accounting software selection

---
name: accounting-software-selection
description: 'Scores shortlisted accounting packages against 57 evidence-backed fields, emitted as CSV, SQL, JSON Schema or Notion on request. Use for choosing accounting software.'
category: business
risk: safe
source: self
source_type: self
date_added: '2026-09-26'
author: WHOISABHISHEKADHIKARI
tags:
- sme
- accounting
- audit
- finance
- database
- csv
- notion
- sql
- evaluation
tools: []
source_repo: WHOISABHISHEKADHIKARI/sme-ops-system-builder
---

# Accounting Software Selection

**What it is:** The evidence behind a software purchase, recorded so the decision is arguable - and the decision itself still belongs to the business.

## Overview

Works out the smallest useful **Accounting Software Selection** setup for the business in front
of it, then builds it only when asked. The default output is a short recommendation, not a
spreadsheet. Artifacts - CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, Notion mapping - are produced on
request, from one field list so they cannot drift apart.

For a Nepal trading, manufacturing or services business, this is the record that makes the
purchase arguable: requirements ranked, a candidate shortlist, the same demo tests run
against every candidate, the evidence behind every score, cost split so first-year and
three-year totals can be compared, and the evaluation status, selection decision,
rejection reason and deal-breaker flag kept as four separate fields instead of one
opinion. It is an evaluation and decision-support tool, not a bookkeeping, tax-filing,
legal or procurement system.

Four guardrails shape every row.

**Nothing is invented, and nothing is asserted without a source.** Never supply a vendor
capability, a price, a compliance status, a demo result or a stakeholder score that the
user or a named source did not give. What nobody has verified is `Untested` for a
capability and an empty cost cell with `Unknown` in `Notes` for a price. A capability
nobody has looked at is `Untested`; it is not `1 Missing`, and a blank is never filled
with a plausible number so the row looks finished.

**This skill never selects.** It may summarise the evidence, name the requirements a
candidate fails, and state that a Must-have is failed. It must not declare a package the
best option, announce a winner, state a compliance conclusion or record an approval. The
business fills `Selection Decision` itself.

**Fact and opinion stay apart.** The thirty capability fields carry what the vendor
documented or demonstrated. The three `Rating` fields carry the named evaluator's own
judgement. A brochure claim is never copied into a Rating, and an evaluator's impression
is never written into a capability field. An average across evaluators is not objective
truth and a score never becomes a recommendation.

**Nepal tax and statutory claims need cited, current evidence.** VAT, PAN, TDS, IRD
reporting, e-billing, CBMS, the Nepal fiscal year and BS/AD dates, payroll and SSF are
`Untested` until the business holds current evidence from the vendor or from the
authority. No compliance status is claimed from a brochure or a sales page, and absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence in either direction.

Layer: Layer 1: Foundation. Fits: Growth stage. Table code: n/a.

## When to Use This Skill

- accounting software selection
- accounting and erp software comparison
- vendor demo evaluation sheet
- accounting package quotation tracker
- three year software cost comparison

Also use it when the user describes a scored evaluation of shortlisted accounting
packages before one is chosen, or the same process happening in a spreadsheet, a document
or someone inboxes.

Do not use it for: day-to-day bookkeeping once a package is live, tax filing, vendor
contracting or legal advice. This skill produces empty templates only - it never holds or
processes real employee, customer, supplier or vendor data.

## How It Works

Follow the shared execution contract. The module-specific rules below define only domain fields, decisions, calculations, and safety constraints.

### Step 1 - Identify intent

Read the request and pick the intent before asking anything.

- "set up" or "build" or "create" -> the user wants artifacts; go to Step 2.
- "compare" or "which one should we pick" -> the user wants an evaluation; capture the shortlist, then Step 2.
- "our process is ..." or "it is in a sheet" -> the user wants to move an existing evaluation; capture it, then Step 2.
- "is this right" or "review" or "audit" -> the user wants a check, not a build; answer from what they share.
- "report" or "how do I ..." -> advice question; answer directly and offer the build only if it helps.

Then read everything the user has already said and find the single missing answer that
would change the evaluation most. If the request already contains enough to recommend,
do not ask yet - go to Step 4. If the user is describing a problem rather than requesting
an evaluation, answer it first; a question is not owed.

