Guides preparation of a sell-side vendor due diligence report for distribution to prospective bidders where multi-workstream diligence findings must be organized, qualified, and presented in a form suitable for external disclosure.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add sunyifeisb-art/legalwork --skill draft-vendor-due-diligence-report --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Draft Vendor Due Diligence Report?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/sunyifeisb-art-draft-vendor-due-diligence-report)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: draft-vendor-due-diligence-report
task_id: corporate-ma/draft-vendor-due-diligence-report
description: Guides preparation of a sell-side vendor due diligence report for distribution to prospective bidders where multi-workstream diligence findings must be organized, qualified, and presented in a form suitable for external disclosure.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---
# Skill: Sell-Side Vendor Due Diligence Report
## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Confirm the report is a sell-side VDD for external bidder circulation, not an internal diligence note.
- Identify the transaction perimeter, the target entity perimeter, and the document set that governs scope.
- If the source materials cover more than one business, jurisdiction, or reporting period, map each separately before synthesis.
- If the requested package is incomplete, proceed with the available record but flag the missing inputs in the affected sections and in the summary.
- Draft the report itself as the primary deliverable; do not substitute a summary of findings for the report.
## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Findings are stated without the cautionary framing needed for bidder-facing reliance limits.
- Separate workstream comments are presented in isolation, without identifying where one issue amplifies another.
- Known information gaps are omitted or buried, leaving the report to imply completeness that the record does not support.
- Risks are described but not translated into a seller-side response or disclosure posture.
- The report reads like a list of notes rather than a coordinated legal diligence product suitable for a sale process.
- The narrative assumes all source materials are current without anchoring them to an as-of date.
## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- A VDD report is a disclosure and diligence synthesis product prepared for a sale process; it should be written as a qualified external-facing document, not as privileged internal advice.
- Reliance should be expressly limited to the seller’s intended use and the stated audience; the report should make clear that bidders must conduct their own review and that later-updated facts may require supplementation.
- The report should be organized by conventional diligence workstreams, with each section tied to the relevant source materials and request categories.
- Where the source set identifies legal propositions, cite the governing authority, rule, statute, regulation, or doctrinal source by name and section where available.
- Use conventional diligence language for reservations, exceptions, assumptions, and disclosure-based qualification rather than absolute statements.
- Where the record supports a risk-allocation response, state the seller’s proposed posture in transaction terms using conventional deal tools such as disclosure, indemnity, escrow, purchase price adjustment, or covenant-based mitigation.
- Treat the as-of date as controlling for the report; later developments belong in a supplement or updated version.
## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Build the report from the diligence request tracker and source materials, not from a generic template alone.
- For each workstream, extract: core findings, legal significance, missing information, and any proposed allocation response.
- Before synthesis, list the workstreams and any distinct jurisdictions, entities, or periods that must be treated separately.
- For each identified issue, record:
- what the issue is,
- where it appears in the source set,
- why it matters transactionally or legally,
- how it interacts with another workstream or document,
- what seller-side response is proposed.
- When multiple issues recur across sections, consolidate them in the executive summary as a cross-workstream theme rather than repeating disconnected snippets.
- Use the source documents’ own terminology for defined concepts, but do not overquote them; paraphrase unless exact wording is necessary to preserve legal meaning.
- If a provision, filing, or process point is material to the analysis, anchor it to the controlling authority or document reference rather than stating the conclusion in the abstract.
- If the sources do not support a confident conclusion, say so plainly and identify what additional material would resolve the point.
## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Treat the report as layered: executive summary first, then workstream analysis, then an issues-and-responses synthesis where needed.
- Keep entity, subsidiary, project, contract, and jurisdiction distinctions intact; do not collapse separate legal relationships into one generalized treatment.
- Respect temporal sequencing:
- as-of date,
- historic facts,
- current status,
- pending or expected updates.
- When a later event changes the significance of an earlier fact, note the change and preserve the original timing.
- Where the record contains outstanding requests, tie them to the specific section they affect so the reader can see the residual uncertainty.
## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce a single bidder-ready vendor due diligence report in conventional report form.
- Start with an executive summary that states the overall risk profile, principal concerns, and cross-workstream interactions.
- Follow with subject-matter workstreams in a commercially familiar order; include only those supported by the source materials, but flag omitted conventional areas if the record is silent.
- Within each workstream, use a consistent sequence:
- scope or source basis,
- findings,
- legal or commercial significance,
- gaps or reservations,
- seller-side response or proposed allocation.
- Include a short reliance and qualifications section, including the as-of date and the external-use limitation.
- Include a concise cross-workstream issues synthesis where separate findings reinforce one another.
- End with a recommended next steps section that gives actionable drafting, disclosure, or diligence follow-up items in imperative form, tied to the responsible role and transaction timing.
- Keep the tone neutral, precise, and suitable for distribution to prospective bidders; avoid advocacy, alarmism, or internal shorthand.
- Do not invent facts, do not preload calculations or transaction economics, and do not imply completeness where the source record is incomplete.
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!