Compares a draft credit agreement against the executed term sheet from the borrower’s perspective and produces a prioritized deviation report with economic impact analysis and recommendations.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill compare-credit-agreement-against-term-sheet --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Compare Credit Agreement Against Term Sheet?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-compare-credit-agreement-against-term-sheet)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: compare-credit-agreement-against-term-sheet
task_id: banking-finance/compare-credit-agreement-against-term-sheet
description: Compares a draft credit agreement against the executed term sheet from the borrower’s perspective and produces a prioritized deviation report with economic impact analysis and recommendations.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Credit Agreement vs. Term Sheet Deviation Report
## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Treat the term sheet as the baseline economic and structural bargain, and the draft credit agreement as the operative document to test against it.
- Read the full package before comparing: term sheet, draft agreement, related schedules/exhibits, transmittal or markup notes, and any side letters or summary emails if included in the source set.
- If the source set contains more than one draft, compare each against the same term sheet and separate true revisions from unchanged carryovers.
- If only one draft exists, state that the analysis is single-draft and do not infer missing alternates.
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Spotting a change in pricing, covenant mechanics, conditions, or remedies without translating it into borrower-side consequences.
- Missing borrower-protective concepts that were in the term sheet but were narrowed, deleted, or omitted in the draft.
- Treating drafting changes as harmless when they alter economics, headroom, control rights, or refinancing flexibility.
- Failing to separate material deviations from stylistic edits, conforming cleanups, and defined-term housekeeping.
- Overstating or understating the significance of a change without tying it back to the transaction’s size, leverage, tenor, or cash flow profile.
- Ignoring whether a cover note or transmittal characterizes substantive revisions as non-substantive.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Use the term sheet as the business baseline, but evaluate the draft credit agreement as the controlling operative document.
- Compare pricing terms, including reference-rate mechanics, margins, floors, upfront or ticking fees, and default-rate structures.
- Compare repayment and prepayment architecture, including mandatory prepayment triggers, sweep mechanics, and basket or threshold protections.
- Compare leverage and covenant mechanics, including debt definitions, cash netting, EBITDA adjustments, baskets, and cure or reset concepts.
- Compare collateral, guaranty, and release mechanics where the term sheet addressed them, because omission or narrowing can change risk allocation.
- Compare change-of-control, mandatory prepayment, and event-of-default triggers for expansion beyond the bargain reflected in the term sheet.
- Compare borrower-favorable carve-outs in broad risk definitions and restrictive covenants, especially where the draft adds qualifiers, exceptions, or cross-default hooks.
- Compare timing mechanics for reinvestment, cure, consent, notice, and amendment rights because shorter windows often carry practical borrower cost.
- If a legal proposition is stated, tie it to the governing document text in the source set or to the standard credit-agreement convention being applied; do not state a conclusion without identifying the clause logic that supports it.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
1. Baseline the bargain
- Identify the principal economic and structural terms reflected in the term sheet.
- Separate firm terms from indications, summaries, and open items.
2. Compare provision by provision
- Test each material term in the draft against the term sheet.
- Capture additions, deletions, narrowing edits, and changes in defined terms or cross-references that alter operation.
3. Measure borrower impact
- For each deviation, assess whether it changes price, cash flow, headroom, optionality, control, or enforcement leverage.
- Where the source set contains usable figures, tie the issue to the transaction size, facility capacity, covenant level, tenor, or other relevant scale.
4. Trace interactions
- Cross-reference the issue to any other clause, schedule, exhibit, or definition that changes the practical effect of the revision.
- Flag cascading effects where one edit tightens several related provisions.
5. Classify severity
- Distinguish economic, structural, and technical deviations.
- Use an explicit ordinal severity scale and apply it consistently across all issues.
6. Prioritize negotiation points
- Rank the issues that most affect borrower economics, liquidity, flexibility, or closing certainty.
- Distinguish items that are execution blockers from items that are clean-up points.
7. Assess transmittal characterization
- Compare any cover note or markup summary with the actual scope of revisions.
- Flag any mismatch between the stated and actual significance of changes.
8. Convert findings into action
- End each issue with a practical borrower-side recommendation that identifies who should act and when the issue should be addressed.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Track whether a change in one section alters another section’s operation, especially where definitions feed covenants, remedies, or conditions.
- Track whether a later-declared “administrative” edit actually changes the timing, sequencing, or priority of borrower obligations.
- Track whether the draft tightens rights at the facility level, the tranche level, or the collateral level in a way the term sheet did not contemplate.
- Track whether a new condition, notice period, or reinvestment window shortens the borrower’s practical response time.
- Track whether a revision compounds across the life of the facility, such as through recurring fees, reset mechanics, or repeated compliance measurements.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce a borrower-side deviation report organized by issue, not a narrative summary.
- Open with a short executive overview that identifies the most consequential deviations and states the overall negotiation posture.
- Define the severity scale once at the top, then apply it uniformly to every issue entry.
- For each issue, include:
- term sheet baseline
- draft agreement text or clause reference
- deviation identified
- borrower impact
- severity
- recommendation
- For every issue, make the impact analysis explicit and complete: quantify or scale the issue against a relevant source-document figure or threshold when available, cross-reference the interacting clause or document, and state the downstream consequence for the borrower.
- Group the highest-severity deviations first.
- Separate economic deviations from structural deviations, and keep drafting cleanups in a lower-priority section.
- Include a distinct section for transmittal or cover-note characterization if one exists.
- End with a Recommended Actions section that gives imperative borrower-side steps, identifies the responsible role, and includes a timing anchor tied to signing, execution, or another transaction milestone.
- Keep the report concise but decision-useful; omit repetition and avoid describing issues that do not change the bargain.
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!