Prompt Library for Submittals and Daily Reports

Submittals and daily reports are the administrative backbone of any commercial construction project. They’re also the two categories of documentation that field teams consistently fall behind on. A submittal transmittal that should take 10 minutes turns into 35 because nobody remembers the exact spec section, the right disposition language, or how formal the cover memo needs to be. A daily report from 3 paragraphs of field notes takes 20 minutes to format when the superintendent is already exhausted at the end of a 10-hour day.

AI doesn’t know what happened on your job site. What it does well is take a rough dump of field notes or submittal details and return properly structured, formally worded documentation in under two minutes. Over several months of running these workflows on active commercial projects — office interiors, retail tenant improvements, and a mid-size warehouse — the time savings are real, roughly 60-70% faster than writing from scratch, with most of the remaining time spent on verification rather than drafting.

The prompts below cover the scenarios that generate the most administrative overhead on a typical GC project. Each one shows the input, the output structure, an honest grade, and what needs checking before it goes into Procore or your submittal log.

Prompt 1: Submittal Transmittal Cover Memo

When to use it: You’re submitting shop drawings, product data sheets, or material samples to the architect or engineer of record and need a formal transmittal cover. Most project management platforms (Procore, Autodesk Construction Cloud) have their own submittal forms, but some owners and architects still want a written transmittal memo attached.

This prompt works best when you already know the spec section and submittal number from your log.

The prompt:

Write a formal submittal transmittal memo for a construction project.

Project: [Project name]
Submittal Number: [e.g., 08-7100-001]
Spec Section: 08 71 00 — Door Hardware
Date: [Date]
To: [Architect name and firm]
From: [GC PM name and company]
Transmitted By: [Email / hand-delivery / project management platform]

Items Submitted:
- Schlage ND Series cylindrical lockset product data sheet (3 copies)
- Proposed hardware schedule for review, Sheets H1.0 through H1.3 (3 copies)

Purpose: Submit for review and approval per Specification Section 01 33 00 — Submittal Procedures.

Include: confirmation that these documents have been reviewed by the contractor prior to submission, a request for response within 14 calendar days, and a note that approval is required before hardware orders can be placed. Do not add technical content beyond what is provided above.

The output (paraphrased):

SUBMITTAL TRANSMITTAL

To: [Architect] | From: [GC PM] | Date: [Date] | Submittal No.: 08-7100-001

Re: Specification Section 08 71 00 — Door Hardware

The following documents are submitted for your review and approval in accordance with Specification Section 01 33 00 — Submittal Procedures. These documents have been reviewed by the contractor prior to submission for conformance with the contract requirements.

Items Enclosed: [list]

A response is requested within 14 calendar days. Hardware procurement cannot proceed until written approval is received.

Grade: Submit with one check. Verify that your contract’s required response time matches what’s in the prompt — 14 days is standard in AIA A201 but some contracts specify 10 or 21. If the architect consistently returns submittals late, this memo creates a paper trail that matters for schedule claims.

Prompt 2: Submittal Review Response (Contractor Resubmittal Cover)

When to use it: The architect returned a submittal with a “Revise and Resubmit” disposition. You’ve made the corrections and need a resubmittal cover that specifically addresses each comment from the returned review.

This is the prompt type people skip, usually by just resubmitting without a cover explaining the revisions. That forces the architect to re-read the full submittal to find the changes, which slows the review cycle.

The prompt:

Write a resubmittal cover memo for a construction project.

Project: [Project name]
Original Submittal Number: 08-7100-001
Resubmittal Number: 08-7100-002
Spec Section: 08 71 00 — Door Hardware
Date: [Date]

The original submittal was returned with the following comments:
1. Comment A-1: Provide product data for the lockset finish — Spec Section requires 630 satin stainless. Submitted data showed 626 satin chrome.
2. Comment A-2: Hardware schedule did not include fire door hardware designations for the stairwell doors (Doors 101, 102, 103). Provide fire-rated hardware listings.

Revisions made for resubmittal:
1. Corrected product data to show Schlage ND Series in finish 630 (satin stainless). Cut sheet attached.
2. Added fire door hardware designations (UL listing 10C) for Doors 101, 102, 103 to hardware schedule.

Format as a formal resubmittal cover memo. List each original comment and the corresponding revision made. Do not editorialize or dispute the comments — this is a straightforward compliance resubmittal.

The output (paraphrased):

RE: Resubmittal — 08 71 00 Door Hardware, Submittal 08-7100-002

This resubmittal responds to the review comments received on Submittal 08-7100-001. Each comment has been addressed as follows:

Comment A-1 — Lockset Finish: Product data revised to reflect Schlage ND Series in finish 630 (satin stainless) as specified. See revised cut sheet, Attachment 1.

