Guides systematic benchmarking of a counterparty's intercreditor agreement markup against market precedent data, with analysis of economic and control impacts and identification of provisions whose combined effect is materially more adverse than any individual change.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill analyze-counterparty-markup-of-intercreditor-agreement --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Analyze Counterparty Markup Of Intercreditor Agreement?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-analyze-counterparty-markup-of-intercreditor-agree)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: analyze-counterparty-markup-intercreditor-agreement-wind
task_id: energy-natural-resources/analyze-counterparty-markup-of-intercreditor-agreement
description: Guides systematic benchmarking of a counterparty's intercreditor agreement markup against market precedent data, with analysis of economic and control impacts and identification of provisions whose combined effect is materially more adverse than any individual change.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Analyze Counterparty Markup of Intercreditor Agreement — Deviation Memorandum
## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Confirm the deliverable is an advisory deviation memo comparing a counterparty markup to the house ICA and market precedent data.
- Identify the governing document set before analysis: standard form ICA, markup/redline, transmittal materials, and any market precedent packet.
- If the markup touches multiple intercreditor parties, tranche positions, or creditor classes, enumerate them up front and analyze each separately before drawing compound conclusions.
- Treat the memorandum as a comparison-and-impact exercise, not a pure contract summary.
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Deviations are labeled market or non-market without tying the conclusion to the actual precedent data supplied.
- Individual edits are identified in isolation, but their combined economic or control effect is not evaluated.
- The transmittal letter is accepted at face value even when it soft-pedals or omits the significance of the markup.
- Issues are described without closing the loop on scale, document interaction, and client consequence.
- The analysis names doctrines or bankruptcy concepts without anchoring them to controlling authority.
- The memo gives commentary but never lands on a concrete counter-position or next step.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Standstill mechanics: evaluate the practical length of the restraint on junior remedies, including any auto-termination or reset mechanics that shorten or extend the effective period.
- Cure rights and reset provisions: assess whether cure rights can be used repeatedly or too easily to delay enforcement, and whether distinctions between monetary and non-monetary defaults track market practice.
- Purchase option economics: compare option price mechanics against par, accrued amounts, fees, and expenses to determine whether the option is realistically exercisable.
- Foreclosure and enforcement conditions: assess whether notice, price floors, or sale conditions are commercially achievable in distress and whether they operate as an enforcement bar.
- Bankruptcy interface: check provisions affecting voting rights, DIP financing, adequate protection, priming, and post-petition priority against the Bankruptcy Code framework, including 11 U.S.C. §§ 361, 364, 506, 1111, 1129, and related cramdown concepts where relevant.
- Subordination integrity: identify provisions that expand junior claims or shift priorities in a way that changes the negotiated waterfall or enforcement balance.
- Market benchmarking: a deviation is only “off-market” if the provided precedent data support that conclusion; general intuition is not enough.
- Authority citation: every legal proposition should be supported by a named source, statute, rule, code section, or recognized doctrine.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Read the precedent data first, then the markup. For each deviation, identify the house term, the counterparty change, and the specific precedent point that frames the comparison.
- Use a consistent issue-by-issue template: standard term, markup change, market benchmark, impact, severity, and recommended counter.
- Close each issue with three moves:
- quantify the effect using a deal figure, timing period, exposure, or other source-document metric;
- cross-reference the interacting clause, schedule, or companion document;
- state the client consequence in economic, operational, litigation, or transactional terms.
- Classify each issue on a uniform ordinal scale defined once in the memo, and apply that scale consistently.
- If a cover letter makes affirmative claims about the markup, verify each claim against the actual redline and flag any mismatch or omission.
- After the issue list, step back and identify provisions that interact, especially where one change changes the practical effect of another.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Standstill, cure rights, and auto-termination must be read together; the effective restraint is determined by the interaction of all three, not any single clause.
- Payment restriction mechanics, option pricing, and junior claim growth may compound over time; evaluate the trajectory, not only the immediate text.
- DIP, adequate protection, and enforcement provisions can shift control in a restructuring; assess whether multiple carve-outs collectively reduce senior lender flexibility.
- Voting restrictions and plan-related provisions can become ineffective or altered in a Chapter 11 setting; note the post-petition implications where applicable.
- Foreclosure notice periods, sale conditions, and minimum-price mechanics should be considered as a single enforcement pathway.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Write the memorandum in ordinary law-firm issue memo form, organized by priority tier: Must Reject, then Negotiate, then Accept.
- State the severity scale once at the top and use it uniformly for each issue.
- For each issue include:
- the house-form term;
- the counterparty markup;
- the relevant market precedent citation or datapoint;
- the impact analysis;
- the severity classification;
- the recommended counterproposal.
- In each issue entry, include the controlling authority where the point depends on a legal proposition or bankruptcy principle.
- Include a separate section for cover letter mischaracterizations, identifying both overstatements and omissions.
- Include a separate section for compounding or interacting risks.
- End with a Recommended Actions block that assigns a concrete action, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the deal process.
- Close with a concise summary matrix listing the issue, current position, target counter, fallback, and precedent reference.
- When drafting any redline-style text or change note, use robust textual change marking so the operative edit remains clear even if formatting is lost.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!