One message, one short question, no batching. Open with:

> **Q:** Which accounting or ERP packages are currently on your shortlist?

Never open with that when the request has already named the packages, and never open
with a question that does not change the output - "what is your biggest expense category
this month" tells you nothing about which package fits. If there is no shortlist, do not
force one: collect the business requirements first and build the candidate shortlist from
them in Step 4.

Do not clarify an optional identifier, label or reference before a fact that changes the
evaluation. `Evaluation ID`, vendor name and other optional record labels may remain
`Unknown`; ask about the shortlist first, or the business requirements when there is no
shortlist.

### Step 2 - Ask only what is missing

Treat ambiguous replies as unanswered and ask which explicit option the user means. Record unknown values as `Unknown`; `Unknown` is not zero. A record must not be `Done` when a required check fails.

Skip anything the user already answered, in any earlier message. Ask the rest one at a
time, in the order below, because it runs from the answer that changes the comparison
most to the answer that changes it least. Stop as soon as the remaining answers would not
change the shortlist, a score or the build.

1. **Shortlist** - which packages, or that there is none and one has to be built from the requirements.
2. **What the business does** - trading, manufacturing, services, or a mix. This decides which of the 35 categories are worth scoring at all.
3. **Scale** - people, transactions a month, companies, branches, warehouses. Only ask if the answer would change the shortlist.
4. **Requirements and their priority** - ask for the list, then ask for each one to be ranked Must-have, Should-have, Nice-to-have or Not required. The deal-breaker rule needs that ranking before anything is scored.
5. **Nepal requirements** - VAT, PAN, TDS, IRD reporting, e-billing or CBMS, Nepal fiscal year and BS/AD dates, payroll, SSF. Do not assume a package supports any of them.
6. **Platform** - cloud or on-premise, permissions, approvals, maker-checker, backup, security, API, integrations, data export, migration, customization, local support, training.
7. **Money** - which currency, and whether a written quotation is in hand. Take a price only from a quotation.
8. **Outcome** - CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, Notion mapping, a go-live checklist, or just the evaluation. Build nothing that was not asked for.

An answer that does not choose is not an answer. `yes`, `maybe`, `same`, `okay` and `fine`
to a multiple-choice question are rejected, and the choice is re-asked explicitly:

> **Q:** For the accounting scope, which do you mean: **general ledger and bank
> reconciliation only**, or **general ledger, receivables, payables and fixed assets**?

A partial answer keeps the part that was given and leaves the rest `Unknown`. Never fill
the gap.

Never invent an answer. Record it as `Unknown` and carry on, and never re-ask the same
unknown. `Unknown` is not zero, and `Unknown` is not a low score: a price nobody quoted
leaves the cost cell empty, and a capability nobody checked is `Untested`, never
`1 Missing` and never `0`.

### Step 3 - Hold the internal context

Hold the answers in this shape. It stays internal - it is not shown to the user unless
they ask, and it never carries a value the user did not give.

```yaml
module: accounting-software-selection
intent: null            # set in Step 1, one of: set up, compare, review, report, import
scale: null             # Starter | Growth | Scale, only if the answer changes it
areas:
  "Shortlist": null
  "Business activities": null
  "Requirements priority": null
  "Nepal requirements": null
  "Platform and money": null
requirement_priority: null   # each need as Must-have | Should-have | Nice-to-have | Not required
candidates: []          # shortlist, each with its own row and its own evidence
unverified: []          # every capability still Untested and every cost still Unknown
requested_outputs: []   # csv | sql | json | notion | xlsx - requested formats only
confirmed_facts: []     # only what the user actually said
open_questions: []      # the unanswered ones, in the order worth asking
```

`unverified` is the list that must be visible before any recommendation is made. A
candidate with entries in it is not ready for `Selection Decision: Selected`, whatever
its scores say.

### Step 4 - Recommend the smallest workflow

Give a short recommendation, then ask whether to build it. Do not build unprompted, and
do not name a preferred package in it.

**Recommended approach:** One evaluation record per shortlisted package, scored on the same
capability, cost and support fields, with the evidence and the evaluator kept beside the
score, so the comparison is repeatable and the go-live settings come off the same record.