Comment A-2 — Fire Door Hardware: Hardware schedule updated to include UL 10C fire-rated hardware listings for Doors 101, 102, and 103. See revised Hardware Schedule, Sheet H1.2.

Grade: Strong. This is exactly the format architects want for resubmittals. The comment-by-comment response structure is something people know they should write and rarely do. AI handles the parallel structure cleanly. The only edit needed is confirming the UL listing number matches your actual product data.

Prompt 3: Daily Report from Field Notes

When to use it: End of day. You have 3-5 sentences of rough notes from the field and need a properly formatted daily report for the project record.

This is the highest-frequency use case in this list. A daily report on a busy commercial project takes 20-30 minutes to write properly. AI reduces that to 5-8 minutes when you paste in your notes.

The prompt:

Write a construction daily report from the following field notes. Format it as a professional daily report with sections: Date, Weather, Workers on Site, Work Performed, Material Deliveries, Inspections/Visitors, Open Issues, and Work Planned for Tomorrow.

Project: [Project name]
Date: [Date]

Field notes:
- Partly cloudy, 52°F, no rain. Started at 7am, full crew through 4pm.
- Steel framing crew (12 workers, Apex Framing): finished Level 3 corridor framing, Grid Lines 1-6. Started Level 3 restroom rough-in framing.
- Drywall delivery arrived 9:30am — 280 sheets 5/8" Type X, 60 sheets 1/2" standard. All staged in Loading Bay 2.
- MEP coordination meeting 11am with mechanical sub (Pacific HVAC) and electrical (Summit Electric). Routing conflict at Level 3 plenum discussed — waiting on mechanical to submit revised routing sketch by Friday.
- Level 2 fire blocking inspection passed at 1pm. Inspector: Mike Torres, County Building Dept.
- Tomorrow: continue Level 3 restroom framing, begin grid layout for Level 3 office demising walls.

Write in a professional, factual tone. Do not add information that is not in the notes.

The output (paraphrased):

DAILY CONSTRUCTION REPORT

Date: [Date] | Project: [Project name] | Prepared by: [PM name]

Weather: Partly cloudy, 52°F, no precipitation. Full workday, 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM.

Workers on Site: 12 workers — Apex Framing (steel framing crew)

Work Performed: Steel framing crew completed Level 3 corridor framing along Grid Lines 1 through 6. Initiated Level 3 restroom rough-in framing. [Continues with delivery and inspection entries]

Open Issues: MEP routing conflict at Level 3 plenum, discussed in coordination meeting with Pacific HVAC and Summit Electric. Pacific HVAC to submit revised routing sketch by [Friday]. No resolution pending at time of report.

Work Planned Tomorrow: Continue Level 3 restroom framing. Begin grid layout for Level 3 office demising walls.

Grade: Submit after adding headcount per trade. The AI correctly separates the delivery, inspection, and open issue into their own sections. The one thing it can’t do automatically: confirm the exact worker headcount if your notes are loose. “12 workers” gets into the report accurately, but a complete daily report usually also includes foremen names or a complete trade-by-trade headcount. Add that before submitting to the project record.

Prompt 4: Daily Report Documenting a Work Stoppage

When to use it: Work was stopped due to weather, a safety issue, or a direction from the owner or inspector. The report needs to clearly document the reason for the stoppage, who gave the direction, and the schedule impact.

Work stoppage documentation has legal significance. A vague report entry hurts your position if you later need to claim a weather delay or a directed change order.

The prompt:

Write a construction daily report section documenting a work stoppage.

Project: [Project name]
Date: [Date]

Situation: Work was stopped at 10:15 AM by the owner's representative, Sarah Okonkwo (Owner: Meridian Properties), due to concerns about noise levels from concrete grinding on Level 4. The adjacent tenant space (Suite 401) had a board meeting in progress that was not disclosed in the project coordination calendar. Work was halted for 2 hours 45 minutes. Concrete grinding resumed at 1:00 PM with the owner's authorization.

Workers affected: 4-person concrete grinding crew (Cascade Concrete, all 4 workers idle during stoppage).
Equipment: 2 concrete floor grinders, idle during stoppage.

This stoppage was directed by the owner's representative, not caused by weather or contractor decision. Document it clearly for potential T&M billing.

Write the Work Stoppage section only. Use factual, non-confrontational language. Include: time of stoppage, who directed it, reason given, duration, which crews and equipment were affected, and time work resumed.

The output (paraphrased):

WORK STOPPAGE — Directed by Owner’s Representative

At 10:15 AM, Sarah Okonkwo (Owner’s Representative, Meridian Properties) directed the contractor to halt concrete grinding operations on Level 4. The reason given was noise interference with a board meeting in adjacent Suite 401. This meeting was not included in the project coordination calendar provided to the contractor.

