acquirer-red-team
Simulate the acquirer's diligence team hunting for reasons to cut your price — their internal red-flags memo with a price-chip estimate per finding. Use when asked to red-team my company before a sale, how will an acquirer attack our valuation, pre-diligence audit, or what will DD find. Produces the acquirer's internal memo (revenue quality, key-person, tech debt, concentration, legal) and a debrief on which flags are fixable before a process.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/acquirer-red-team && cp -r /tmp/acquirer-red-team/exports/openclaw/acquirer-red-team ~/.claude/skills/acquirer-red-teamSKILL.md
# Acquirer Red Team Skill Every acquisition has two diligence processes: the polite one in the data room, and the internal one where the deal team lists reasons to retrade the price. This skill runs the second one early. (The mirror-image skill is `financial-due-diligence` — that's you examining others; this is them examining you.) ## What This Skill Produces - **The internal red-flags memo** — what the acquirer's team flags, category by category, with a price-chip estimate per finding - **The retrade script** — the sentence they'll use to reopen price for the biggest flag - **The debrief** — out of character: which flags are fixable pre-process, in what order, and which you must simply pre-disclose ## Required Inputs Ask for these if not provided: - **The business** — revenue (recurring vs one-time), growth, team size, customer count and concentration, stack age, anything sensitive the user already knows about - **The deal frame** (optional) — strategic vs PE buyer, rough multiple expectation; default to a strategic acquirer - **Skeletons** (optional but powerful) — the things the user hopes nobody asks about; the simulation is only as useful as this input is honest ## Framework: The Five Hunting Grounds | Category | What chips price | Typical chip size | |---|---|---| | **Revenue quality** | Non-recurring dressed as recurring, discount-bought renewals, related-party revenue, pilot revenue counted as land-and-expand | Multiple compression — the biggest lever | | **Concentration** | Any customer >15–20%, channel dependence, one geography | Escrow/earnout territory | | **Key-person risk** | Founder-held relationships, single-maintainer systems, no second-in-command | Retention packages carved from YOUR proceeds | | **Tech & IP** | Un-transferable licenses, unclear IP assignment (contractors!), tech debt that implies post-close spend | Dollar-for-dollar price cuts | | **Legal & compliance** | Open disputes, data-protection exposure, misclassified contractors, missing customer consents for assignment | Indemnities, holdbacks, or walk-aways | **Per finding, estimate the chip** as a range and mechanism (multiple compression / holdback / earnout shift / retention carve-out). Ranges must be defensible from the input; label all assumptions. ## Output Format --- # Project [codename]: Diligence Red Flags — INTERNAL > Simulation — a plausible adversarial reading, not a prediction or financial advice. ## Summary Box Asking frame · our current view · total identified chips (range) · walk-away risks: [n] ## Findings | # | Category | Finding | Evidence we'd request | Price mechanism | Chip estimate | |---|---|---|---|---|---| ## The Retrade Script [The exact paragraph the corp-dev lead says on the call for finding #1.] ## Debrief — out of character | Finding | Fixable pre-process? | Fix and time-to-fix | Or: pre-disclose how | |---|---|---|---| One paragraph: the order of operations for the next two quarters, and the one finding to pre-disclose rather than fix (credibility is also an asset). *Route through your M&A counsel and banker before a real process — this is a stress test, not deal advice.* --- ## Quality Checks - [ ] Every finding traces to the supplied facts or a labeled assumption — no invented skeletons - [ ] Chip estimates carry a mechanism, not just a number - [ ] Revenue quality is examined first and hardest — it moves the multiple - [ ] The debrief distinguishes fixable / disclose-and-frame / structural honestly - [ ] Retention-package math is called out as coming from the seller's proceeds ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not pull punches — the user can get cheerleading from their banker - [ ] Do not produce findings without price mechanics; "risk" without a chip is noise - [ ] Do not recommend hiding anything — the debrief may only fix or pre-disclose; concealment discovered in DD kills deals and worse - [ ] Do not treat PE and strategic buyers identically if the frame is known — they chip differently - [ ] Do not stay in character in the debrief
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.