Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/due-diligencegit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-financeWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/due-diligence)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/due-diligence"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance/due-diligence.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00012 | $0.01139 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00002 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
due-diligence scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 5d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 119 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/due-diligence — Due Diligence Checklist
What This Command Does
Generates and executes a comprehensive due diligence checklist tailored to the deal type and target. Covers financial, commercial, legal, operational, tax, and HR workstreams. Tracks findings, flags red flags, and produces a summary of key risks and deal-breakers.
When to Use
- Buy-side M&A due diligence
- Sell-side vendor due diligence preparation
- Private equity investment evaluation
- Venture capital deep-dive on a target
- Joint venture partner assessment
- Post-LOI / pre-closing analysis
How It Works
- Scoping: Determines relevant DD workstreams based on deal type, industry, and jurisdiction
- Checklist Generation: Creates a prioritized checklist per workstream with data request items
- Analysis Execution: Works through available information, documenting findings per item
- Red Flag Identification: Highlights material findings that could affect deal terms or viability
- Quality of Earnings: Adjusts reported earnings for non-recurring items, accounting policy differences, and normalization
- Risk Matrix: Maps findings to a risk severity matrix (critical / major / minor / observation)
- Summary Report: Consolidates findings into an executive summary with recommended actions
Example Usage
Input:
/due-diligence target:"LogiFreight SpA" type:financial deal_type:acquisition
Output:
# Financial Due Diligence — LogiFreight SpA
## Status: In Progress | Deal Type: Acquisition | Jurisdiction: Italy (OIC/IFRS)
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## 1. QUALITY OF EARNINGS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
| Item | Status | Finding | Severity |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------|----------|
| Revenue recognition policies | ✓ Done | Revenue recognized at delivery — OK | — |
| Non-recurring items | ✓ Done | EUR 1.2M one-time gain in 2025 | ⚠ Major |
| Related party transactions | ✓ Done | Management co. charges EUR 400K/yr | ⚠ Major |
| Working capital normalization | ✓ Done | Seasonal spike inflates YE position | ⚡ Minor |
| Accounting policy consistency | ✓ Done | Changed depreciation method in 2024 | ⚡ Minor |
### Adjusted EBITDA Bridge
| EUR '000 | Amount |
|--------------------------------|---------|
| Reported EBITDA (2025) | 8,500 |
| Less: One-time gain | (1,200) |
| Less: Above-market mgmt fees | (200) |
| Plus: Below-market rent adj. | 150 |
| **Normalized EBITDA** | **7,250** |
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## 2. BALANCE SHEET REVIEW
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
| Item | Status | Finding | Severity |
|-------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|------------|
| Net debt verification | ✓ Done | Off-BS lease liabilities found | 🔴 Critical |
| Receivables quality | ✓ Done | 12% of AR > 90 days overdue | ⚠ Major |
| Inventory valuation | ✓ Done | FIFO applied consistently | — |
| Contingent liabilities | ✓ Done | Pending labor dispute EUR 300K | ⚡ Minor |
| Tax liabilities review | ⬜ Open | Awaiting tax audit results | TBD |
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## 3. RED FLAGS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
🔴 CRITICAL: Off-balance sheet operating leases of EUR 3.5M not captured
in reported net debt. Adjusts EV by EUR 3.5M.
⚠ MAJOR: Normalized EBITDA 14.7% below reported — affects valuation
multiple application.
⚠ MAJOR: Related party management fees above market rate suggest
potential value leakage.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
## 4. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
1. Adjust purchase price to reflect normalized EBITDA (EUR 7.25M vs EUR 8.5M)
2. Include off-BS leases in enterprise value bridge
3. Negotiate termination of related party management agreement at closing
4. Request completion of open tax audit before signing
5. Include AR warranty for receivables > 90 days in SPA
### Overall Assessment: PROCEED WITH CAUTION
Material adjustments required to deal terms. No deal-breakers identified
if price reflects normalized earnings and off-BS liabilities.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 5d ago First seen · 119 lines · 12 tokens per session scan A 2ffadb7c4723
due-diligence is a command published in the GitHub repository brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-finance (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 12 tokens to every session and 1,139 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
tax-review
Tax-filing compliance check — invokes tax-reviewer to produce TM-tax-{slug}.md with MeF e-file schema, Form 8879, PTIN/Circular 230, and IRC §7216 consent gaps.
monitor
AML transaction monitoring and suspicious activity reporting.
tax-planning
Optimize tax liability or ensure tax compliance.
exit-analysis
Compare exit paths for a held property — hold, taxable sale, 1031 exchange, or cash-out refinance — with after-tax proceeds and forward IRR.
confronta
Forfettario vs SRL — quale conviene e quando ha senso passare. Confronto orientativo, mostra i poli e non un numero unico.
filings
Scan recent filings on a company and surface material events (director changes, new charges, capital events, insolvency markers). Works on GB / IE / CA / IS / FI / IM / LI / MX / KR.