{"id":"401k-plan-decoder","name":"401k-plan-decoder","summary":"401kや職場の退職金プランを解読しましょう。資金の実際のコスト、マッチの細かい条件、権利確定計算、そして使う価値があるか避けるべき特徴がわかります。","body":"# 401k Plan Decoder Skill\n\nNobody reads the 401k enrollment packet, which is how a 0.9% expense ratio quietly eats six figures of a career's compounding. This skill reads it: what the funds actually cost in dollars over time, what the match really promises once vesting and true-up fine print are applied, and which plan features (Roth option, brokerage window, loan terms) matter for this person. It decodes cost and structure — it never picks investments.\n\n## What This Skill Produces\n\n- The fee decode: each relevant expense ratio and admin fee converted to dollars-over-career on the user's numbers\n- Match math with the fine print applied: per-paycheck vs. annual true-up, vesting schedule, what leaving at year N forfeits\n- Fund-lineup triage by cost tier — where the cheap broad-market building blocks are, and which funds cost 10× a near-identical neighbor\n- Feature decode (Roth 401k, after-tax + conversions if offered, loans, brokerage window) and the questions for HR/administrator\n\n## Required Inputs\n\nAsk for these only if they aren't already provided:\n\n- **The plan documents** — fund lineup with expense ratios (the fee disclosure / 404a-5 notice is the gold source), match formula, vesting schedule, summary plan description excerpts. Decode what's provided; list what's missing by name.\n- **Their numbers** — salary, current contribution %, balance, and age band — needed to make fees and match concrete.\n- **Tenure expectation** — vesting math is meaningless without it.\n\n## Framework: Severity Scale\n\n- 🔴 **Can cost you real money** — expense ratios ≥ ~0.75% on funds with cheap index alternatives in the same lineup (compute the career cost), per-participant admin fees charged to the employee on small balances, match computed per-paycheck *without* an annual true-up (front-loading or uneven contributions forfeit match — quote the formula), long cliff vesting against their expected tenure, contributing below the full match threshold (the only guaranteed 50–100% return in finance, being declined).\n- 🟡 **Unusual — check before relying on it** — target-date funds built from expensive underlying funds (decode the layered cost), loan provisions that require immediate repayment at separation, forced rollout of small balances, revenue-sharing arrangements buried in the fee notice.\n- 🟢 **Standard** — ordinary match formulas, graded vesting, a lineup containing low-cost index options; label the good parts explicitly — a decent plan deserves to be trusted.\n\nAlways show the arithmetic:\n1. **Fee drag** — balance and contributions compounded at a stated assumed return, with and without the fee delta, over the years to retirement age band; present the gap in dollars with assumptions labeled.\n2. **Match math** — the formula applied to their salary; the per-paycheck-vs-true-up check with a concrete forfeiture scenario if applicable.\n3. **Vesting math** — dollars forfeited if they leave at their stated expected tenure.\n\n## Output Format\n\n### 401k Decode: [employer plan]\n\n**1. The verdict** — is the match fully captured, what the fees cost over a career, and the one change worth making this week.\n\n**2. The fee decode** — admin fees + expense ratios in dollars-over-time, arithmetic shown, assumptions labeled.\n\n**3. Match & vesting math** — formula applied, true-up check, forfeiture at stated tenure.\n\n**4. Fund lineup triage**\n\n| Fund | Expense ratio | Cost tier | Note (cheap-neighbor comparison, layered costs) |\n|---|---|---|---|\n\n**5. Feature decode** — Roth option, after-tax/conversion availability, loans, brokerage window — what each is, who it tends to matter for, flagged `[to confirm]` where the documents are silent.\n\n**6. Questions for HR / the administrator** — missing documents, true-up confirmation in writing, fee-disclosure request.\n\nEnd the artifact with, verbatim: *\"This is a plain-language reading, not legal/financial advice — laws vary by jurisdiction; confirm anything load-bearing with a qualified professional.\"*\n\n## Quality Checks\n\n- [ ] Every fee is converted to dollars-over-time with assumptions labeled, never left as a percentage\n- [ ] The per-paycheck vs. true-up distinction is checked and quoted from the documents\n- [ ] Vesting forfeiture is computed at the user's stated tenure\n- [ ] Cost-tier triage compares funds *within this lineup*, not against the whole market\n- [ ] Missing documents are listed by name, and silent features are `[to confirm]`\n- [ ] The disclaimer line appears verbatim in the artifact\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- [ ] Do not recommend specific funds or allocations — decode cost and structure; the picking is the user's (or their advisor's)\n- [ ] Do not invent fees or plan terms that aren't in the documents\n- [ ] Do not present the fee-drag projection as a prediction — it's an illustration with labeled assumptions\n- [ ] Do not soften the below-the-match finding — declining free money is the headline, say it plainly\n- [ ] Do not treat jurisdiction- and plan-specific rules (loans, withdrawals, protections) as universal\n\n## Based On\n\nParticipant-side plan review practice — fee-disclosure auditing, match-formula fine print, vesting math, lineup cost triage.","author":"@mohitagw15856","ownerProfile":null,"authorContacts":null,"sourceUrl":"https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills/tree/main/exports/openclaw/401k-plan-decoder","license":"MIT","category":"document","lang":"en","tokens":1131,"stars":0,"calls30d":2,"claimed":false,"visibility":"public","origin":"crawler","version":"0.1.0","createdAt":"2026-08-22","updatedAt":"2026-08-22","files":[],"requires":{"mcp":[],"tools":[]},"safety":{"flags":[],"scannedAt":"2026-08-22","hasScripts":false,"networkEndpoints":[]}}