# Meta Bankability Scoring > Use when scoring debt-service capacity, lender readiness, security, repayment logic, and bankability blockers before submission to a bank, investor, or DFI. Use the accounting-finance review for model reconciliation. - Skill: `peterbamuhigire/meta-bankability-scoring` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add peterbamuhigire/meta-bankability-scoring` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/peterbamuhigire/meta-bankability-scoring/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: peterbamuhigire (https://skillmd.com/u/peterbamuhigire) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/peterbamuhigire/meta-bankability-scoring --- # Bankability Scoring Meta-Skill ## Use When - Use after a full draft exists and before presenting to a lender or investor. - Use when the question is not just "is this good?" but "is this financeable?" - Use when a team needs a scored readiness view and prioritised fix list. ## Do Not Use When - Do not use on an early concept with no real plan behind it. - Do not use the score as a substitute for fixing underlying weaknesses. - Do not treat a high score as immunity from DD, valuation, or market scrutiny. - Route to `10-financial-projections` instead when the task is to construct the underlying model. ## Required Inputs | Input | Source / provider | Required? | If absent | |---|---|---:|---| | Bankability Scoring brief and decision audience | Client, plan owner, or approved project files | Yes | Stop before making a recommendation; state the missing decision context. | | Claims, assumptions, and supporting evidence | Source register, model, research notes, interviews, or operating records | Yes | Separate known facts from assumptions and return a qualified gap list. | | Authority and delivery constraints | Requesting owner and repository instructions | Yes | Remain read-only and produce a draft or review only. | | Current accounting, tax, valuation, or pricing basis | Finance owner, accounting records, signed contracts, and current authoritative sources | Conditional | Mark the treatment unresolved and require qualified professional review. | - Full or near-full plan sections - Funder type and country context - Financial model and funding ask - Appendix and evidence status where available ## Workflow 1. Confirm the plan is mature enough to score. 2. Evaluate the plan against the bankability dimensions and weighted criteria. 3. Score each dimension with evidence-based reasoning. 4. Identify the lowest-scoring constraints on fundability. 5. Produce a practical improvement sequence. 6. Reconcile the score with consistency, DD, and funding-mode logic. ### Decision, stop, and recovery controls - **Decision point:** confirm that the requested output is the lender bankability scorecard and that the decision concerns the weighted lender-readiness rating and blocking dimensions. - **Stop condition:** halt the affected conclusion if required evidence is missing (repayment cash flow, security, funding structure, and evidence pack) or if the work could lead to this identified risk: masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score. - **Recovery:** obtain the missing record or reviewer, repeat the affected check, and update the exception record before release. ## Quality Bar - Scores are justified with real evidence from the document. - The output distinguishes fatal flaws from improvable weaknesses. - The result is usable as a gate, not just commentary. - Recommendations clearly increase funding probability. ## Anti-Patterns - Inflating scores to be encouraging. - Scoring sections in isolation without cross-checking consistency. - Giving cosmetic recommendations instead of deal-critical fixes. - Treating investor and bankability standards as interchangeable. - Treating a generic bankability scoring template as a conclusion. **Correction:** tie each choice to the named audience, evidence, and operating constraint. - Applying the wrong neighbouring route to meta bankability scoring. **Correction:** confirm the decision and route to the named neighbour before analysis. - Treating an assumption as verified evidence. **Correction:** label it, cite its source or owner, and assign a verification action. - Recommending action without a decision threshold. **Correction:** state the measurable acceptance condition and review trigger. - Recording an unavailable check as passed. **Correction:** mark it `not assessed` and state the consequence for the decision. - Mutating or publishing during an analysis-only task. **Correction:** remain read-only