Loading...
Loading...
Found 59 Skills
Assess IT vendors and third-party partners with multi-factor risk scoring and regulatory compliance checklists. Use when evaluating technology vendors.
Technical due diligence for M&A, investment, or acquisition. Reads a target company's codebase and generates a comprehensive tech DD report with architecture assessment, tech debt quantification, scalability analysis, security posture, team capability inference, build system quality, test coverage, deployment maturity, and open source license risks. Outputs tech-dd-report.md formatted like a real investment memo with risk ratings, remediation costs, and go/no-go recommendation.
Framework for assessing IT service providers, technology vendors, and third-party partners. Creates structured risk assessments across financial, operational, compliance, security, and reputational dimensions with regulatory checklists (GDPR, DORA, NIS2, SOX). Use when: (1) Evaluating new vendors or technology providers, (2) Conducting third-party risk assessments for procurement, (3) Performing critical vendor due diligence for regulatory compliance, (4) Creating vendor onboarding documentation, (5) Establishing ongoing vendor monitoring processes, (6) Assessing vendor concentration risk, or (7) Generating executive-level vendor risk reports.
Generate a financial due diligence checklist and analysis framework for any investment, acquisition, or partnership. Use when asked for a due diligence checklist, M&A financial review, investment analysis framework, or vendor financial assessment. Produces a document request list, key analytical questions, red flags checklist, and a summarised financial health assessment.
Adversarial due-diligence on a benchmark you envy — a founder, KOL, company, or product whose claimed success you suspect is inflated. Inline four-phase orchestration — fan-out collection, adversarial verification grading every claim L1-L4 to split marketing bubble from real signal, attribution weighting (product vs timing vs IP vs luck, what's replicable), then mapping the validated playbook onto the user's own resources. Use whenever the user wants to 尽调/对标/拆解 a competitor or role-model, 抄/偷师 someone's playbook, suspects 水分/泡沫 in their claims (Product Hunt
Legal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
Corporate due-diligence workflow — resolve a brand or website to its registered legal entity, map group structure and beneficial ownership, profile officers and directors, enumerate the digital estate, and screen litigation, insolvency, procurement, sanctions, PEP, and adverse media. Use for vendor and counterparty risk, KYC/KYB, M&A diligence, investor checks, or shell-company assessment.
Corporate intelligence and due-diligence workflow — map a company's legal structure, people, infrastructure, footprint, and risk from public records.
Turn OSINT findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation/inference/assessment, documented negative findings and gaps, chain of custody and hashing, and redaction of uninvolved parties. Use for writing an OSINT report, intelligence brief, due-diligence memo, evidence pack, or executive summary of an investigation.
Turn findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment, documented negative findings and gaps, chain of custody and hashing, and redaction of uninvolved parties. Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge. Applies to regulated compliance reporting, litigation and disclosure, board and investment committee reporting, and law-enforcement referral. Reference at useosint.com/skills/write-the-intel-brief.
Contract due-diligence score for one token address — contract safety, holder structure and price action combined into a single 0-100 composite, capped by GMGN's own rug label, where every deduction names the field it read and an absent field is never a passing check. Use when the user wants one verdict number rather than fields: 尽调, CA 尽调, 给这个币打个分, 这个币安全吗, 能不能买, 有没有貔貅, is this token safe, rug check, honeypot check, due-diligence score, score this contract, or pastes a bare token contract address. A bare address may equally be a wallet — Step 0 resolves which and hands wallets to gmgn-wallet-analysis. Prefer this over gmgn-token whenever the ask is a verdict rather than a field dump; the raw fields themselves — price, market cap, liquidity, holder and trader lists, the unscored security fields — are gmgn-token, chip structure is gmgn-holder-analysis, chart-pattern naming is gmgn-kline-pattern.
Independently research and write an AI-narrative / due-diligence card for a crypto token — the kind of "叙事分析" card that covers what story a token is telling and what's independently verifiable about its social spread. Use whenever the user asks for a token's "叙事"、"舆情"、"传播情况"、"社媒热度", wants to know "这个币在讲什么故事"/"这个币是不是在蹭热点", asks to analyze or fact-check a token's X/Twitter narrative, or gives a bare contract address together with a request to understand its story rather than just its price/security numbers. This is not a raw safety score (`gmgn-contract-dd` owns that), not a screened hot list (`gmgn-heat-rank` owns that), and not a buy decision (`gmgn-token-buy` / `gmgn-swap` own that) — route here only when the ask is specifically about story and spread.