needed)
Paste your notes, a timeline or the messages, in any order. Include what went well and what did not.

Ways to adapt it

The template looks for causes in the situation, such as a missing step or a date that slipped, and never in a person. It cannot know what the notes leave out, so it ends with questions and a reminder to read the review with the people who were there.
Paste only what you are allowed to share with an AI tool. If the notes name people you would rather not share, change the names to roles first.
To change how many open questions it writes, edit the number in the last step's rules.
For a long project, run it one phase at a time and join the tables.
A figure that is only in the goal line is not in the notes, so the number check will not accept it in the review. Repeat the figure in your notes if you want it used.
A change is a suggestion to try, not a decision. The people involved decide which ones to adopt and who owns them.

Change this version in the Editor. Its added context stays in every prompt and the general template stays separate.

Notes for construction project admin teams

Name the cause as a situation, such as a late delivery, a rejected submittal or a conflict between two drawings, and not as a failing of a firm or a person.
Keep every date, day count and amount exactly as the notes have it. Do not total days or dollars.
An owner for a change is a role, such as project manager, superintendent or procurement lead.
Notes about who pays for delay, a claim or a dispute are for the contract administrator or a lawyer. Do not draw a conclusion from them.

The scoring guide

Sample

Each template check has a criterion marked met or not met; a person must still make the handed checks. (The guides in Quality rate a whole piece of work on three levels.) Under each one is how the example run scored.

Download the scoring guide (Markdown)

Every quote is word for word from the notes
A plain rule
Meets:Every quote in the table is found word for word in the notes.
Does not meet:A quote has been reworded, or is not found word for word in the notes.
Example built from the before and after:Met
Each effect is went well or got in the way
A plain rule
Meets:Every row says exactly went well or got in the way in the Effect column.
Does not meet:A row has another word, such as mixed or neutral.
Example built from the before and after:Met
Every change has an owner and a way to know
A plain rule
Meets:Every row has a change, an owner role and a way to know filled in, or a single row of None found when nothing got in the way.
Does not meet:A row has a blank or a dash in the change, the owner role or the way to know.
Example built from the before and after:Met
The review ends with the reminder to check it with the people involved
A plain rule
Meets:The review ends with the line Check this draft with the people who were there before you share it.
Does not meet:The line is missing or reworded.
Example built from the before and after:Met
Every number in the review is in the notes
A plain rule
Meets:Every number in the review is also in the notes.
Does not meet:A number is in the review that the notes do not give, such as a number of weeks.
Example built from the before and after:Met
No line puts the fault on a person
A second look by the AI
Meets:No line names a person as the cause, says anyone failed, forgot or should have done something, or guesses at a reason.
Does not meet:A line puts the fault on a person or says what someone should have done.
Example built from the before and after:Met
Each change fits its cause and names an action
A second look by the AI
Meets:Each change answers the cause in its own row and says what a person would do.
Does not meet:A change is advice such as be more careful or plan better, or it does not fit the cause in its row.
Example built from the before and after:Met
The people involved read it before it is shared
You check this one
Meets:You read the review with the people who were there and changed any line they disputed before sharing it.
Does not meet:The review is shared without the people involved reading it, or a disputed line is left in.
Example built from the before and after:For your read

Example built from the before and after: met 7 of 7, plus 1 for your read

Learn how it works:Where a person must look Adapting a template

Practice:Kinds of checks Scoring guides

How to write it:How to run an after action review How to write a lessons learned log

Which one fits?

Use Turn meeting notes into decisions and actions when you need the record of one meeting, with its decisions and actions, not a look back at a whole project.
Use Write a root cause analysis report when a problem has happened and you must explain why, with each cause tied to evidence and a fix for each possible root cause.

Related templates

All for Construction project admin

Analyze

Find themes in comments or interview notes15 min
Each theme has a count and two quotes

Analyze

Pull key facts into a table10 min
Each value copied as written; a gap says Not stated

Analyze

Research from supplied material20 min
Each finding has a source passage; conflicts and unknowns stay visible

Last run: October 17, 2026: Example built from the before and after (sample run)
Tools and versions: Example built from the before and after
What was checked: The files, against each tool’s import format, and 1 sample run, each check’s finding recorded.
Version: 1.0
What changed: First release.

Report a problem with this template How we test

Run a lessons-learned review, for construction project admin teams

How it runs

The same job, with and without the template

One plain prompt

With this template

What went well

What got in the way

Questions the notes do not answer

Runs and scores

Example built from the before and after

Use This Template

Step 1 Chat Prompt

The steps, and the check on each

Step 1: Lay out what happened

Step 2: Sort what went well from what got in the way

Step 3: Turn each problem into a change

Step 4: Write the review

After the last step

What you need first

Ways to adapt it

Notes for construction project admin teams

The scoring guide

Which one fits?

Related templates

Analyze

Analyze

Analyze