until the owner gives explicit authority. ## Outputs | Artefact | Consumer | Observable acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Bankability Scoring deliverable | Named decision-maker or plan author | The recommended choice, assumptions, countercase, and next action are explicit. | | Evidence and exception register | Reviewer, funder, board, or implementation owner | Every load-bearing claim is sourced or labelled as an assumption; missing checks are not shown as passes. | - Weighted bankability score - Dimension-by-dimension rationale - Priority weaknesses - Improvement actions and next gate recommendation Score the complete business plan against the criteria investors and lenders actually use to make funding decisions. ## When to Use Invoke AFTER the complete plan (sections 01-15) is drafted. This is the final quality gate before presenting to investors. ## Scoring Framework ### 12 Bankability Dimensions Score each dimension 1-10, with defined criteria: | # | Dimension | Weight | What Investors Look For | |---|-----------|--------|------------------------| | 1 | **Market opportunity** | 12% | Large, growing, well-defined market | | 2 | **Problem-solution fit** | 10% | Clear pain point with compelling solution | | 3 | **Competitive advantage** | 10% | Defensible moat, not just "we're better" | | 4 | **Business model clarity** | 10% | Clear path from product to revenue | | 5 | **Revenue model strength** | 8% | Scalable, recurring, predictable revenue | | 6 | **Financial viability** | 12% | Realistic projections, clear path to profit | | 7 | **Team capability** | 12% | Right people with relevant track record | | 8 | **Traction & validation** | 8% | Evidence of market demand earlyvangelists, preselling, product-market fit (Sean Ellis 40% threshold) | | 9 | **Scalability** | 6% | Can the business grow 10x without breaking? | | 10 | **Risk awareness** | 4% | Honest risk assessment with mitigation plans; Assumptions Tracking with Risk Score <100 (Alam) | | 11 | **Clarity of ask** | 4% | Specific funding need with clear use of funds | | 12 | **AI & operational efficiency** | 4% | Smart use of technology and automation; process maturity level (Dumas et al., 2013) | ### Scoring Scale - **9-10:** Exceptional investor-ready, compelling - **7-8:** Strong minor improvements needed - **5-6:** Adequate notable gaps to address - **3-4:** Weak significant revision required - **1-2:** Critical fundamental issues present ### Overall Bankability Rating **Weighted score calculation:** Sum of (dimension score x weight) | Overall Score | Rating | Recommendation | |---|---|---| | 8.0-10.0 | **Investment Ready** | Submit to investors with confidence | | 6.5-7.9 | **Nearly Ready** | Address flagged weaknesses, then submit | | 5.0-6.4 | **Needs Work** | Significant revision required before submission | | Below 5.0 | **Not Ready** | Fundamental rethinking needed | ### Process Maturity Assessment (Supplementary) When scoring dimensions 9 (Scalability) and 12 (AI & operational efficiency), assess the business's process maturity level (Dumas et al., 2013): | Level | Rating | Score Guidance | |---|---|---| | Level 1 Initial | Ad-hoc, hero-dependent | Scalability: max 4/10; AI: max 3/10 | | Level 2 Repeatable | Key processes documented | Scalability: max 6/10; AI: max 5/10 | | Level 3 Defined | All processes standardised and measured | Scalability: 6-8/10; AI: 6-7/10 | | Level 4 Managed | Quantitative monitoring, SLAs | Scalability: 7-9/10; AI: 7-8/10 | | Level 5 Optimised | Continuous improvement culture | Scalability: 8-10/10; AI: 8-10/10 | A business cannot score highly on scalability without documented, standardised processes. Process maturity is a prerequisite for sustainable growth. ## Scoring Output Format ### Dimension Scorecard ~~~text Dimension: [Name] Score: [X/10] Weight: [X%] Weighted: [Score x Weight] Strengths: [What works well] Weaknesses: [What needs improvement] Recommendation: [Specific action to improve score] Section reference: [Which plan section to revise] ~~~ ### Summary Dashboard ~~~text BANKABILITY SCORECARD ===================== Overall Score: X.X / 10.0 Rating: [Investment Ready / Nearly Ready / Needs Work / Not Ready] Top Strengths: 1. [Dimension] [Why it scores well] 2. [Dimension] [Why it scores well] Critical Weaknesses: 1. [Dimension] [Score] [What to fix] 2. [Dimension] [Score] [What to fix] Priority Actions (ranked by impact on overall score): 1. [Action] Expected score improvement: +X.X 2. [Action] Expected score improvement: +X.X 3. [Action] Expected score improvement: +X.X ~~~ ## Generation Process 1. Read the complete business plan (sections 01-15) 2. Score each of the 12 dimensions with evidence from the plan 3. Calculate weighted overall score 4. Identify top 3 strengths and top 3 weaknesses 5. Generate prioritised improvement recommendations 6. Estimate score improvement for each recommendation 7. Produce summary dashboard ## Quality Criteria - Scoring is evidence-based every score cites specific plan content - Feedback is constructive and actionable, not just criticism - Recommendations are prioritised by impact on overall score - Scoring is calibrated a 7 means the same thing across dimensions --- ## Bank Loan Readiness Mode (Uganda / East Africa) **When to use:** When the primary funder is a Ugandan commercial bank, DFI (UDB, ACF), or microfinance institution not an equity investor. Invoke this mode when the user says "bank loan", "UDB", "Centenary", "dfcu", "Stanbic", or similar. ### Bank Loan Readiness Checklist (CAMPARI Framework) Score each item YES / PARTIAL / NO. A plan is not bank-ready until all critical items score YES or PARTIAL with a clear path to YES. **CHARACTER (Who is this borrower?)** - [ ] Director CVs included with full employment and business history (09, Appendix) - [ ] NIN confirmed for all directors (02) - [ ] No adverse credit history disclosed (or disclosed with explanation) - [ ] Character references from respected community members included (Appendix) - [ ] Business registered with URSB and TIN/BRN held (02) **ABILITY (Can they run this business?)** - [ ] Management team has direct sector experience (09) - [ ] If no sector experience: compensated by advisory board, hired expertise, or training plan - [ ] Professional qualifications listed where applicable (ICPAU, ULS, UMC, ERB) (09) - [ ] Operations plan demonstrates operational competence (08) **MEANS (Can they afford to service the debt?)** - [ ] DSCR 1.25x calculated from projections (10, 11) **CRITICAL** - [ ] Owner equity contribution 20% of total project cost (11) - [ ] Personal net worth statements for all directors included (Appendix) - [ ] Cash flow projections show positive operating cash flow within 12 months **PURPOSE (Is the loan for a legitimate productive use?)** - [ ] Specific purpose stated not vague "working capital" (11) - [ ] Use of funds itemised to individual line items (11) - [ ] Loan purpose aligns with the business's stated operations (08) **AMOUNT (Is the loan amount correctly sized?)** - [ ] Loan amount equals sum of use-of-funds items (11) check via `consistency-audit.md` - [ ] Loan is not excessive relative to business revenue (loan 3 annual revenue for SME) - [ ] Loan structure matches purpose (term loan for capex; overdraft for working capital) **REPAYMENT (Will they repay?)** - [ ] Repayment source clearly identified (specific revenue stream) (11) - [ ] Loan repayment schedule included (Appendix) - [ ] DSCR stress-tested under pessimistic scenario (meta-financial-stress-test) - [ ] Break-even month identified and precedes loan repayment start (10) **INSURANCE (What security is offered?)** - [ ] Primary collateral identified with estimated value (11) **CRITICAL** - [ ] Collateral coverage 125% of loan amount (11) - [ ] Collateral documentation listed (Appendix land title, logbook, etc.) - [ ] Insurance on collateral assets included in operating budget (08, 12) - [ ] If collateral is insufficient: compensating factors named (UCGS, group guarantee, character lending) ### Bank Loan Readiness Score ~~~text BANK LOAN READINESS ASSESSMENT CAMPARI Score: Character: [X/5 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Ability: [X/4 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Means: [X/4 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Purpose: [X/3 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Amount: [X/3 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Repayment: [X/4 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] Insurance: [X/5 items] [READY / PARTIAL / NOT READY] CRITICAL CHECKS (must be YES to submit): / DSCR 1.25x: [Yes/No] calculated as [X] / [X] = [X.Xx] / Collateral 125%: [Yes/No] [UGX X collateral / UGX X loan = X%] / Business registered + TIN held: [Yes/No] / Specific purpose stated with itemised use of funds: [Yes/No] OVERALL BANK LOAN READINESS: [SUBMIT] All critical items pass; CAMPARI 75% complete [REVISE] One or more critical items fail do not submit yet [NOT READY] Multiple critical failures major revision required TOP 3 ACTIONS BEFORE SUBMISSION: 1. [Most critical gap] fix in [X] 2. [Second gap] fix in [X] 3. [Third gap] fix in [X] ~~~ ### Consistency Audit (run before scoring) Before running the Bank Loan Readiness assessment, run the consistency audit from: `skills/meta-finance/meta-bankability-scoring/references/consistency-audit.md` A plan that fails 3 consistency checks should be revised before scoring inconsistencies undermine all other scoring dimensions. ## References - `references/consistency-audit.md` 12-point cross-section consistency checker - `references/lender-criteria-uganda.md` Formal credit criteria mapped to Uganda bank standards (created when Doing Business Uganda PDF extraction is complete) - `skills/pipeline/10-financial-projections/references/uganda-tax-framework.md` Tax rates for financial projection verification - `skills/pipeline/11-funding-request/references/credit-assessment-frameworks.md` 5 Cs and CAMPARI detail - `skills/meta-sustainability/SKILL.md` Sustainability Readiness Score (SRS); for DFI/impact investor plans, run Mode C audit and confirm SRS 1.6/2.0 before CAMPARI scoring; social licence to operate (community opposition risk) is a CAMPARI Character factor; environmental non-compliance is a CAMPARI Conditions factor ## Evidence Produced | Evidence | Format | Acceptance condition | |---|---|---| | Lender bankability scorecard decision trace | Sources, calculations, assumptions, countercase, and selected action | A reviewer can trace the selected action and rejected alternatives to the cited inputs. | | Exception record | Failed and not-assessed checks with owner and due action | The register exposes every unresolved exception that could lead to masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score. | ## Capability and Permission Boundaries Default to read-only inspection while producing the lender bankability scorecard. Read supplied records and run non-mutating checks; entering scores and cited findings in the approved scorecard is permitted only when requested. Do not publish, contact third parties, alter live systems, commit funds, or claim legal, tax, audit, valuation, ESG, or investment assurance without the owner's explicit authorisation and the appropriate reviewer. ## Degraded Mode If repayment cash flow, security, funding structure, and evidence pack cannot be obtained, return a qualified lender bankability scorecard covering only the checks that remain supportable. Leave this decision unresolved: the weighted lender-readiness rating and blocking dimensions. Record the evidence owner and next check; an inaccessible source, tool, or reviewer is never a pass. ## Decision Rules | Decision condition | Action | Failure or risk avoided | |---|---|---| | Evidence is sufficient to decide: the weighted lender-readiness rating and blocking dimensions | Record the conclusion, source trail, owner, and review trigger in the lender bankability scorecard. | Risk of masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score | | Material evidence conflicts or remains uncertain | Rescore the blocking lender dimensions separately and report the lower result rather than averaging away repayment or security weakness. | Selecting an option without resolving the decision-relevant uncertainty | | Required evidence is missing: repayment cash flow, security, funding structure, and evidence pack | Mark the decision on the weighted lender-readiness rating and blocking dimensions `not assessed` in the lender bankability scorecard, and send it to the finance owner and funder reviewer. | Otherwise, the work risks masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score | ## Quality Standards Accept the lender bankability scorecard only when evidence is sufficient for this decision: the weighted lender-readiness rating and blocking dimensions. Assumptions and countercases remain visible, calculations and cross-references reconcile, and the reviewer can see how the recommendation addresses the risk of masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score. ## Worked Example A borrower scores well overall but fails downside DSCR and has no perfected security. Report those dimensions as blockers; do not let management strength average them into a passing bankability result. ## Finance Doctrine Gate Apply the Chwezi doctrine to the lender bankability scorecard, using the reporting basis and effective date supported by repayment cash flow, security, funding structure, and evidence pack. Reconcile the treatment to the model and narrative, and have the finance owner and lender or investment reviewer review the treatment, reconciliation, and exposure to this risk: masking a repayment or security weakness inside an aggregate score.