This source did not publish a separate summary. Review SKILL.md before using the skill.
SKILL.md
Credit Memo Skill
A credit memo has one job: let a committee member who has never met the borrower decide whether the bank gets its money back. This skill writes that document — the story, the structure, the numbers, and the risks — with the discipline that every risk carries a mitigant or an explicit acceptance, and every rating has a stated rationale.
What This Skill Produces
A borrower story (business, ownership, management, why they need the money)
A facility structure table (amount, tenor, pricing, security, guarantees, covenants)
Repayment sources: primary, secondary, tertiary — each tested
A financial-ratio spread with trends and covenant headroom
Risk factors, each paired with a mitigant or an explicit acceptance
Risk-rating rationale and a clear recommendation
Required Inputs
Ask for what's missing; from a thin brief, draft with every inferred figure labelled [assumed — verify]:
Borrower — business, ownership, years operating, management
Financials — 2–3 years of revenue, EBITDA, debt, interest expense, working capital; projections if available
Existing exposure and relationship history
Proposed covenants and the institution's rating scale, if available
Credit Framework
Borrower story. What the business does, who owns and runs it, and why they need the money now — growth, refinance, working-capital cycle, or distress dressed as growth. The purpose must match the tenor and structure (don't fund long-term assets with short-term debt).
Repayment sources — the core of the memo:
Primary: operating cash flow. Test with DSCR = cash available for debt service ÷ total debt service. Common framing: ≥1.25x is conventional comfort; 1.0–1.25x is tight and needs a covenant fence; <1.0x means the deal relies on the secondary source — say so in those words.
Secondary: collateral. State value, valuation date and basis, advance rate, and realistic liquidation value under stress — not appraisal value.
Tertiary: guarantor/sponsor support. Verified net worth and liquidity, and the honest note that guarantees are a negotiating position, not cash.
Ratio spread. Show at least: leverage (Debt/EBITDA), DSCR, interest coverage, current ratio, and any sector-critical metric — 2–3 years of trend, not a snapshot. Frame thresholds as conventional reference points and calibrate to the institution's grid. For each proposed covenant, compute day-one headroom: (actual − required) ÷ required.
Risks and mitigants. Every risk gets a structural mitigant (covenant, security, guarantee, pricing) or an explicit acceptance with rationale ("accepted: single-customer concentration, mitigated partially by 3-year contract; residual risk accepted given…"). A mitigant-free risk list is a memo that hasn't finished its job.
Rating and recommendation. State the rating driver in one sentence (cash-flow strength, leverage, collateral quality, or sector) and what would move it a notch either way. Recommend: approve / approve with conditions (name them) / decline.
End with: "This memo is analytical support, not a credit decision. Approval authority, rating, and terms follow your institution's credit policy and applicable regulation."
Quality Checks
Purpose, tenor, and structure are consistent (no long assets on short money)
All three repayment sources are addressed; if primary DSCR <1.0x the memo says the deal leans on collateral
Collateral is valued on realistic liquidation basis with valuation date stated
Every risk has a mitigant or an explicit, reasoned acceptance — none is bare
Ratios show trend, not a single year; covenant headroom is computed
Rating rationale names its driver and the notch-mover in both directions
Assumed figures are labelled [assumed — verify]
Anti-Patterns
Do not list a risk without a mitigant or an explicit acceptance — bare risk lists are unfinished analysis
Do not let the borrower's narrative substitute for the numbers — reconcile story and spread, and flag where they disagree
Do not count a guarantee as a repayment source without verified guarantor liquidity
Do not use appraisal value as liquidation value
Do not bury the recommendation at the end — committee reads it first
Do not fabricate financials from a thin brief — label every inferred number