# Extract Reporting Obligations From Credit Agreement > Extract all reporting, notice, and certificate obligations from a credit facility's loan documents into a structured matrix with a compliance calendar and an inconsistencies log. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/extract-reporting-obligations-from-credit-agreement` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/extract-reporting-obligations-from-credit-agreement` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-reporting-obligations-from-credit-agreement/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/extract-reporting-obligations-from-credit-agreement --- # Skill: Reporting Obligations Matrix and Compliance Calendar ## 1. Subject-matter triage (only if applicable) - Treat the source set as a document family, not a single agreement: identify the operative credit agreement first, then pull in amendments, exhibits, schedules, certificates, notices, and any referenced definitions that affect timing or signatory status. - Build the obligation set by obligation type and trigger first, then calendarize it. If the document family contains multiple deliverables for the same trigger, separate them before comparing deadlines. - If only one periodic or event-driven obligation category exists, say so explicitly and note why no broader set is present. - When multiple periods, dates, counterparties, or triggering events are present, enumerate them before analysis and assign one row per distinct obligation. ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Recording every signer as a generic officer when the document requires a specific officer qualification or named role. - Missing recurring compliance items because they are scattered across covenant, definitions, conditions precedent, and miscellaneous sections. - Collapsing distinct deliverables into one row when the agreement uses different timing, different triggers, or different recipients. - Overlooking a drafting anomaly where the reporting obligation does not fit the facility structure or the related covenant text. - Ignoring an inconsistency between an original obligation and later amendment language, especially where the current template no longer matches the operative provision. - Failing to compare duplicate or overlapping notice provisions and therefore calendaring the wrong deadline. - Treating a default notice as settled without checking whether the cited obligation still exists, has changed, or is conditioned differently in the current document set. - Missing whether a deadline uses business days, calendar days, or a quarter-end-specific rule. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Periodic-reporting extraction: capture financial statements, compliance certificates, borrowing-base or usage certificates, tax and insurance notices, and any other recurring deliverables as separate obligations where timing or signatory requirements differ. - Event-driven notice analysis: capture acquisition, litigation, casualty, environmental, ERISA, default, material adverse change, lien, and similar notices only when the source documents actually impose them, and preserve the exact trigger language. - Signatory analysis: identify the signer qualification exactly as drafted, including responsible officer, financial officer, senior officer, or other specified role, rather than flattening to a generic authorized officer label. - Deadline preservation: retain business-day versus calendar-day wording, notice-after-occurrence timing, quarter-end timing, and any “promptly” or “as soon as practicable” formulation as the document uses it. - Duplicate-obligation comparison: when the same subject appears in multiple places, compare the provisions, note the operative source, and calendar the tighter or earlier requirement where the document set supports that reading. - Amendment consistency: if later text modifies a reporting or certification obligation, carry forward the current operative language and flag any obsolete cross-reference, template language, or certification statement. - Facility-consistency check: if a reporting item appears to belong to a different facility format or collateral structure than the one at issue, flag it as an anomaly for follow-up. - Default-notice review: if a default notice is in the source set, compare the cited obligation and timing against the current agreement and amendments before stating whether the notice appears defensible. - Cited-authority discipline: for any legal conclusion stated in the matrix or issues log, identify the controlling document section or other authority on which that conclusion rests. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds 1. Document map: identify the operative agreement, then list amendments and referenced exhibits or certificates that affect reporting obligations. 2. Periodic obligation pass: extract each recurring reporting or certification item, with trigger, frequency, deadline, recipient, signer requirement, and source citation. 3. Event-notice pass: extract each event-triggered notice or certificate, with trigger language, timing, recipient, signer requirement, and source citation. 4. Signatory review: preserve the exact signer standard for each obligation and note deviations from the agreement’s usual officer formulation. 5. Timing review: preserve day-count conventions, quarter-end rules, grace periods, and any “promptly” language without converting them to an assumed date. 6. Conflict review: compare overlapping or repeated obligations to identify inconsistencies in deadline, trigger, recipient, or certification content. 7. Amendment review: identify obsolete or inconsistent certification language, stale cross-references, or obligations that appear removed, narrowed, or expanded by later documents. 8. Default analysis: if a default notice or similar enforcement communication appears, test it against the current operative provisions and amendment trail, and identify any challenge points or follow-up items. 9. Issue classification: for each anomaly or inconsistency, state what is inconsistent, where it appears, why it matters, and what operational or legal consequence follows. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Keep periodic obligations separate from event-driven obligations, and keep notice obligations separate from certificate obligations when the document treats them differently. - Preserve the document hierarchy: if a schedule, exhibit, or certificate form controls the wording, note that it controls over a generic section summary. - Where an obligation depends on quarter-end or fiscal-year-end timing, state whether the same rule applies to interim periods and whether any special fourth-quarter treatment appears. - If multiple deadlines attach to the same event, record them as separate timing layers rather than merging them into one estimated date. - If a later amendment modifies a certificate form or reporting deadline, treat the amendment as the temporal anchor for the current operative obligation. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Use a matrix format organized first by periodic obligations and then by event-driven obligations, with one row per distinct obligation. - For each row, include: obligation type, trigger or frequency, exact deadline mechanics, recipient, signer requirement, source reference, and any related document cross-reference. - Include an inconsistencies or issues log that identifies anomalies, conflicting deadlines, obsolete language, missing cross-references, and facility mismatches. - Include a compliance calendar that lists upcoming deadlines in chronological order, preserving business-day, calendar-day, and quarter-end conventions. - Include a default-analysis section if any default notice or enforcement communication is in the source set, including the cited basis, current-document comparison, and any challenge points. - When an issue is identified, state the source basis, the interacting provision or document, and the practical consequence for compliance, enforcement, or calendaring. - Use terse but complete drafting: every obligation should be specific enough to calendar without guesswork, and every ambiguity should be flagged rather than resolved by assumption.