Conducts commercial, operational, financial, strategic, and technology due diligence for M&A, investments, partnerships, or vendor decisions. Useful for assessing targets, quality of earnings, working capital, tech/IP review, and risk identification.
npx claudepluginhub anotb/management-consulting-pluginThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Assess business opportunities through rigorous analytical frameworks. This covers commercial, operational, financial, strategic, and technology due diligence — from scoping the engagement through risk synthesis and investment recommendation.
Generates and tracks due diligence checklists tailored to deal sector, type, and complexity, covering financial, commercial, legal, operational workstreams with status and red flags.
Conducts market research, competitive analysis, investor diligence, and tech scans with sourced findings, contrarian views, and decision recommendations.
Runs market research, competitive analysis, investor due diligence, and industry scans. Use for market sizing, competitor comparisons, fund research, or tech scans.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Assess business opportunities through rigorous analytical frameworks. This covers commercial, operational, financial, strategic, and technology due diligence — from scoping the engagement through risk synthesis and investment recommendation.
| DD Type | Core Question | Focus Areas |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial | Can we win? | Market position, customers, growth, competitive dynamics |
| Operational | Can we run it? | Processes, systems, people, efficiency, scalability |
| Financial | Is it real? | Revenue quality, working capital, cash flow, projections |
| Strategic | Should we do it? | Strategic fit, synergies, integration, cultural compatibility |
| Technology & IP | Is it viable? | Architecture, technical debt, IP ownership, security |
| Legal & Regulatory | Is it clean? | Litigation, compliance, contracts, data privacy |
Most transactions require at least commercial, operational, and financial DD. The mix depends on the deal.
Define the boundaries before doing any analysis. Unfocused DD wastes time and misses what matters.
Establish:
| Area | Priority | Key Questions | Data Available? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Market | High/Med/Low | What must we understand about the market? | Y/N |
| Customers | High/Med/Low | What must we understand about the customer base? | Y/N |
| Operations | High/Med/Low | What must we understand about how the business runs? | Y/N |
| Financials | High/Med/Low | What must we validate about the numbers? | Y/N |
| Technology | High/Med/Low | What must we understand about the tech stack? | Y/N |
| Legal/Regulatory | High/Med/Low | What risks need legal review? | Y/N |
Prioritize ruthlessly. Focus on what could kill the deal or materially change the price.
Corporate:
Financial:
Commercial:
Operational:
Technology:
Legal:
| Metric | Finding | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total addressable market (TAM) | $ | Industry reports, bottom-up analysis | H/M/L |
| Target's market share | % | Company data vs. market estimates | H/M/L |
| Market growth rate (CAGR) | % | Historical trend, analyst consensus | H/M/L |
| Market position | #X of Y competitors | Competitive analysis | H/M/L |
Key questions: Is the market growing or shrinking? Is growth structural or cyclical? What disruption risks exist? How defensible is the target's position?
| Metric | Finding | Risk Level | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top 10 customer concentration | % of revenue | H/M/L | Improving/Stable/Worsening |
| Average contract value | $ | Direction | |
| Net revenue retention (NRR) | % | Above/Below 100% | Direction |
| Gross churn rate | % | vs. industry benchmark | Direction |
| Logo churn rate | % | Segment comparison | Direction |
| Average contract duration | months | vs. industry | Direction |
Customer concentration above 20% in top 3 customers is a yellow flag. Above 40% is a red flag. NRR below 100% means the installed base is shrinking — the business must sell faster than it leaks.
| Metric | Finding | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring vs. one-time revenue | % recurring | Strong (>80%) / Moderate (50-80%) / Weak (<50%) |
| Revenue recognition risks | Assessment | H/M/L |
| Backlog / committed revenue | $ | Coverage ratio vs. plan |
| Pricing power | Assessment | Expanding / Stable / Eroding |
| Cross-sell / upsell as % of new ACV | % | Growing or declining |
| Factor | Target | Comp A | Comp B | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market share | % | % | % | Position and trajectory |
| Pricing | $ | $ | $ | Premium / Par / Discount |
| Differentiation | Claim | Claim | Claim | Sustainable? |
| Win rate vs. competitors | % | — | — | Strong / Weak |
| Area | Finding | Risk | Improvement Potential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity utilization | % | H/M/L | Assessment |
| Key process bottlenecks | Findings | H/M/L | Assessment |
| Automation level | % | H/M/L | Assessment |
| Quality metrics | Findings | H/M/L | Assessment |
| Area | Finding | Risk | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture scalability | Assessment | H/M/L | Can it support 3-5x growth? |
| Technical debt | Quantified estimate | H/M/L | Remediation cost and timeline |
| IP ownership and protection | Status | H/M/L | Patents, trade secrets, licenses |
| Security posture | Assessment | H/M/L | Last audit, certifications, incidents |
| Data architecture | Findings | H/M/L | Quality, governance, portability |
| Open-source dependencies | Audit status | H/M/L | License compliance, security |
| Development velocity | Metrics | H/M/L | Deploy frequency, lead time, MTTR |
| Cloud infrastructure | Status | H/M/L | Provider, costs, lock-in risk |
| Dimension | Finding | Risk | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership depth | Assessment | H/M/L | Bench strength below C-suite |
| Key person dependencies | Names/roles | H/M/L | Single points of failure |
| Succession planning | Status | H/M/L | Documented plans, readiness |
| Track record | Performance history | H/M/L | Delivery on past commitments |
| Cultural assessment | Findings | H/M/L | Values, decision-making, adaptability |
| Retention risk | Assessment | H/M/L | Turnover trends, engagement, comp benchmarking |
| Organizational structure | Assessment | H/M/L | Efficiency, spans of control, layers |
Management assessment often predicts post-deal success better than financial analysis. A mediocre business with a strong team outperforms a strong business with a mediocre team.