The following work was affected: [crew and equipment details]

Work remained halted from 10:15 AM to 1:00 PM (2 hours 45 minutes). Owner’s Representative authorized resumption at 1:00 PM. The contractor notes that this stoppage was directed by the owner’s representative and was not caused by weather, contractor decision, or safety conditions.

Grade: Strong — keep the last sentence. The AI added “not caused by weather, contractor decision, or safety conditions” without being prompted. That specific language matters if you file a T&M request later. Keep it. Verify the time entries and names are exact before this goes in the project record.

Prompt 5: Submittal Log Status Summary

When to use it: Owner meetings or progress reports require a written summary of submittal status. Extracting this from Procore or your spreadsheet log takes time to format into readable text.

The prompt:

I'm going to paste a submittal log table. Write a brief status summary for an owner progress meeting. Include: total submittals required, how many are approved, how many are under review, how many are outstanding or overdue, and which submittals are on the critical path for procurement.

[Paste your submittal log here — submittal number, description, spec section, date submitted, required response date, status, notes]

Note: Submittal 09-9000-001 (Flooring) and 08-8000-001 (Glazing) are on the procurement critical path — note them prominently.

What it produces: A 3-4 paragraph status summary by category (approved, under review, outstanding), with the critical path items called out separately. The AI will correctly identify overdue reviews when the dates make it obvious, but it won’t know which submittals matter most without your flag at the end.

Grade: Useful with the critical path flag. Without flagging the important ones, the AI treats all submittals equally and the summary buries the items that need owner attention.

Prompt 6: Closeout Submittal Package Cover Letter

When to use it: Project is wrapping up and you need to transmit the final closeout package — O&M manuals, as-built drawings, warranties, attic stock — to the owner.

The prompt:

Write a closeout submittal transmittal letter for a construction project.

Project: [Project name]
Date: [Date]
To: [Owner representative name and title]
From: [GC PM name and company]

Closeout items transmitted:
1. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) manuals — 2 hard copies and 1 electronic copy (USB drive)
2. As-built drawings — 1 set full-size, 1 set half-size, 1 electronic copy (AutoCAD and PDF)
3. Equipment warranties — [list major equipment: HVAC, elevator, electrical gear] — originals, hard copy binder
4. Attic stock — [list: ceramic tile (2 cases), carpet tile (1 case), paint (1 gallon each color used)] — staged in Building Maintenance Room 101
5. Certificate of Occupancy — copy attached
6. Final lien waivers — all subcontractors, attached

Note that 3 warranty items are pending manufacturer registration and will be transmitted under separate cover within 10 business days: [equipment items].

Request: Written acknowledgment of receipt of this transmittal. This transmittal initiates the project warranty period per Section 01 77 00 of the specifications.

The output (paraphrased): A formal transmittal letter with each item listed and numbered, the pending items flagged clearly, and the warranty period commencement language included. The AI correctly notes that this transmittal triggers the warranty period start — a detail that matters for the GC’s liability clock.

Grade: Submit after verifying the warranty period trigger language against your contract. Some contracts require a separate written notice to start the warranty period, not just a transmittal. Check Section 01 77 00 before assuming the transmittal itself is sufficient.

Prompt 7: Safety Incident Note in Daily Report

When to use it: A near-miss or minor first-aid incident occurred and needs to be documented in the daily report. This is distinct from a full incident report — it’s the daily log entry that records the event factually.

The prompt:

Write a safety incident entry for a construction daily report.

Project: [Project name]
Date: [Date]

Incident: At approximately 2:30 PM, a carpenter from Apex Framing sustained a minor laceration on his right hand while cutting metal track with tin snips. The worker (name: [NAME]) was treated on-site with first aid by the site safety officer — wound cleaned, bandaged, and documented. No hospital or urgent care visit was required. Worker returned to modified duty (left-hand tasks) for the remainder of the shift.

Follow-up: Incident report filed. Crew safety briefing conducted at 3:00 PM covering proper glove selection for metal work. Photos taken.

Write a factual daily report entry documenting this incident. Do not speculate about cause or blame. Use the format: time, description of incident, personnel affected, treatment administered, follow-up actions.

The output: A clean, factual entry that documents the incident without editorializing. The AI does not add any cause analysis, which is correct for a daily report entry. Cause analysis belongs in the full incident report, not the daily log.

Grade: Use as-is. Always pair this entry with a full incident report filed through your safety management system (Procore Safety, SafetyCulture, or your own form).

Prompt 8: Resubmittal When the Architect Is Overdue

When to use it: An architect or engineer has held a submittal past the contractually required review period and you need a formal written follow-up that documents the delay without burning the relationship.

