Purpose
Convert a qualitative acquisition target description and the acquirer's strategic criteria into a defensible, dimension-by-dimension strategic fit score — so corporate development teams can rank pipeline targets consistently, surface deal-killers early, and enter diligence or committee discussions with a documented rationale rather than a gut feel.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Score a potential acquisition target against strategic criteria
- Assess whether a target is a strong strategic fit before committing diligence resources
- Compare and rank multiple targets in a pipeline using a consistent framework
- Prepare a strategic fit summary for an investment committee or deal review
- Identify the biggest strategic risks or deal-killers in a specific target
- Justify a pursue/pass decision with structured rationale
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Target description: What the target does — products, markets served, size (revenue/headcount), business model, notable assets
- Acquirer strategic rationale: Why the acquirer is considering this deal — the strategic thesis in 2–4 sentences
- Strategic criteria: The specific things the acquirer is trying to achieve (e.g., enter a geography, add a capability, cross-sell to a base, consolidate a category)
- Acquirer profile: Relevant context on the buyer — core markets, existing capabilities, culture/operating model
- Dimension weighting (optional): Relative importance of the five dimensions if some matter more than others
- Known constraints (optional): Integration capacity, regulatory sensitivity, budget ceiling, deal-breakers
If dimension weighting is not provided, apply equal 20% weights and note the assumption. If acquirer profile details are thin, infer conservatively from the strategic rationale and flag the inference.
Instructions
Step 1: Establish the Scoring Frame
Restate the strategic thesis in one sentence and confirm the weighting to be applied. Every dimension score must be justified against this acquirer's criteria — a target that is strong in absolute terms may be a weak fit for this specific buyer.
Use a consistent 1–10 scale across all dimensions:
- 1–3 (Weak): Actively works against the thesis or adds negligible value
- 4–6 (Moderate): Partial fit; real but limited or uncertain contribution
- 7–8 (Strong): Clearly advances the thesis with credible upside
- 9–10 (Exceptional): Rare, hard-to-replicate strategic advantage
Step 2: Score Dimension 1 — Market Access
Does the target open, deepen, or accelerate access to markets the acquirer wants?
- Assess new geographies, customer segments, channels, or distribution the target brings
- Distinguish net-new access from overlap the acquirer already has
- Note whether access is durable (owned relationships, contracts) or fragile (dependent on retained talent)
- Score 1–10 with 2–3 sentences of rationale citing specific markets/segments
Step 3: Score Dimension 2 — Capability Gaps Filled
Does the target supply a capability the acquirer lacks and would otherwise have to build or license?
- Identify the specific capability (technology, IP, talent, licenses, operational competency)
- Assess build-vs-buy: how long/costly would it be for the acquirer to develop this internally?
- Flag whether the capability is embedded in acquirable assets or walks out with key people
- Score 1–10 with rationale naming the specific gap filled
Step 4: Score Dimension 3 — Revenue Synergy Potential
Beyond cost synergies, does the combination create new revenue?
- Assess cross-sell (acquirer's base buying target's products, and vice versa), bundling, and pricing power
- Estimate directional magnitude (marginal / meaningful / transformational) and cite the mechanism
- Discount for channel conflict, customer overlap, or synergies that require heavy integration to realize
- Score 1–10 with rationale identifying the primary revenue synergy driver
Step 4b: Score Dimension 4 — Cultural Alignment
How compatible are the two organizations, and what is the integration risk from misalignment?
- Compare operating models, decision speed, risk appetite, and talent expectations
- Identify likely friction points (founder-led vs. corporate, remote vs. office, product vs. sales culture)
- Assess retention risk of the people who carry the value
- Score 1–10 where higher = better alignment / lower integration risk, with named friction points
Step 5: Score Dimension 5 — Deal Complexity (Inverse)
How hard will this deal be to execute and integrate? Higher complexity lowers the score.
- Assess regulatory/antitrust exposure, ownership/cap-table complexity, carve-out requirements, and integration scope
- Flag any deal-killers (regulatory blocks, IP entanglements, key-person dependency without lock-in)
- Score 1–10 where higher = lower complexity / cleaner execution, with the top 2 complexity drivers named
Step 6: Compute the Weighted Composite
- Apply the weights to each dimension score to produce a composite out of 10
- Show the per-dimension contribution
- Identify the single strongest driver and the single biggest drag on the score
Step 7: Recommendation
Deliver an opinionated call:
- Pursue / Investigate / Pass — with a one-sentence justification
- Name the top strategic risk that would change the recommendation if it worsened
- List the 2–3 diligence questions most critical to validating the fit thesis
Output Format
- Structure: Scorecard table for the five dimensions, followed by per-dimension rationale, composite calculation, and recommendation
- Length: 700–1,000 words
- Format: Summary table (dimension, score, weight, weighted contribution) + structured prose rationale per dimension + recommendation block
- Sections: Strategic thesis restatement → Scorecard table → Dimension rationales (5) → Weighted composite → Recommendation with top risk and critical diligence questions
- Tone: Corporate development director — analytical, decisive, evidence-first; scores are defended, not asserted
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] All five dimensions have a 1–10 score and a rationale tied to the specific acquirer's criteria — not generic
- [ ] Weighted composite arithmetic is shown and correct given the applied weights
- [ ] Deal complexity and cultural alignment are scored so that higher = better fit (consistent scale direction)
- [ ] The strongest driver and biggest drag on the score are each explicitly named
- [ ] A clear Pursue / Investigate / Pass recommendation is made — no hedging
- [ ] 2–3 critical diligence questions are listed and are specific to validating this target's fit
Notes
- The most common scoring error is confusing "good company" with "good fit" — a strong business that overlaps the acquirer's existing footprint should score lower on market access, not higher
- Capability and revenue-synergy value that depends on key-person retention should be flagged in both that dimension and cultural alignment — double-counting it as pure upside overstates the score
- When comparing multiple targets, keep the weighting identical across all of them so composite scores are genuinely rankable
- Treat deal complexity as a veto lens, not just a number: a 9/10 on everything else with a fatal regulatory block is still a Pass
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