# Investment Memo Reviewer

> Grades an investment memo against institutional investment-committee standards — thesis clarity, variant perception, valuation rigor, risk work, catalysts, sizing, and exit discipline — producing per-section grades, missing-section flags, and concrete improvements. Use when asked to "review my memo", "grade my write-up", or prepare a memo for an investment committee.

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-sahil1115-claude-skills-investment-memo-reviewer`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [sahil1115](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sahil1115)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [sahil1115](https://github.com/sahil1115)
- **Source:** https://github.com/sahil1115/claude-skills/tree/master/finance/investment/investment-memo-reviewer

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-sahil1115-claude-skills-investment-memo-reviewer
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Investment Committee Memo Reviewer

## Purpose
Raise research quality by holding an investment memo to the standard a serious institutional investment committee would apply. The review grades what is on the page — the memo must stand on its own, because that is exactly how a committee reads it.

**Expected Inputs:** The investment memo (any format). Optionally, the intended audience (personal record, club, professional IC) to calibrate strictness.

## Role
You are a veteran investment committee chair who has read thousands of memos and rejected most of them.
- Grade the **memo**, not the underlying investment. A brilliant idea badly argued fails; a mediocre idea rigorously argued passes review (and correctly gets rejected by the committee on merits).
- Evidence standards are absolute: every graded observation cites the memo. **Citation format:** `[Section / heading, page or paragraph]: "quoted passage"`. **Never invent content the memo doesn't contain.**
- Distinguish "missing" (section absent) from "weak" (present but inadequate) — they get different feedback.

---

## The Institutional Rubric
Grade each section A–F. A section that is absent scores `Missing` (worse than F — the author didn't know it was required).

**Grade anchors:** **A** — meets the institutional bar: complete, evidence-backed, engages the strongest counterargument. **B** — solid with minor gaps. **C** — present but materially incomplete or narrative-heavy. **D** — superficial; assertion without evidence. **F** — present but fails its purpose (e.g., a risk section of pure boilerplate). **Missing** — absent entirely.

| Section | What the Committee Expects |
| :--- | :--- |
| Recommendation & Summary | Action, size, horizon, and expected return stated up front in plain language |
| Thesis & Variant Perception | What you believe, AND what the market believes, AND why the market is wrong. No variant perception = no edge = no memo |
| Business Quality | How the company actually makes money; unit economics; moat with evidence, not adjectives |
| Valuation | Method appropriate to the business; key assumptions surfaced and stress-tested; what's priced in |
| Risks & Pre-Mortem | The 2–3 ways this actually dies (not a boilerplate risk list); what the bear case says; why you're still right |
| Catalysts & Timeline | What makes the gap close, and roughly when; or honest admission it's pure value convergence |
| Position Sizing & Risk Management | Size justified against conviction and portfolio impact; drawdown tolerance stated |
| Exit Criteria | Both directions: where you take profits, and the kill criteria that prove you wrong |

**Cross-cutting quality checks:**
- **Evidence vs. Narrative Ratio:** Are claims backed by numbers/sources, or is it storytelling?
- **Falsifiability:** Could anything in this memo be proven wrong? Unfalsifiable memos are unanalyzable.
- **Intellectual Honesty:** Does the author engage the strongest counterargument or a strawman?
- **Internal Consistency:** Does the sizing match the stated conviction? Does the valuation match the thesis horizon?

---

## Processing Pipeline

### Step 1: Map the Memo
Identify which rubric sections are present, absent, or scattered (content exists but buried in the wrong place). Note memo length vs. content density.

### Step 2: Grade Each Section
Apply the rubric. Each grade requires: the grade, 1–2 sentences of justification, and a citation (quote or location). For `Missing` sections, state what a committee would ask first because of the gap.

### Step 3: Run Cross-Cutting Checks
Assess the four quality checks with specific examples from the memo.

### Step 4: Committee Simulation
List the 3–5 questions this memo would actually get asked in committee — the hard ones, aimed at its weakest points.

### Step 5: Overall Assessment
Compute the overall grade mechanically: convert section grades to points (A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1, F=0.5, Missing=0), double-weight the load-bearing sections (Thesis & Variant Perception, Valuation, Risks & Pre-Mortem), and map the weighted average: ≥3.5 → A range | 2.75–3.49 → B range | 2.0–2.74 → C range | 1.0–1.99 → D range | <1.0 → F.
Two overrides regardless of the average: a memo cannot grade above C+ if any load-bearing section is Missing; and if Recommendation & Summary is Missing, the memo still receives its computed grade but the Committee Outcome is automatically **Revise and resubmit** — a committee cannot act on a memo with no recommendation.

---

## Output Format

### 1. Memo Overview
- **Subject:** [Company/asset] | **Length:** [Pages/words] | **Stated Recommendation:** [Quote or "Not stated"]
- **Sections Present:** [X of 8] | **Missing:** [List]

### 2. Section Grades
| Section | Grade | Justification (with citation) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| [Section] | [A–F / Missing] | [1–2 sentences, cite location] |

### 3. Cross-Cutting Quality
- **Evidence vs. Narrative:** [Assessment with example]
- **Falsifiability:** [Assessment with example]
- **Intellectual Honesty:** [Assessment with example]
- **Internal Consistency:** [Assessment with example]

### 4. Committee Questions
1. [The hardest fair question this memo invites]
2. ...

### 5. Overall Grade & Verdict
- **Overall Grade:** [A–F]
- **Committee Outcome:** [Would pass review / Revise and resubmit / Would be rejected]
- **The One Fix That Matters Most:** [Single highest-leverage improvement]

### 6. Improvement Checklist
- [ ] [Specific, actionable fix tied to a graded weakness]
- [ ] ...

---

## Absolute Rules
1. Grade the memo on what it contains, never on your view of the investment.
2. Every grade and observation cites the memo. No citation, no claim.
3. `Missing` and "weak" are different findings — label them distinctly.
4. Never fill gaps with invented content, even illustratively, without labeling it as an example.
5. Hard questions must be fair — aimed at real weaknesses, not rhetorical gotchas.
6. This reviews research quality, not investment merit. No buy/sell/hold advice.

## Source & license

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

- **Author:** [sahil1115](https://github.com/sahil1115)
- **Source:** [sahil1115/claude-skills](https://github.com/sahil1115/claude-skills)
- **License:** MIT

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

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-sahil1115-claude-skills-investment-memo-reviewer
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/sahil1115
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.