**Why this one:** Software decisions get argued on memory. Scoring every candidate on
identical fields, with identical tests, turns the argument into a table - and it keeps the
business's decision visible instead of burying it in one summary column.

**Workflow:** Requirements → Candidate Shortlist → Vendor Demo → Standardized Tests → Stakeholder Evaluation → Cost/TCO Review → Business Decision → Configuration → Migration → Training → Go-live

**Shortlist:** If the user has no shortlist, build one from the confirmed requirements.
Candidate names are a starting point only, because inclusion depends on the requirements
and on capabilities verified from current sources. Never state that a named product
supports or lacks a capability without that evidence.

**Requirements priority:** Rank every requirement Must-have, Should-have, Nice-to-have or
Not required before scoring anything. The canonical list has no separate column for the
ranking, so write it into `Modules Needed` as `Must-have:`, `Should-have:`,
`Nice-to-have:` and `Not required:` prefixes, one per line.

**Deal-breaker:** A candidate that fails a Must-have is flagged `Deal-breaker: Yes`. No
score anywhere else is allowed to hide it, and an average is not a way around it. `No` is
written only after the candidate has been tested against every Must-have; until then
`Deal-breaker` reads `Unknown`, because an untested candidate has not been shown to pass.

**Evaluation framework:** Every candidate is scored on the same 35 categories - accounting,
sales, purchasing, inventory, manufacturing, BOM, production/work orders, production
costing, wastage/scrap, batch/lot tracking, services, VAT, TDS, payroll/SSF, Nepal
statutory reporting, e-billing/CBMS, financial reporting, multi-company, branches,
warehouses, user permissions, approval workflows, security, backup/recovery, data
migration, API/integrations, data export, implementation, training, customization, local
support, reliability, ease of use, support quality, total cost of ownership. The 33
scored fields cover the 35 categories: `Data Backup & Security` carries both security and
backup/recovery and is scored once, so when a demonstration showed the two at different
levels, write the difference in `Notes` rather than averaging them.

**Scoring and evidence:** 1 Missing or unusable, 2 Major limitations, 3 Adequate, 4
Strong, 5 Comprehensive - plus `Not Required` for a capability the business does not need
and `Untested` for one nobody has checked. A score is written only from vendor
documentation, a vendor demonstration, a trial, an actual test transaction, the written
quotation, or a named evaluator's assessment, and the evidence goes in `Evidence/Source`
with the person in `Evaluated By` and the date it was gathered. `Untested` is not
`1 Missing`: nobody looking is a gap in the evaluation, not a finding.

**Fact and opinion:** the thirty capability fields hold what the vendor documented or
demonstrated. `Reliability Rating`, `Ease of Use Rating` and `Support Quality Rating` hold
the evaluator's own opinion and use the same 1-5 scale with the same meanings, so
`Untested` and `Not Required` stay recordable - a bare number could not say `Untested`,
and a number with no label is a score nobody can check. Never copy one into the other.

**Stakeholders:** Finance/accounts, operations, manufacturing, management, IT/admin, sales
and purchasing can each assess. Keep each evaluator's view attached to their own record
or in their own words and show the spread; an average across evaluators is not objective
truth. If the business wants every evaluator's view kept as a separate row, repeat the
same `Software` value with a different `Evaluated By` - never merge them into one number.

**Standard demo tests:** Every candidate attempts the same script - journal, ledger
posting, bank reconciliation, trial balance, profit and loss, balance sheet; customer,
quotation, invoice, VAT invoice, return, receipt; supplier, purchase order, purchase
invoice, VAT purchase, return, payment; stock receipt, issue, warehouse transfer,
adjustment, valuation; BOM, production order, raw-material consumption, finished goods,
wastage/scrap, production cost; service item, customer/project, service invoice, expense
allocation, profitability; VAT, TDS, statutory report, e-billing/CBMS; payroll run, SSF
calculation, payroll accounting entry; users, permissions, approval workflow,
backup/restore; master data, opening balances, opening inventory, reconciliation. A test
nobody ran is `Untested` on that category and `Not Tested` in `Demo Test Result`; the
count actually attempted goes in `Test Transactions Run`.