| Item | Reported | Adjusted | Adjustment Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $ | $ | Non-recurring items, timing differences |
| EBITDA | $ | $ | One-time costs, owner compensation, related-party transactions |
| Net income | $ | $ | Normalizing adjustments |
The gap between reported and adjusted EBITDA tells you how much the seller is dressing up the numbers. Adjustments exceeding 20% of reported EBITDA warrant extra scrutiny.
| Component | Current | Trend | Seasonal Pattern | Cash Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accounts receivable | $ (X days) | Direction | Pattern | $ |
| Accounts payable | $ (X days) | Direction | Pattern | $ |
| Inventory | $ (X days) | Direction | Pattern | $ |
| Net working capital | $ | Direction | Pattern | Funding need |
Working capital is where deals get renegotiated. Establish a normalized working capital figure and tie the purchase price to it. Seasonal businesses require month-by-month analysis.
| Category | Historical (3-year avg) | Forecast | Maintenance vs. Growth |
|---|---|---|---|
| Category 1 | $/yr | $/yr | Split |
| Category 2 | $/yr | $/yr | Split |
Distinguish maintenance capex (required to keep the business running) from growth capex (investment in expansion). Underinvestment in maintenance capex flatters short-term earnings but creates a liability.
| Metric | Year -2 | Year -1 | Current | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | $ | $ | $ | Direction |
| Free cash flow | $ | $ | $ | Direction |
| Cash conversion (FCF/EBITDA) | % | % | % | Direction |
Cash conversion below 70% needs explanation. Common culprits: growing working capital, high capex, or earnings quality issues.
Critical risks (deal killers) — Issues that could make the deal unviable:
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk description | H/M/L | H/M/L | What can be done |
Examples: undisclosed litigation, regulatory non-compliance, fraud indicators, irreplaceable key person with no retention plan, market in structural decline.
Major risks (deal adjustments) — Issues that materially affect valuation or deal terms:
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk description | H/M/L | H/M/L | What can be done |
Examples: customer concentration, technical debt requiring significant remediation, management gaps, integration complexity.
Minor risks (price adjustments) — Issues that affect value but are manageable:
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk description | H/M/L | H/M/L | What can be done |
Examples: operational inefficiencies (often upside opportunities), minor compliance gaps, below-market compensation structures.
Watch for these — any one of them warrants deeper investigation:
Red flags are not necessarily deal killers. They're signals to investigate further. Sometimes the explanation is benign. Sometimes it changes the deal.
Frame the deal in terms of:
## Due Diligence Summary: [Target]
### Investment Thesis
[One paragraph: why this deal makes sense or doesn't]
### Key Strengths
1. [Strength with evidence]
2. [Strength with evidence]
### Key Concerns
1. [Concern with evidence and mitigation]
2. [Concern with evidence and mitigation]
### Risk Assessment
| Category | Risk Level | Key Risks |
|----------|------------|-----------|
| Commercial | H/M/L | [Risks] |
| Operational | H/M/L | [Risks] |
| Financial | H/M/L | [Risks] |
| Strategic | H/M/L | [Risks] |
| Technology | H/M/L | [Risks] |
### Valuation Implications
| Factor | Adjustment |
|--------|------------|
| Revenue quality adjustments | +/-$ or % |
| Customer risk discount | -$ or % |
| Operational improvement upside | +$ or % |
| Integration costs | -$ |
| Net adjustment | $ or % |
### Recommendation
[PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / DO NOT PROCEED]
### Conditions Precedent (if proceeding)
1. [Condition — rationale]
2. [Condition — rationale]
### Next Steps
1. [Action — owner — timeline]
2. [Action — owner — timeline]
When DD is for an acquisition, integration planning starts during DD, not after close.
| Area | Complexity | Timeline | Key Dependencies | Cost Estimate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Systems integration | H/M/L | Months | Dependencies | $ |
| Organization integration | H/M/L | Months | Dependencies | $ |
| Customer migration | H/M/L | Months | Dependencies | $ |
| Process harmonization | H/M/L | Months | Dependencies | $ |
| Culture integration | H/M/L | Months | Dependencies | $ |
| Synergy | Type | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Confidence | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue synergy | Revenue | $ | $ | $ | H/M/L | Timing risk |
| Cost synergy 1 | Cost | $ | $ | $ | H/M/L | Execution risk |
| Cost synergy 2 | Cost | $ | $ | $ | H/M/L | Execution risk |
Cost synergies are generally more reliable than revenue synergies. Revenue synergies take longer to materialize and depend on customer behavior you can't fully control. Discount revenue synergies by 50% in your base case.
Adapt the DD approach based on the deal context:
| Context | Emphasis |
|---|---|
| M&A | Synergy assessment, integration complexity, valuation adjustments, Day 1 readiness |
| PE Investment | Value creation levers, exit scenarios, management incentive alignment, 100-day plan |
| Strategic Partnership | Capability complementarity, cultural fit, governance model, IP sharing terms |
| Vendor Assessment | Operational reliability, financial stability, contractual protections, business continuity |
| Internal Assessment | Capability gaps, improvement priorities, investment needs (drop M&A terminology) |