ma-playbook

$npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/ma-playbook

Evaluates and structures M&A deals for acquiring companies

  • Identifies strategic rationale for acquisition opportunities
  • Conducts comprehensive due diligence across financial and technical domains
  • Provides valuation analysis and negotiation support
  • Facilitates integration planning to minimize disruption

SKILL.md

.github/skills/ma-playbookView on GitHub ↗
---
name: "ma-playbook"
description: "M&A strategy for acquiring companies or being acquired. Due diligence, valuation, integration, and deal structure. Use when evaluating acquisitions, preparing for acquisition, M&A due diligence, integration planning, or deal negotiation."
license: MIT
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  author: Alireza Rezvani
  category: c-level
  domain: ma-strategy
  updated: 2026-03-05
---

# M&A Playbook

Frameworks for both sides of M&A: acquiring companies and being acquired.

## Keywords
M&A, mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, acquisition, acqui-hire, integration, deal structure, valuation, LOI, term sheet, earnout

## Quick Start

**Acquiring:** Start with strategic rationale → target screening → due diligence → valuation → negotiation → integration.

**Being Acquired:** Start with readiness assessment → data room prep → advisor selection → negotiation → transition.

## When You're Acquiring

### Strategic Rationale (answer before anything else)
- **Buy vs Build:** Can you build this faster/cheaper? If yes, don't acquire.
- **Acqui-hire vs Product vs Market:** What are you really buying? Talent? Technology? Customers?
- **Integration complexity:** How hard is it to merge this into your company?

### Due Diligence Checklist
| Domain | Key Questions | Red Flags |
|--------|--------------|-----------|
| Financial | Revenue quality, customer concentration, burn rate | >30% revenue from 1 customer |
| Technical | Code quality, tech debt, architecture fit | Monolith with no tests |
| Legal | IP ownership, pending litigation, contracts | Key IP owned by individuals |
| People | Key person risk, culture fit, retention risk | Founders have no lockup/earnout |
| Market | Market position, competitive threats | Declining market share |
| Customers | Churn rate, NPS, contract terms | High churn, short contracts |

### Valuation Approaches

The ranges below are **illustrative, not current market data** — always verify against current market comps before using them in a model or negotiation.

- **Revenue multiple:** Industry-dependent (illustrative range: 2-15x ARR for SaaS, varying with growth rate, NRR, and rate environment)
- **Comparable transactions:** What similar companies sold for — the most defensible anchor
- **DCF:** For profitable companies only (most startups: use multiples)
- **Acqui-hire:** Illustrative range: $1-3M per engineer in hot talent markets

**Sources to verify against (check the latest edition):** the SaaS Capital Index (private SaaS revenue multiples, updated monthly), Software Equity Group (SEG) Annual/Quarterly SaaS M&A Reports (transaction multiples), and Aventis Advisors' SaaS valuation multiples reports. Cross-check at least two before anchoring a price.

### Integration Frameworks
See `references/integration-playbook.md` for the 100-day integration plan.

## When You're Being Acquired

### Readiness Signals
- Inbound interest from strategic buyers
- Market consolidation happening around you
- Fundraising becomes harder than operating
- Founder ready for a transition

### Preparation (6-12 months before)
1. Clean up financials (audited if possible)
2. Document all IP and contracts
3. Reduce customer concentration
4. Lock up key employees
5. Build the data room
6. Engage an M&A advisor

### Negotiation Points
| Term | What to Watch | Your Leverage |
|------|--------------|---------------|
| Valuation | Earnout traps (unreachable targets) | Multiple competing offers |
| Earnout | Milestone definitions, measurement period | Cash-heavy vs earnout-heavy split |
| Lockup | Duration, conditions | Your replaceability |
| Rep & warranties | Scope of liability | Escrow vs indemnification cap |
| Employee retention | Who gets offers, at what terms | Key person dependencies |

## Red Flags (Both Sides)

- No clear strategic rationale beyond "it's a good deal"
- Culture clash visible during due diligence and ignored
- Key people not locked in before close
- Integration plan doesn't exist or is "we'll figure it out"
- Valuation based on projections, not actuals

## Verification Loop (before any LOI or signature)

This skill frames the deal; two sibling skills verify it. Hand off — don't duplicate:

