Install
$ agentstack add skill-brainbytes-dev-everything-claude-finance-covenant-analysis ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
covenant-analysis
Covenant analysis — financial covenants, incurrence vs maintenance tests.
When to Activate
- Reviewing loan agreements or bond indentures for covenant terms
- Analyzing covenant headroom and breach risk
- Negotiating covenant packages in new financing
- Assessing EBITDA adjustments and their impact on covenant compliance
- Evaluating covenant-lite structures versus traditional covenant packages
- Monitoring portfolio companies for covenant compliance
- Advising on waiver or amendment processes following a potential breach
Core Concepts
Covenant Types
Financial covenants — quantitative tests on financial metrics:
- Leverage ratio: Net Debt / EBITDA — most common. Typically tested quarterly on a trailing twelve-month (TTM) basis
- Interest coverage ratio (ICR): EBITDA / Interest Expense. Ensures the borrower can service debt from operating cash flow
- Fixed charge coverage ratio (FCCR): (EBITDA - Capex - Taxes) / (Interest + Scheduled Principal). More conservative than ICR — captures total fixed obligations
- Debt service coverage ratio (DSCR): Net Operating Income / Total Debt Service. Common in project finance and real estate
- Minimum EBITDA or revenue: Absolute floor rather than a ratio — prevents the denominator problem when EBITDA approaches zero
- Maximum capex: Limits annual capital expenditure. Unused amounts may carry forward (basket mechanics)
Affirmative covenants — actions the borrower must take:
- Deliver financial statements (monthly, quarterly, annual audited)
- Maintain insurance, pay taxes, comply with laws
- Provide compliance certificates with each reporting period
- Notify lenders of material adverse changes or events of default
Negative covenants — restrictions on borrower actions:
- Limitations on additional indebtedness (debt incurrence tests, permitted debt baskets)
- Restrictions on liens, asset sales, dividends/distributions, investments, affiliate transactions
- Change of control provisions (often trigger mandatory prepayment or put right)
- Limitations on mergers, consolidations, and fundamental changes
Maintenance vs. Incurrence Covenants
Maintenance covenants (tested periodically):
- Must be satisfied at each testing date (typically quarterly)
- Breach triggers a default (or event of default after cure period)
- Common in leveraged loans and bank facilities
- Provide early warning and lender intervention rights
Incurrence covenants (tested only upon a specific action):
- Must be satisfied only when the borrower takes a specified action (e.g., incurring new debt, making a distribution, completing an acquisition)
- If the borrower takes no action, the covenant is never tested — even if financial performance deteriorates
- Standard in high-yield bonds
- Less protective for creditors but more flexible for borrowers
Leverage Ratio
The centerpiece of most covenant packages:
- Definition matters: Net Debt typically includes funded debt minus unrestricted cash. EBITDA definition is negotiated and often includes extensive add-backs
- Typical levels by risk profile:
- Investment grade: 2.00x | 3.25x | 62.5% | Pass
Fixed Charge Coverage | (EBITDA-Capex) / DS | > 1.10x | 1.35x | 22.7% | Pass Max Capex | Annual capex | < $25M | $21.2M | 15.2% | Pass
Binding covenant: Net Leverage (tightest headroom at 11.8%) Trend: Headroom narrowing — was 18.5% two quarters ago
### EBITDA Bridge (Accounting to Covenant)
EUR M Reported EBITDA (Accounting) 42.0
- Stock-based compensation 3.5
- Restructuring charges 2.8
- Transaction / advisory fees 1.2
- Non-recurring litigation costs 0.9
- Run-rate synergies (capped at 20%) 4.0
- Pro forma acquisition EBITDA 6.5
- Pro forma disposal EBITDA (2.1)
Adjusted EBITDA (Covenant Definition) 58.8
Adjusted EBITDA is 40% higher than reported EBITDA. Run-rate synergies represent 6.8% of Adjusted EBITDA (within 20% cap).
### Covenant Sensitivity Matrix
Revenue Decline from Base Case: 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% Net Leverage 4.85x 5.12x 5.45x 5.88x 6.42x Covenant Max 5.50x 5.50x 5.50x 5.50x 5.50x Headroom 11.8% 6.9% 0.9% BREACH BREACH
Margin Compression from Base Case: 0bp -100bp -200bp -300bp -400bp Net Leverage 4.85x 5.05x 5.28x 5.55x 5.86x Headroom 11.8% 8.2% 4.0% BREACH BREACH
Breakeven: Revenue can decline ~9.5% or margins compress ~220bp before leverage covenant breach (assuming no management action).
### Waiver / Amendment Checklist
- Identify the covenant(s) at risk and projected breach date
- Quantify the severity: How far below/above threshold?
- Assess cure rights: Equity cure available? How many remain?
- Prepare amendment request:
- Revised covenant levels sought (temporary or permanent)
- Business plan demonstrating path to compliance
- Consideration offered (fee, margin increase, additional reporting)
- Lender group dynamics: Required majority (typically 50-66.7%)
- Timeline: Allow 4-8 weeks for syndicated facilities
- Legal review: Confirm no cross-default triggers in other facilities
## Quality Gate
- [ ] Credit agreement definitions extracted verbatim — EBITDA, Net Debt, and each covenant metric
- [ ] All permitted add-backs identified and mapped to financial line items
- [ ] Covenant compliance calculated using the agreement definition, not management's adjusted figures
- [ ] Headroom analyzed for each covenant; binding constraint identified
- [ ] Forward projection models covenant metrics under at least three scenarios (base, upside, downside)
- [ ] Breakeven analysis completed — identifies the performance decline that triggers a breach
- [ ] Cure rights documented: number remaining, amount, consecutive quarter restrictions
- [ ] Cross-default provisions checked across all facilities
- [ ] Step-down schedule tracked — upcoming tightening of covenant levels flagged
- [ ] EBITDA add-back caps verified; run-rate synergies tested for reasonableness
- [ ] Compliance certificate template matches the credit agreement requirements
## Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- **Author:** [brainbytes-dev](https://github.com/brainbytes-dev)
- **Source:** [brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance](https://github.com/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance)
- **License:** MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.