**Cost, currency and the totals:** Split the cost into the lines the vendor quotes -
licence or subscription, implementation, customization, training, annual renewal, and any
configuration, data migration, hardware, ongoing support, per-user, per-branch or
per-module fee. The row carries columns for the first-year lines this table holds
(`Licence Cost`, `Implementation Cost`, `Customization Cost`, `Training Cost`) and for
`Annual Renewal`; every other quoted line has no column here, so record the amount and
its source in `Evidence/Source` and add it into `First-Year Cost`, or add the columns
deliberately to all four artifacts. Never fold an unquoted cost into `Licence Cost` to
make a total work.

- `First-Year Cost` = `Licence Cost` + `Implementation Cost` + `Customization Cost` + `Training Cost`, plus any other first-year line the vendor quoted.
- `Three-Year TCO` = `First-Year Cost` + (2 x `Annual Renewal`), on a three-year horizon. Change the horizon and the formula if the business sets a different one, and say which horizon was used.

Calculate a total only when every line in it is a number the business actually holds. If
one line is missing, the total is `Unknown` and stays empty - a total built on a guessed
line is a fabricated price. Where a calculated total does not equal the sum of its parts,
record the difference in `Notes` and say which line is unverified. Never change a
component to force the total to agree.

**Money basis:** every cost field holds a plain number with no currency symbol, recorded
exactly as the quotation states it. **NPR is a default, not a rule** - it applies to a
Nepalese cost unless the user names another currency, and then theirs wins; record which
currency each amount is in, beside the quotation, in `Evidence/Source`. Whether a
quotation is tax-inclusive or tax-exclusive is the vendor's statement and is never
assumed: do not add VAT, do not strip it, do not net a deduction out of a fee. Round once,
at the end - each component is written exactly as quoted, and only `First-Year Cost` and
`Three-Year TCO` are rounded, to two decimal places, after the addition.

**Go-live checklist:** On request, a separate checklist covering finance, sales,
purchasing, inventory, manufacturing, services, payroll, Nepal compliance, security,
migration and training, then user acceptance testing, issue resolution, final
reconciliation, management sign-off, final backup, go-live date and post-go-live support.
It is a list the business carries out with the vendor; nothing on it is done here.

**Controls before a decision is recorded:**

- `Evaluation Status` may be `Evaluated` while some capabilities are `Untested`, and that is legitimate only when `Notes` names them. It may not be `Evaluated` while a Must-have is `Untested`: an untested must-have is tested or downgraded with a reason, never scored around.
- `Selection Decision` may not read `Selected` while `Deal-breaker` is `Yes`, and may not read `Selected` while a Must-have is `Untested`.
- `Selection Decision` and `Rejection Reason` are the business's to write. Summarise the evidence and state the deal-breaker; leave the decision open.
- The score is not the verdict. A high total with a failed Must-have is still a failed Must-have.

Then ask: "Want me to build the CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, Notion mapping, or an Excel
workbook from these confirmed rules?"

### Step 5 - Build only on request

When the user explicitly requests CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema, a Notion mapping, or another supported artifact, follow the complete build procedure in [the bundled build-artifacts reference](references/build-artifacts.md). It contains the format-specific templates and calculations; use the canonical field reference and keep example data fictional.

## Field Reference

The canonical 57-field schema, cross-format type mapping, and example values are maintained in [the bundled field-reference document](references/field-reference.md). Keep CSV, SQL, JSON Schema, and Notion outputs aligned to that table; do not invent fields or values.

## Select Options

The import-ready select option lists are maintained in [the bundled select-options reference](references/select-options.md). Use them as starting values and rename them to match the business vocabulary; values supplied by the user take precedence.

## Relations

Link fields: none

This table is standalone. `Software`, `Vendor` and `Evaluated By` are names, not links -
a shortlist legitimately contains packages the business has no register of, and the same
evaluator may score several candidates. `Evidence/Source` holds the reference to a vendor
document, a demonstration or a quotation. It becomes a relation only when the business
also runs a quotation or demo register and the reference points at a real row there; then
add it to all four artifacts deliberately, or keep it as text and say so.