1. **Legal terms** → `general-counsel-advisor`: run the LOI/term sheet through `../general-counsel-advisor/scripts/term_sheet_analyzer.py` (12-dimension 0-100 score) and the definitive docs through `../general-counsel-advisor/scripts/contract_risk_scanner.py` (12 founder-killer patterns: earnout traps, uncapped indemnity, vague IP, etc.). Any 🔴 finding goes to outside counsel before signing.
2. **Data diligence** → `chief-data-officer-advisor`: run `../chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/ai_training_data_audit.py` (training-data rights, GDPR Art. 6 basis) and `../chief-data-officer-advisor/scripts/data_asset_valuator.py` (data-asset value, M&A multiplier with carve-out penalties) on the target's data estate. Undocumented consent provenance is a price-reduction or walk-away item.
3. **Valuation math** → `cfo-advisor` tools for the quantitative model; this playbook stays qualitative.

Loop the findings back into the negotiation-points table above before the next counter.

## Integration with C-Suite Roles

| Role | Contribution to M&A |
|------|-------------------|
| CEO | Strategic rationale, negotiation lead |
| CFO | Valuation, deal structure, financing |
| GC | LOI/term sheet review, contract risk scan, regulatory triggers |
| CDO | Data diligence: training-data rights, data-asset valuation |
| CTO | Technical due diligence, integration architecture |
| CHRO | People due diligence, retention planning |
| COO | Integration execution, process merge |
| CPO | Product roadmap impact, customer overlap |

## Resources
- `references/integration-playbook.md` — 100-day post-acquisition integration plan
- `references/due-diligence-checklist.md` — comprehensive DD checklist by domain
- `../general-counsel-advisor/SKILL.md` — term sheet analyzer + contract risk scanner
- `../chief-data-officer-advisor/SKILL.md` — data diligence + data-asset valuation

More from alirezarezvani/claude-skills

SkillDescription
a11y-auditAccessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.
ab-test-setupWhen the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
ad-creativeWhen the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.
adversarial-reviewerAdversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
aeoAnswer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.
agent-decision-receiptsMint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.
agent-designerUse when the user asks to design a multi-agent system, pick an orchestration pattern (supervisor/swarm/pipeline), generate tool schemas for agents, or evaluate agent execution logs for cost, latency, and failure bottlenecks. Examples: 'design an agent architecture for research automation', 'generate Anthropic tool schemas from these tool descriptions', 'analyze these agent run logs for bottlenecks'. NOT for Claude Code workflow files (use workflow-builder) or single-agent prompt design (use agent-workflow-designer).
agent-harnessTurn any domain folder of skills into a bounded agentic loop: compile a goal into a verifiable task plan, execute tasks with the domain's own tools, verify every task with machine-run checks, retry with caps, escalate to a human when budgets exhaust, and refuse to close until everything is verified or explicitly waived. Use when you want an agent or subagent to pick up a goal and drive it to a verified close across one of this repo's 18 domains ('run this goal through the engineering harness', 'set up an agentic loop for marketing work', 'make the finance domain self-verifying'). NOT for authoring Claude Code Workflow-tool .js scripts (workflow-builder), N-agent tournaments on one task (agenthub), single-file metric optimization (autoresearch-agent), or discovering published loop recipes (loop-library).
agent-launcher-orchestratorUse when a user wants to build, launch, grade, or schedule a Claude Managed Agent (CMA) in their own Anthropic account — "build me an agent", "launch this as a managed agent", "run this on a schedule", "grade my agent against a rubric", "set up a nightly worker". Reads the per-session goal (./my-agent/goal.json), routes deterministically to one of five phase sub-skills (interview → stage-launch → grade-iterate → run-without-you → wrap-up) via goal_router.py, and compiles the goal+phase into an execution shape (single-pass workflow / bounded grade→iterate loop / recurring cron deployment loop) via loop_compiler.py. Forks context so heavy intake (build sheets, payloads, eval cases) stays out of the parent thread. All launches are emitted as BYOK curl the user runs with their own key; no tool makes API calls. Inspired by anthropics/launch-your-agent (Apache-2.0). Distinct from engineering/agent-harness (generic domain loop) and engineering/write-a-skill (authors Claude Code skills, not CMAs).
agent-memoryUse when a project's CLAUDE.md has grown past what anyone reads and you want the agent to learn durable facts from its own sessions instead — or when asking why the agent keeps re-learning the same correction, why a remembered rule is wrong, or where a memory line came from. Implements a four-tier store (L0 transcripts / L1 candidates / L2 project context / L3 stable persona) where promotion is earned by recurrence across sessions and days, never by one confident statement, and nothing reaches a committed file without a human adopting it.