The prompt:

Write a formal submittal follow-up letter documenting an overdue submittal review.

Project: [Project name]
Date: [Date]
To: [Architect name and firm]
From: [GC PM name and company]

Submittal: 07-9200-001 — Sealants and Joint Sealers, Specification Section 07 92 00
Submitted: [Original submission date]
Required response date per Spec Section 01 33 00: [Due date — 14 calendar days after submission]
Days overdue: 9 calendar days as of today's date

Schedule impact: Exterior sealant application was scheduled to begin [date]. Current delay has pushed this to [revised date]. Window for weather-appropriate application (above 40°F) closes approximately [date] based on forecast.

Request: Written response or written notice of expected response date by [specific date].

Tone: Professional and factual. This is a formal notice, not a complaint. Do not use accusatory language. Do include a clear statement that the delay is being documented for the project record.

The output (paraphrased): A professional letter that states the submittal date, the contractual response deadline, the current delay in calendar days, and the specific schedule consequence. It ends with a request for response by a specific date and notes that the delay is documented for the project record — without saying anything that would put the architect on the defensive.

Grade: Submit. The explicit “documented for the project record” language is something most PMs leave out of follow-up letters and then wish they hadn’t.

Tips for Customizing These Prompts

Name your platform. If your project uses Procore submittals, Autodesk Construction Cloud, or a specific custom form, paste the field names into the prompt. “Format the output as Procore submittal fields: Ball in Court, Submittal Number, Spec Section, Description, Submission Date, Due Date, Status, Notes” works better than asking for a generic format.

Set the tone explicitly. “Professional and factual” is the default and works for most documents. For daily reports going to an owner representative who is not a construction professional, add “accessible to a non-technical reader.” For formal notice letters, “formal and legally precise” produces tighter language.

Include the spec section every time. Submittal prompts without a spec section produce generic transmittals that don’t tie back to your contract. The spec section is what the architect checks when reviewing. Include it, and include the section title, not just the number.

Use placeholders for sensitive information. If you want to run prompts with actual project details, make sure sensitive information like pricing, addresses, and names are appropriate to share with a third-party AI service. For highly sensitive projects, use placeholders and fill them in manually after the draft is returned.

Common Prompt Mistakes in Submittals and Daily Reports

Leaving out the submittal disposition code. For resubmittals and review responses, the disposition from the architect’s stamp (A — Approved, B — Approved as Noted, C — Revise and Resubmit, D — Rejected) needs to be in your prompt. AI won’t know what disposition was given — it will write a generic cover that doesn’t acknowledge the review result.

Not specifying word count for daily reports. Without a length constraint, AI writes long daily reports. A daily report for a straightforward day should run 300-500 words. Add “under 400 words” to your prompt for standard days; longer is only appropriate when documenting complex events like work stoppages or incidents.

Asking AI to infer schedule impact. AI doesn’t know your project schedule. If a submittal delay affects procurement, tell the prompt exactly what the impact is: “approval is required before hardware orders can be placed; order lead time is 12 weeks.” Without this input, the output will say “may affect the project schedule” — which is useless in a formal notice.

Using passive voice on work stoppage entries. The AI defaults to passive voice in sensitive situations (“work was halted”) which sometimes obscures who made the decision. For directed work stoppages, be explicit in your prompt: “directed by the owner’s representative.” The AI will carry that language into the document if you provide it.

Skipping the verification step on names and dates. AI will accept any names and dates you give it and reproduce them exactly. If your field notes have the wrong date or a misspelled name, the report will too. Five seconds of checking the date and proper name spelling before submitting avoids corrections that have to be documented as amendments to the project record.

What AI Does Not Do Well Here

The prompts above cover the writing work: structuring, formatting, and professional language. They do not cover the judgment calls.

AI cannot tell you whether a submittal meets the spec requirements. That determination requires someone who has read the spec section and compared it against the product data sheet. AI can help you format the transmittal; it cannot perform the contractor’s pre-review that spec section 01 33 00 requires.

It cannot interpret the schedule implications of a submittal delay without your input. Whether 9 days of overdue review actually affects the critical path depends on your schedule, your procurement log, and your float. Those numbers have to come from you.

And it cannot draft an incident report that accurately describes what happened if your field notes are vague. Incident reports require specific, accurate information: exact times, exact injuries, exact names, exact sequence of events. If your field notes don’t have those details, AI will fill in gaps with plausible-sounding language that may not match what happened.

For submittals and daily reports, the workflow that works consistently: field notes go in, structured document comes out, and then a person who was actually on the job reads it before it goes anywhere. That step takes 2 minutes and catches the errors that matter.