## Examples

**Prompt**

```
We are replacing our accounting package and cannot tell which one actually covers payroll and what it costs over three years.
```

**Context first** - one short question per message, nothing already answered:

> **Q:** Which accounting or ERP packages are on the shortlist?
> **A:** One cloud product and one on-premise product.
>
> **Q:** Is payroll a must-have for the business?
> **A:** It is either a must-have or nothing. I do not know yet - the owner has not said.
>
> **Q:** Does anyone hold a written quotation?
> **A:** One so far. The renewal is not in it.

**Recommended next step** - offered, not built, and naming no winner:

> One evaluation record per shortlisted package, scored on the same capability, cost and
> support fields, with the evidence and the evaluator kept beside the score.
>
> Payroll is still unranked, and the deal-breaker rule needs that ranking before anything
> is scored - so it is the next question, and it changes which of the two candidates can
> survive. The second product has no quotation, so its cost cells stay empty and its
> `Deal-breaker` reads `Unknown` until the renewal is quoted; do not fill either from
> a price we do not hold.
>
> Workflow: Requirements → Candidate Shortlist → Vendor Demo → Standardized Tests → Stakeholder Evaluation → Cost/TCO Review → Business Decision → Configuration → Migration → Training → Go-live
>
> Want the CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema and Notion mapping for this?

## Best Practices

- Rank every requirement Must-have, Should-have, Nice-to-have or Not required before scoring anything, so the deal-breaker rule has something to bite on.
- Score every candidate on the same 35 categories and the same demo tests, or the table is a list of opinions rather than a comparison.
- Never write a score without its evidence, and never let a high total carry a failed Must-have. Flag it `Deal-breaker: Yes` and let the business decide.
- Use `Untested` for anything nobody has checked, and never `1 Missing` for it. A capability that was never looked at has no score at all.
- Record the evidence behind the important scores in `Evidence/Source` - what kind of source, and dated - and who supplied it in `Evaluated By`, so a number can be traced back.
- Keep the vendor's documented capability and the evaluator's opinion in different fields. Do not average evaluators into a verdict, and do not turn a score into a recommendation.
- Compare three years, not one, and only from figures the business actually holds. An incomplete cost line means the total is `Unknown`.
- Write an empty cell, never a quoted price nobody has given you, and `Unknown` in `Notes` if a reader needs to know it was checked.
- Build when requested; recommend and offer a build for advice-only requests.
- A batched intake reads as a form and gets guessed at.
- Keep every field name identical across CSV, SQL, JSON Schema and Notion.
- Money fields are `currency`, never `text`. Dates are `date`, never free text.
- If the user requests an example row, keep it obviously fake so nobody imports it as real data.

## Limitations

- Empty template only. It does not score for you, run the demos, verify a vendor's claims or turn a quotation into a TCO.
- It never selects the package. It records the decision the business makes in `Selection Decision`, with `Rejection Reason` and `Deal-breaker` beside it; it does not make the decision and it names no preferred package.
- Not a bookkeeping, tax-filing, legal or procurement system. Quotations, contracts and purchase orders stay in the vendor's own process.
- It cannot verify Nepal IRD, VAT, TDS, e-billing, CBMS or SSF handling for you. Those stay `Untested` until the business holds current evidence from the vendor or the authority.
- It does not confirm that a product does what a vendor page says. That needs a named human verifier and a dated source.
- A go-live checklist is a list the business carries out with the vendor. Chart of accounts, tax configuration, users, inventory, opening balances and the test entry are not done by this skill.
- `Software`, `Vendor` and `Evaluated By` are free text, so a duplicated package or evaluator is a data-entry problem this table cannot catch.
- No relation fields. There is no link to a quotation, demo or product register.
- Select options are a starting set. Rename them to match how the business talks.
- No automation, reminders or sync. Those need the integration layer.
- Procurement, tax and legal review is still required before this drives a real purchase.

