Purpose
Turn a raw list of potential acquisition targets into a defensible, ranked scorecard — scoring each on strategic fit, financial attractiveness, and execution risk — so corporate development can prioritize which targets deserve diligence resources and which to pass on. Replaces gut-feel target ranking with a consistent, weighted framework that stands up to an investment committee.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Screen or rank a list of potential acquisition targets
- Prioritize an M&A pipeline for diligence resourcing
- Build a target scorecard or comparison matrix
- Decide which of several acquisition candidates to pursue first
- Assess strategic fit and integration risk across multiple targets
- Prepare a target shortlist for an investment committee or deal review
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Acquisition thesis: The strategic rationale — why the acquirer is buying (e.g., market entry, capability tuck-in, consolidation, talent acquisition)
- Strategic criteria: The specific attributes that matter most (target markets, capabilities sought, geographies, size range)
- Target list: The candidate companies to evaluate, with any known attributes
- Financial data available: Revenue, growth, margins, valuation expectations, or estimates per target
- Deal constraints: Budget/valuation ceiling, deal size range, ownership stake sought
- Integration model: How the acquirer typically integrates (full absorption, standalone, hold-co) — drives execution risk weighting
- Weighting preference: How to weight the three dimensions (defaults to 40% strategic / 35% financial / 25% execution risk if not specified)
If financial data is incomplete for some targets, score on available information, flag the gap, and note it as a diligence item rather than penalizing the score arbitrarily.
Instructions
Step 1: Confirm the Scoring Framework and Weights
Establish the three top-level dimensions and their weights before scoring anything. Default weights (adjust to inputs):
- Strategic Fit — 40%
- Financial Attractiveness — 35%
- Execution Risk — 25% (scored inversely: lower risk = higher score)
Each dimension is scored 1–5 per sub-criterion, then rolled up. Confirm the weights reflect the acquisition thesis — a capability tuck-in weights strategic fit higher; a roll-up weights financial attractiveness higher.
Step 2: Score Strategic Fit (per target)
Rate each sub-criterion 1–5 and average into a dimension score:
- Market position: Share, brand strength, and competitive standing in the target's core market
- Capabilities fit: How directly the target's capabilities, technology, or IP fill the acquirer's identified gap
- Geographic fit: Alignment with target geographies or expansion goals
- Customer/channel overlap: Cross-sell potential vs. destructive overlap — synergy or cannibalization
- Thesis alignment: How squarely the target maps to the stated acquisition rationale
Scoring anchor: 5 = fills a core thesis gap with clear synergy; 3 = adjacent, partial fit; 1 = tangential or off-thesis.
Step 3: Score Financial Attractiveness (per target)
Rate each sub-criterion 1–5:
- Revenue growth: Historical and expected top-line trajectory vs. sector norms
- Margin profile: Gross and operating margins vs. the acquirer's portfolio benchmark
- Valuation multiple: Expected purchase multiple (EV/Revenue or EV/EBITDA) vs. comparable deals — cheaper relative to quality scores higher
- Revenue quality: Recurring vs. one-time, customer concentration, contract length
- Synergy potential: Realistic cost and revenue synergies as a share of deal value
Scoring anchor: 5 = high growth, strong margins, reasonable multiple, clean revenue; 1 = declining, thin-margin, richly priced, or concentrated.
Step 4: Score Execution Risk (per target, scored inversely)
Rate each sub-criterion 1–5 where 5 = lowest risk:
- Integration complexity: Systems, operating model, and org overlap — how hard to combine
- Cultural fit: Alignment of operating culture, decision speed, and values
- Key-person dependency: Reliance on founders/leaders likely to depart
- Regulatory/legal exposure: Antitrust, licensing, jurisdiction, or contract risk
- Deal feasibility: Willingness to sell, ownership complexity, competitive process risk
Scoring anchor: 5 = clean, willing seller with low integration lift; 1 = complex, culturally distant, or high regulatory hurdle.
Step 5: Roll Up and Rank
For each target, compute a weighted composite score (0–5 or 0–100 normalized). Rank all targets high to low. Where composites tie, break the tie in favor of the target with the higher strategic fit score, since thesis alignment is hardest to remediate later.
Step 6: Tier and Recommend
Sort ranked targets into three tiers:
- Tier 1 — Pursue now: Highest composites, no disqualifying red flags
- Tier 2 — Watch / conditional: Attractive but with a specific gap or risk to resolve before advancing
- Tier 3 — Pass or park: Weak fit, poor economics, or prohibitive risk
For each target, write a 2–3 sentence rationale, list the top red flags, and name the single most important diligence question that would confirm or kill the deal.
Output Format
- Structure: Framework/weights summary → scoring table across all targets → per-target rationale cards → tiered shortlist recommendation
- Length: 900–1,400 words, scaling with the number of targets
- Format: A scorecard table (targets as rows; dimension scores, composite, and rank as columns) followed by structured rationale bullets per target
- Sections: Scoring Framework & Weights → Scorecard Table → Per-Target Rationale (fit, financial, risk, red flags, key diligence question) → Tiered Recommendation → Top Pick with rationale
- Tone: Corporate development analyst — evidence-led, decisive, and comfortable recommending a pass; no hedging on the ranking
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] Every target appears in the scorecard table with all three dimension scores and a composite
- [ ] Weights are stated explicitly and sum to 100%
- [ ] Execution risk is scored inversely (low risk = high score) and applied consistently
- [ ] Each target has a rationale, at least one red flag or "none identified" note, and a named key diligence question
- [ ] Targets are ranked with a clear tie-break rule applied where composites match
- [ ] Every target is assigned to Tier 1, 2, or 3, and a single top pick is named
Notes
- Missing financial data should reduce confidence, not silently deflate the score — flag it as a diligence gap so the ranking stays comparable across targets.
- The most common screening error is over-weighting financials on a strategic-gap deal — confirm the weights match the actual thesis before scoring.
- Execution risk is where deals quietly die post-close; cultural fit and key-person dependency deserve real scrutiny even when the strategic and financial case looks strong.
- This scorecard prioritizes diligence effort — it is a screening tool, not a valuation or a substitute for confirmatory diligence.
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