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
Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.
Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.
Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.
Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.
Plan a trip that actually works with a disability or access need — confirm real accessibility (not just 'accessible' labels), book the assistance in advance, plan for equipment and medication, and build in the contingencies for when access breaks down. Use when someone says 'plan an accessible trip', 'travelling with a wheelchair/disability', 'book assistance for my flight', or 'will this hotel actually work for me'. Produces an access-verified itinerary, an assistance-booking checklist, an equipment/medication plan, and contingency scripts. Verify specifics with providers.
Request a reasonable accommodation at work or in education — frame it around the barrier and the adjustment (not your diagnosis), cite the right process, and navigate the back-and-forth constructively. Use when someone says 'I need a workplace accommodation', 'request reasonable adjustments', 'ADA/Equality Act accommodation', or 'how do I ask for accommodations for my disability/condition'. Produces the request letter, a barriers-and-adjustments map, disclosure guidance, and a plan for the interactive process. Not legal advice — routes to the formal process and to advocacy where needed.
Build a structured account plan for any key customer or target account. Use when asked to create an account plan, key account strategy, strategic account review, or territory plan. Produces a complete account plan with relationship map, growth opportunities, risks, and 90-day action plan.