# Compare Closing Documents Against Conditions Precedent > Verify closing documents against the applicable conditions-precedent framework and produce a severity-organized gap memorandum with remediation steps for each deficiency. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-conditions-precedent` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-conditions-precedent` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-conditions-precedent/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/compare-closing-documents-against-conditions-precedent --- # Skill: Conditions Precedent Gap Memorandum (Real Estate Secured Facility) ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Use this skill when the task is to compare a closing set against a credit agreement’s conditions precedent and report deficiencies, not to summarize the deal. - Start by locating the controlling conditions-precedent provisions, related definitions, exhibits, schedules, and any closing checklist embedded in the source set. - Identify whether the closing package involves multiple borrowers, guarantors, collateral items, insurance policies, tenant deliverables, or other parallel deliverables; if so, review each separately before drawing a consolidated conclusion. - If the source set contains only one relevant obligor, asset, policy, or notice item, state that expressly and analyze only that item. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Treating the assignment as a narrative closing summary instead of a document-by-document compliance comparison. - Missing an individual CP because the analysis grouped related documents too early. - Failing to test recency where the agreement requires a current survey, appraisal, certificate, report, or good-standing evidence. - Overlooking content defects in otherwise present documents, including signature defects, authority defects, named-party mismatches, or missing required wording. - Ignoring cross-document dependencies, such as a condition that is satisfied only if two or more documents align. - Failing to translate an identified deficiency into a concrete closing consequence and a practical cure path. - Reporting issues without an ordinal severity classification. - Recommending remediation without identifying who should act and when the cure should occur. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Conditions-precedent review is document-driven: compare each contractual condition to the actual closing binder item by item. - Use the agreement’s own defined terms and references to determine scope, timing, and satisfaction standards. - For time-sensitive deliverables, calculate elapsed time against the contractual freshness requirement and treat stale evidence as a deficiency. - For collateral-value or leverage-related conditions, compare the stated figures against the contractual threshold or underwriting standard in the agreement. - For title, survey, insurance, environmental, tenant, authorization, lien, and notice conditions, verify both existence and substantive conformity with the required form. - Title and insurance conditions commonly turn on exact coverage, endorsements, named insured/loss payee language, and secured-party wording. - Environmental conditions commonly turn on whether the report flags issues that trigger follow-on review, lender approval, or additional testing. - Tenant-related conditions commonly turn on missing estoppels, consents, SNDA forms, or similar occupancy deliverables for required counterparties. - Authorization conditions commonly turn on execution authority, resolutions, incumbency, certificates, and corresponding entity approvals. - Lien-search conditions commonly turn on undisclosed liens, permitted encumbrances, and whether any exception is expressly tolerated by the agreement. - Borrowing notice conditions commonly turn on notice timing measured against the actual request or funding date. - Cite the controlling contractual provision or other authority relied on for each proposition; do not state a legal conclusion without naming the source rule, section, or clause. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds 1. Build the CP universe from the agreement first. - Extract every express condition precedent and any linked definition, exhibit, schedule, or mechanic that modifies it. - Do not analyze only the documents that were easiest to find; work through the full list. 2. Enumerate the deliverables and counterparties before analysis. - List each document category, each obligor or property, and each time-sensitive certificate or report that must be matched to a CP. - Then assess each item separately. 3. For each CP item, use the same three-step test. - Existence: is the required item present in the closing set? - Freshness: if timing matters, is it current enough? - Substantive match: does its content satisfy the agreement? 4. When a CP involves a number, threshold, or period, quantify it. - Measure elapsed time, compare figures to the contractual limit, or test whether the stated metric meets the required standard. - If the source set supports more than one calculation, run each relevant comparison rather than using a proxy. 5. Cross-reference interacting documents. - If a deficiency depends on another schedule, certificate, policy, notice, or approval, identify that interaction explicitly. - Explain why the interaction matters to CP satisfaction. 6. Classify severity using one ordinal scale defined once at the top of the memorandum. - Apply the same labels consistently across all issues. - Use severity to reflect whether the issue blocks closing, requires prompt cure, or is administrative/waivable. 7. For each issue, close the analysis with three explicit moves. - State the quantitative or threshold-based mismatch, if any. - Identify the related clause, schedule, or other document that affects the issue. - State the downstream consequence for the transaction or lender protections. 8. End each issue with a concrete cure. - Say what must be delivered, amended, reaffirmed, re-executed, or waived. - Tie the cure to the relevant party and the transactional milestone. 9. Keep the memorandum evidence-based. - Ground each issue in the source set and cite the operative agreement reference or other controlling authority used for the conclusion. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Where the closing package contains multiple properties, loans, obligors, guarantors, or policies, map each CP to the specific vertical it governs before summarizing. - Where an item’s adequacy depends on date, age, or funding timing, show the temporal relationship between the document date, request date, and closing date. - Where one document cures or qualifies another, note that hierarchy explicitly rather than treating the materials as independent. - Where a condition is satisfied only in combination with a later cure, distinguish between present satisfaction and post-closing cure mechanics. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a memorandum, not a checklist dump. - Open with a short executive summary that states the overall CP posture and the aggregate count of issues by severity. - Include a compact issue summary table near the front with columns for issue, severity, status, and brief cure path. - Group the body by severity first, then by issue number within each severity bucket. - For each issue, include: - CP requirement, with the controlling agreement reference or other cited authority - Document(s) reviewed - Deficiency or mismatch - Why it matters to closing or lender protection - Recommended remediation - Use explicit severity labels drawn from the defined ordinal scale and apply them uniformly. - Keep issue statements specific and document-linked; avoid generic “needs review” phrasing. - Include a final Recommended Actions block with imperative steps, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to the signing, funding, or closing milestone. - If a required document is absent, say so directly and treat absence as a substantive issue rather than a neutral omission. - If a deficiency is curable by waiver or post-closing delivery, say that expressly and note any pre-closing condition that still remains unresolved.