Purpose
Score a defined set of business units or assets against the criteria that actually drive divestiture decisions — and return a ranked shortlist with weighted scores, a recommendation per unit, and the rationale a CEO and board will challenge. Replaces gut-feel "we should probably sell that" conversations with a defensible screen.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Identify which business units or assets to divest or exit
- Build a divestiture pipeline or candidate shortlist
- Prepare unit-level scoring for an upcoming portfolio review
- Pressure-test a divestiture thesis before taking it to the board
- Compare the strategic logic of selling vs. holding a non-core asset
- Prioritize separation candidates by attractiveness and ease of carve-out
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Units to screen: Names and 1–2 line descriptions of each business unit or asset (2–15 units works best)
- Corporate strategy: The company's stated strategic direction or core thesis the portfolio should serve
- Financial snapshot per unit: Revenue, margin or EBITDA, and growth rate where available
- Strategic priorities: 3–5 themes defining what "core" means (e.g., target markets, capabilities, customer segments)
- Separation context: Any known entanglements — shared services, shared customers, shared IP, integrated tech stacks
- Acquirer landscape (optional): Likely buyer types — strategics, PE, competitors — if known
- Scoring weight preference (optional): Whether to prioritize strategic fit, financial drag, or ease of separation
If financial data is incomplete, score on directional qualitative inputs and flag each estimated figure as an assumption.
Instructions
Step 1: Establish the Scoring Model
Score each unit on five dimensions, 1–5 (1 = strong reason to keep, 5 = strong reason to divest). Apply default weights unless the user specified otherwise:
- Strategic Fit (weight 30%) — How central is this unit to the stated corporate strategy?
- Standalone Profitability (weight 20%) — Margin quality and capital intensity relative to the portfolio
- Growth Trajectory (weight 20%) — Is this unit accelerating, flat, or declining vs. its market?
- Synergy Value to Acquirer (weight 20%) — Would the asset be worth materially more to another owner than to us?
- Separation Complexity (weight 10%, inverted) — How clean is the carve-out? (Score 5 = easy to separate, 1 = deeply entangled)
Compute a weighted divestiture score (0–5) per unit. State the weights used at the top of the output.
Step 2: Score Each Dimension With Rationale
Strategic Fit
- Map each unit to the 3–5 strategic priorities provided
- Score high (4–5) when the unit serves none of the priorities or competes for resources with core bets
- Score low (1–2) when the unit is a platform, a moat, or a required capability for the core
- Cite the specific priority the unit does or doesn't serve
Standalone Profitability
- Compare unit margin to the portfolio average and to its sector benchmark
- Score high when the unit is structurally low-margin, capital-hungry, or a persistent cash drag
- Score low when it's a profit engine funding the rest of the portfolio
- Note if profitability is masked by shared-cost allocation
Growth Trajectory
- Assess unit growth against its addressable market — losing share in a growing market is worse than flat in a flat market
- Score high for declining or sub-market growth with no credible reinvestment case
- Score low for above-market growth or a clear path to acceleration
Synergy Value to Acquirer
- Identify who would pay a premium and why — channel access, customer base, product fit, scale economics
- Score high when a strategic or PE buyer would realize synergies the current owner cannot (i.e., the asset is "worth more sold")
- Score low when no acquirer has an obvious value-creation thesis beyond what we already capture
Separation Complexity (inverted)
- Inventory entanglements: shared services, shared customers/contracts, integrated tech, shared IP, brand overlap, stranded costs
- Score high (5 = easy) for clean, self-contained units; score low (1–2) for deeply integrated units with significant stranded cost or TSA dependency
- Flag the single largest separation obstacle per unit
Step 3: Rank and Classify
Sort units by weighted divestiture score, highest first. Assign each a recommendation band:
- Divest (score ≥ 3.5): Active candidate — pursue a sale or separation process
- Monitor (score 2.5–3.4): Watch-list — revisit at next portfolio review or if a trigger event occurs
- Hold (score < 2.5): Core or near-core — retain and reinvest
Step 4: Build the Shortlist Narrative
For the top 3–5 divestiture candidates, write a 3–4 sentence rationale each that connects the scores to a decision: why it's a candidate, what the likely buyer profile is, the key separation risk, and the value-creation logic for both seller and buyer.
Step 5: Flag Decision Watch-Outs
Surface anything that would change the ranking: data gaps, units where separation complexity outweighs strategic logic, and any "monitor" unit that a single trigger event (loss of an anchor customer, regulatory shift, a strong inbound offer) would push into "divest."
Output Format
- Structure: Weighting statement → scoring table (all units, five dimensions + weighted score + recommendation) → ranked shortlist narrative → decision watch-outs
- Length: 800–1,200 words
- Format: One scoring table covering all units, followed by prose rationale for the shortlist
- Sections: Scoring Model & Weights → Unit Scoring Table → Ranked Shortlist (top 3–5 with rationale) → Decision Watch-Outs
- Tone: Corporate development principal — analytical, decisive, board-ready. States a position and defends it; does not hedge every score.
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every unit is scored on all five dimensions with a number, not just narrative
- [ ] Weights are stated explicitly and the weighted score math is consistent across units
- [ ] Each recommendation band (Divest / Monitor / Hold) maps to the score threshold defined
- [ ] Separation Complexity is scored inverted (high score = easy to separate) and applied correctly
- [ ] Top shortlist rationale names a likely buyer profile and the single largest separation risk per unit
- [ ] Any estimated or missing financial input is explicitly flagged as an assumption
Notes
- The most common scoring error is conflating "low-profit" with "divest" — a low-margin unit that anchors a core customer relationship or capability often scores low on Strategic Fit divestiture pressure despite weak financials. Score the dimensions independently before weighting.
- Separation Complexity rarely changes whether something should be sold, but it heavily affects when and at what cost — a high-fit-to-divest asset that's deeply entangled may need a carve-out runway before it's marketable.
- If the acquirer landscape is unknown, score Synergy Value on the inherent transferability of the asset's value rather than a named buyer, and note that buyer discovery would sharpen the estimate.
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