# Extract Conditions Precedent From Credit Agreement > Extract conditions precedent from a credit agreement, compare them against a closing checklist and supporting materials, and produce a prioritized gap analysis with remediation steps. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-conditions-precedent-from-credit-agreement` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-conditions-precedent-from-credit-agreement` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-conditions-precedent-from-credit-agreement/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/extract-conditions-precedent-from-credit-agreement --- # Skill: Conditions Precedent Checklist and Gap Analysis ## 1. Subject-matter triage - Treat the credit agreement as the controlling source for closing conditions, then use the closing checklist and supporting materials to confirm satisfaction, identify missing items, and rank curing work. - Separate true conditions precedent from post-closing covenants, bring-down items, administrative deliverables, and optional documents; do not let them blur into one checklist. - Where multiple entities, facilities, dated documents, collateral pools, insurance policies, or certificates are involved, enumerate each one first and analyze each separately before concluding. - If the agreement or checklist gives a total count and an itemized list, reconcile them before any substantive assessment. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Reporting an aggregate count without reconciling it against the itemized list, which can hide a missing required item. - Treating a document as current without measuring its age against the agreement’s freshness window. - Accepting a financial compliance figure without checking whether each adjustment is permitted and whether any cap is exceeded. - Collapsing per-occurrence and aggregate insurance requirements into one coverage check, which can miss a primary-limit shortfall. - Assuming a delivered certificate is sufficient without checking that its scope matches the required entity, basis, or consolidation level. - Ignoring local-law perfection or opinion steps for foreign collateral. - Mixing satisfied items, follow-up items, and blocking items without a consistent severity standard. - Stating that something is defective without tying the issue to the controlling agreement language, the interacting document, and the practical closing consequence. - Omitting a concrete cure path or responsible party for each gap. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Use the credit agreement’s CP article, exhibit, schedule, and defined terms as the primary authority for what must be delivered and when. - Read the closing checklist against the agreement’s exact delivery standard: “delivered,” “in form and substance satisfactory,” “certified,” “dated as of,” “reasonably acceptable,” or similar formulations are not interchangeable. - For dated certificates, opinions, search results, organizational documents, authorizations, consents, and similar materials, calculate elapsed time to the contemplated closing date and compare it to the stated freshness requirement. - For officer’s certificates or compliance certificates, verify each adjustment against the agreement’s permitted categories and any overall cap before recomputing the cited metric. - For insurance, verify primary policy limits and any excess or umbrella layers separately; confirm that the required structure is actually satisfied, not merely economically approximated. - For collateral involving foreign entities or non-U.S. interests, check whether local-law perfection steps, filings, notices, or opinions are required in addition to the pledge documentation. - For solvency or no-default certificates, confirm the required signatory, covered entities, and basis of delivery match the agreement. - For any legal conclusion stated in the analysis, anchor it to the relevant contract provision or recognized document requirement rather than using a bare conclusion. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds 1. Build the CP inventory. - Extract every closing condition from the agreement, including subparts and embedded deliverables. - Number each condition and keep a one-to-one mapping to the clause that creates it. - Separate hard conditions from items that are merely evidentiary support for a condition. 2. Reconcile the checklist. - Match each CP against the closing checklist and supporting documents. - Note whether the item is satisfied, partially satisfied, absent, stale, or unclear. - If the checklist total and itemized list differ, identify the mismatch and the missing or extra item. 3. Test dated deliverables. - For each dated document, compute whether it is within the required freshness window as of the closing date. - Identify the affected entity, asset, facility, or jurisdiction if staleness exists. - If no closing date is stated, analyze against the nearest practical closing milestone and flag the assumption. 4. Test financial deliverables. - Identify each reported adjustment, allowance, add-back, or reconciliation item. - Check whether each is expressly permitted and whether any aggregate cap or limitation applies. - Recompute the relevant metric only from permitted inputs and then assess whether the corrected figure still satisfies the condition. 5. Test insurance and collateral deliverables. - Verify coverage requirements by layer, limit, insured party, and endorsement structure. - Review collateral deliverables for perfection steps, required filings, releases, notices, and foreign-law dependencies. - Do not assume one document cures another unless the agreement or supporting materials expressly tie them together. 6. Assign severity and consequence. - Use a uniform ordinal scale for each issue: Critical, High, Medium, Low. - Tie severity to closing impact, cure complexity, timing sensitivity, and whether another document can readily bridge the gap. - For each issue, state the downstream consequence for the transaction if not cured. 7. Remediate. - State the specific next action needed to cure, complete, or document the item. - Identify who should act when that role is discernible from the materials. - Tie the action to the relevant closing milestone or, if none is stated, to the most immediate practical deadline. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Check whether a document’s effectiveness depends on another document being delivered first, simultaneously, or in final form. - Note when one condition is only a component of another broader condition, so the component should not be double-counted as a standalone blocker. - Track chronological dependencies: execution date, certification date, search date, opinion date, bring-down date, and closing date. - If the materials contain multiple borrowers, guarantors, pledgors, subsidiaries, facilities, or tranches, keep the analysis entity-specific and do not collapse distinct obligations into a single pass. - If a CP can be satisfied by alternative forms of evidence, determine which form is actually delivered and whether it matches the agreement’s permitted alternative. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce a CP checklist gap analysis organized by issue, not as a raw document dump. - Start with a brief scope note and a severity legend. - For each issue, include: - CP requirement - Source clause or controlling document reference - Current status - Specific gap or ambiguity - Any computed timing, scope, or financial check - Cross-reference to the interacting checklist item or supporting document - Downstream consequence - Recommended cure or follow-up action - Severity - Use a consistent status vocabulary such as Satisfied, Partially Satisfied, Missing, Stale, or Needs Follow-Up. - End with a prioritized summary that separates blocking items from non-blocking items and identifies the highest-risk gaps first. - Include an explicit Recommended Actions section with imperative steps, the responsible role when identifiable, and timing tied to the closing process. - Keep the writing decision-oriented; do not narrate the document set without stating what matters for closing.