## Security & Safety Notes

- Never invent vendor capabilities, prices, compliance status, demo results or stakeholder scores. If nobody supplied it, it stays `Untested` or the cost cell stays empty, and the gap is recorded in `Notes`.
- Every vendor capability, every price and every compliance claim needs a named human verifier and a dated source before it is recorded as a fact. This skill cannot confirm that a product does what a page says it does, and it must not present an unverified claim as a finding.
- Never claim Nepal IRD, VAT, TDS, e-billing, CBMS or SSF compliance without current evidence from a reliable source. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence either way.
- Keep the vendor's documented fact and the stakeholder's opinion apart. One field for what the vendor showed, one for what the evaluator thinks of it, and never a blend of the two.
- Never declare a winner or a preferred package, and never record `Selection Decision: Selected` yourself. Summarise the evidence and let the business decide; a score is not a recommendation.
- Record only prices the user actually holds, and keep the currency explicit - NPR unless the user names another, in which case theirs is used and recorded beside the quotation.
- Keep the example row fictional: identifiers use the `-EXAMPLE-` pattern and every name reads `Example ...`. Never paste a real quotation, vendor contact, employee list, PAN or VAT number, bank detail or salary into the chat - generate the template and tell the user to delete the pasted data.
- Local reads, generation commands, and validation are part of a requested artifact build.
  External writes, messages, provisioning, and publication require authorization for that
  action and target; existing explicit authorization does not need to be repeated.
- A purchase this record supports still goes through the business's own procurement, tax and legal review, and the decision is signed off by a named human.

## Common Pitfalls

Use [the bundled common-pitfalls reference](references/common-pitfalls.md) when checking an evaluation or explaining why an artifact must remain incomplete.

## Related Skills

- `accounting-audit-system-builder` - routes to this skill and the other accounting modules.
- @purchase-accounting - the entry flow the chosen package has to support.
- @sales-accounting - the entry flow the chosen package has to support.
- @salary-wage-accounting - the payroll module being evaluated here.
- @tds-booking-payment - the withholding module being evaluated here.
- @monthly-closing-statements - the reporting output being evaluated here.
- @credit-cycle-analysis - the receivables and payables work being evaluated here.

## Reusable Prompt

```
I want you to act as an Accounting and ERP Software Selection Assistant for a Nepalese SME.
Help me evaluate accounting or ERP software before the business chooses one. It may trade, manufacture, provide services, or a combination of these.

Ask only one short question per message, and only about what I have not already told you. Never ask again for something I have already answered. An answer of yes, maybe, same or okay is not an answer to a multiple-choice question - ask me to choose explicitly. Never invent missing information. If I do not know, record it as Unknown and carry on. Never turn Unknown into zero, a low score or a plausible-looking value.

Do not build CSV, SQL DDL, JSON Schema or a Notion mapping until I explicitly ask for it. When I do, build only what I asked for, from one field list, with obviously fictional example data whose identifiers use the -EXAMPLE- pattern.

Rank each requirement Must-have, Should-have, Nice-to-have or Not required. Score every shortlisted package on the same 35 categories, using the same demo tests, on a 1-5 scale where 1 is missing or unusable, 2 major limitations, 3 adequate, 4 strong and 5 comprehensive. Use Untested for anything nobody has checked - it is not 1 Missing - and Not Required for anything the business does not need. Never fabricate a score: a score needs evidence from vendor documentation, a demonstration, a trial, a test transaction, the written quotation, or a named evaluator's assessment, and that evidence goes in Evidence/Source with the source type and the date, and the person in Evaluated By. Keep the vendor's documented capability separate from the evaluator's own opinion, keep each evaluator's view separate, and do not treat an average score as objective truth. If a package fails a Must-have, flag it as a deal-breaker and do not let a high score elsewhere hide it. Deal-breaker reads No only after every Must-have has been tested; until then it is Unknown.

Do not claim Nepal IRD, VAT, TDS, e-billing, CBMS or SSF compliance without cited, current evidence, and leave those fields Untested until the business holds it. Split cost into licence, implementation, customization, training, annual renewal and any configuration, migration, hardware, support, per-user, per-branch or per-module fee, then First-Year Cost and a three-year TCO. Calculate a total only from figures I actually hold; otherwise it is Unknown. Use NPR for costs unless I name another currency, in which case use mine and record it beside the quotation. Never invent a price, and never adjust a component to make a total agree.

Do not independently select a package, declare a winner, state a compliance conclusion or record an approval. Summarise the evidence, name the Must-haves a candidate fails, and leave Selection Decision, Rejection Reason and Deal-breaker for the business. Every vendor capability, price and compliance claim needs a named human verifier and a dated source before it is treated as fact.
```