AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Capital Allocation

skill-cbrock84-headcount-capital-allocation · by cbrock84

Evaluates where to spend limited capital — investment appraisal, hurdle rates, payback, and comparing proposals that are not alike. Use this to evaluate an investment or major purchase, compare competing funding requests, set a hurdle rate, decide between building and buying, or review whether past investments delivered what was claimed.

No reviews yet
0 installs
8 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-cbrock84-headcount-capital-allocation

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No 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.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-cbrock84-headcount-capital-allocation)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
4d ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

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 →
Are you the author of Capital Allocation? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Capital allocation

Choosing among investments is choosing what not to do. This is the appraisal of individual proposals; which businesses and bets the company should be in belongs to corporate-strategy:portfolio-strategy.

Appraise on incremental cash

Only cash flows that change because of the decision belong in the analysis:

  • Sunk costs are irrelevant. Money already spent is not a reason to continue, though it is

reliably presented as one.

  • Allocated overhead is usually irrelevant. If the cost occurs anyway, it does not belong in the

incremental case.

  • Opportunity cost is relevant, including the capacity consumed that then cannot serve anything

else.

  • Working capital is a real outflow. Growth that consumes cash is not free because it is growth.

Discount for time and risk. A hurdle rate should reflect the risk of the specific proposal — applying one company-wide rate systematically overfunds risky projects and starves safe ones.

Read payback for what it tells you

Payback ignores everything after the threshold and so is a poor ranking tool. It is a good liquidity and uncertainty measure: how long capital is at risk, and how far into an uncertain future the case depends on.

Use net present value to decide, payback to understand exposure. A proposal with strong NPV whose returns all arrive in years four and five is a forecasting question as much as an investment one.

Interrogate the case, not the sponsor

Every proposal arrives advocated for. The useful questions are structural:

  • What has to be true for this to work, and which of those is least certain?
  • What is the counterfactual — what happens if we do nothing?
  • Where is the optionality: can it be staged so a small commitment buys information before the large

one?

  • Who is accountable for the benefit after approval?

Stage-gating dominates all-or-nothing commitment where uncertainty is high. Paying for information first is usually cheaper than being right by luck.

Look back, or the numbers stay fictional

Compare realized outcomes against the approved case, and make it routine rather than punitive. Where nobody looks back, forecasts drift optimistic because optimism is rewarded at approval and never tested afterwards.

Never

  • Include sunk cost in a forward case.
  • Apply one hurdle rate to proposals of different risk.
  • Rank by payback.
  • Approve a benefit with no owner after approval.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.