From private-credit
This skill fires automatically when drafting, reviewing, or structuring investment committee memos for private credit transactions. This covers new deal IC memos, amendment memos, and portfolio review memos.
npx claudepluginhub kd-alt20/private-credit-pluginThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
This skill fires automatically when drafting, reviewing, or structuring investment committee memos for private credit transactions. This covers new deal IC memos, amendment memos, and portfolio review memos.
Generates design tokens/docs from CSS/Tailwind/styled-components codebases, audits visual consistency across 10 dimensions, detects AI slop in UI.
Records polished WebM UI demo videos of web apps using Playwright with cursor overlay, natural pacing, and three-phase scripting. Activates for demo, walkthrough, screen recording, or tutorial requests.
Delivers idiomatic Kotlin patterns for null safety, immutability, sealed classes, coroutines, Flows, extensions, DSL builders, and Gradle DSL. Use when writing, reviewing, refactoring, or designing Kotlin code.
This skill fires automatically when drafting, reviewing, or structuring investment committee memos for private credit transactions. This covers new deal IC memos, amendment memos, and portfolio review memos.
The reader must understand what the deal is about within the first three slides. Every subsequent section adds depth. This is a PowerPoint-based presentation, not a Word document.
The first one to two slides must answer:
This section is a mini-version of the entire memo. A senior IC member who reads nothing else should be able to form an initial view from these slides alone. Do not bury the lead. Do not spend the first slide on company history.
One slide. Two tables.
Sources & Uses table:
Capital Structure table:
Key credit agreement terms in summary form. Not the full agreement — the items IC needs to evaluate the structure:
4-6 points. The first 1-3 are your strongest arguments. The remaining are supporting.
One merit per slide with narrative text and supporting graphs, tables, or data underneath. Two merits per slide only if both are concise and do not require extensive explanation.
Categories of merits (not all will apply to every deal):
Business strengths:
Financial strengths (business strengths expressed in numbers):
Other merits:
Always include: FCF generation and deleveraging trajectory in the base case. IC must see the path from entry leverage to a meaningfully lower leverage level over the hold period.
Same format as merits slides. Each risk paired with a mitigant.
One risk-mitigant pair per slide. Narrative text explaining the risk, why it matters for this specific credit, and how it is mitigated (structurally, contractually, or by the business's characteristics).
This is the section that determines whether the deal survives IC. The most common reason deals fail in committee is that the team did not identify the key risks, did not emphasize them sufficiently, or did not have mitigants prepared. If IC identifies a risk you did not address, it signals insufficient diligence.
Do not: List generic risks that apply to every deal. "Economic downturn could impact revenue" without deal-specific context is useless.
Do: Identify the 3-5 risks specific to this business, this structure, and this market that IC will ask about — and address each one directly.
Summary historical financial performance. Minimum 3 years of history, quarterly basis if available.
Include narrative descriptions alongside the table: what drove performance changes, any one-time events, trend commentary.
Bridge from Reported EBITDA to Adjusted EBITDA. Show every adjustment category, dollar amounts, and the aggregate adjustment as a percentage of Reported EBITDA.
Flag any adjustment categories that are recurring at similar levels, any categories exceeding 5% of EBITDA individually, and the total adjustment load.
Base case and downside case. Each case gets 1-2 slides.
Each slide: Excel model output (screenshot or embedded table) with narrative descriptions on the side explaining the key assumptions and takeaways.
Base case must show:
Downside case must show:
Present the downside case factually and descriptively. The purpose is to show IC what happens if things go wrong so they can evaluate whether the business and structure can withstand it. Do not editorialize — state the assumptions, state the outcomes, and describe how the company is positioned to manage through it.
Factual and supplementary materials. These support the memo but are not presented unless IC asks:
An IC memo is written in an advocacy tone. By the time a deal reaches a full IC presentation, the team has already done the screening and decided this is worth pursuing. The balanced discussion happened earlier — at the 1-2 page CIM screen stage.
The team is presenting to IC with the objective of requesting approval to proceed. The memo should be clear about that intent. This does not mean it is pushy or salesy — risks must be presented honestly and completely — but the overall framing is: "We have done the work. Here is why this is an attractive credit. Here are the risks and how they are mitigated. We recommend proceeding."
If the team is not recommending approval, they should not be taking the deal to IC.
Understanding the division of labor helps calibrate where to invest the most effort:
The format depends on the scope of the amendment:
There is no single template — the depth should match the significance of the change.
These are the quarterly monitoring deliverables:
See the borrower-monitoring skill for the full quarterly monitoring workflow.
To produce a credible IC memo, Claude needs at minimum:
To produce a comprehensive IC memo, Claude should also have:
A CIM alone is not sufficient. Without a model and your own case analysis, the memo is just a reorganization of sell-side materials without independent analytical input.