Purpose
Convert a company name or description into a structured, weighted strategic-fit assessment against a corporate development thesis — so analysts can qualify or disqualify targets in minutes and route only the strong-fit candidates to deeper diligence. Replaces ad-hoc gut-check screening with a repeatable scoring framework that holds across an entire pipeline.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Evaluate whether a specific company fits an acquisition or partnership thesis
- Score an inbound target a banker or founder just pitched
- Qualify a company before committing analyst time to a full diligence model
- Compare a target against defined M&A criteria (size, sector, capability gap)
- Build or extend a screened pipeline shortlist with consistent scoring
- Produce a one-page screening memo for an internal deal review
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Target company: Name and/or 2–4 sentence description (what it does, who it serves)
- Acquisition/partnership thesis: The strategic rationale driving the search (e.g., "add payments capability," "enter mid-market vertical," "acqui-hire ML talent")
- Screening criteria: The specific filters — sector, revenue/headcount range, geography, capability gap to fill, deal type (acquisition / partnership / investment)
- Strategic priorities to weight: Which 2–3 criteria matter most (e.g., product overlap > market reach > team)
- Deal constraints: Budget ceiling, ownership structure preference, timeline, regulatory sensitivities
- Known facts about the target: Any funding, financials, customer logos, leadership, or recent news the user already has
If financials or funding data are not provided, score on available signals and explicitly flag the gap as a diligence item — do not fabricate figures.
Instructions
Step 1: Restate the Thesis and Scoring Weights
Before scoring, restate the thesis in one sentence and lock the criteria weights. Distribute 100 points across the six dimensions below, biased toward the user's stated strategic priorities. If the user gave no weights, default to: Strategic Fit 30, Product/Tech 20, Market Position 15, Financial Signals 15, Integration Risk 10, Deal Feasibility 10. Print the weight table so the score is auditable.
Step 2: Score the Six Fit Dimensions
Score each dimension 0–10, then multiply by its weight. For each dimension give a 1–2 sentence rationale grounded in the target facts — not generic praise.
Dimension 1 — Strategic Fit (thesis alignment) Does the target directly advance the stated thesis? Map the target's core capability to the specific gap the thesis is trying to close. Score 8–10 only if it closes the primary gap; 4–7 if adjacent/partial; 0–3 if tangential.
Dimension 2 — Product & Technology Overlap Assess complementarity vs. redundancy. Complementary (fills a missing surface) scores higher than redundant (duplicates existing product). Flag stack compatibility, API surface, and data/IP that would be hard to rebuild.
Dimension 3 — Market Position Evaluate the target's standing in its segment: share signals, growth trajectory, customer logos, and whether it brings access to a new ICP, geography, or distribution channel the acquirer lacks.
Dimension 4 — Financial Signals Score on available evidence: revenue scale, growth rate, margin profile, burn/runway, funding stage, and last-round valuation. Where data is missing, score conservatively and tag the unknown. Do not invent numbers.
Dimension 5 — Integration Risk (higher score = lower risk) Assess people, tech, and cultural integration difficulty: team size and concentration, contract/customer lock-in, platform re-architecture cost, and key-person dependency. A clean tuck-in scores high; a sprawling re-platform scores low.
Dimension 6 — Deal Feasibility (higher score = more feasible) Assess realism against constraints: likely valuation vs. budget ceiling, ownership/cap-table complexity, regulatory or antitrust exposure, and probable willingness to transact (founder stage, prior raise terms).
Step 3: Compute the Weighted Fit Score
Sum (dimension score × weight) into a single 0–100 fit score. Classify:
- 80–100 — Pursue: Strong thesis fit, manageable risk; advance to diligence
- 55–79 — Monitor: Real fit with a material gap or unknown; re-screen when the gap resolves
- 0–54 — Pass: Thesis miss, prohibitive risk, or infeasible deal
Step 4: Surface the Top Diligence Questions
List the 3–5 questions that would most change the score if answered — the highest-leverage unknowns. These become the diligence agenda if the target advances.
Step 5: Write the Recommendation
State Pursue / Monitor / Pass in the first line, with a 2–3 sentence rationale tied to the weighted score and the single most decisive factor. Be opinionated — name the one thing that makes or breaks the deal.
Output Format
- Structure: One-page screening memo — header with score and verdict, weight table, six scored dimensions, diligence questions, recommendation
- Length: 600–900 words
- Format: Structured document with a scoring table (dimension / raw score / weight / weighted score / rationale) plus short prose sections
- Sections: Thesis & Weights → Weighted Fit Score (table) → Six-Dimension Detail → Top Diligence Questions → Recommendation
- Tone: Corporate development associate — concise, evidence-led, decisive; no hedging, no filler
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Weights sum to exactly 100 and are printed in the table
- [ ] All six dimensions are scored 0–10 with a fact-grounded rationale (not generic praise)
- [ ] The weighted fit score arithmetic is correct and matches the verdict band
- [ ] No financial or market figures are invented — every unknown is explicitly tagged as a diligence item
- [ ] Integration Risk and Deal Feasibility are scored so that higher = lower risk / more feasible (consistent direction)
- [ ] The recommendation states Pursue / Monitor / Pass in the first line with one decisive factor named
Notes
- The most common screening error is scoring strategic fit on what the company does in general, rather than against the specific gap in the thesis — anchor every score to the thesis.
- Run multiple targets through the same weights to keep a pipeline shortlist comparable; changing weights mid-pipeline breaks ranking integrity.
- A "Monitor" verdict is a real outcome, not a soft pass — pair it with the specific trigger (new funding round, customer milestone, leadership change) that should prompt a re-screen.
- For partnership rather than acquisition screening, down-weight Financial Signals and Deal Feasibility and up-weight Product/Tech Overlap and Integration Risk.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills