analyzing-covenant-packages
Evaluates financial and incurrence covenant packages with headroom analysis, definition review, and covenant-lite comparison. Use when analyzing loan covenants, negotiating covenant levels, or assessing borrower flexibility.
Best use case
analyzing-covenant-packages is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Evaluates financial and incurrence covenant packages with headroom analysis, definition review, and covenant-lite comparison. Use when analyzing loan covenants, negotiating covenant levels, or assessing borrower flexibility.
Teams using analyzing-covenant-packages should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/analyzing-covenant-packages/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How analyzing-covenant-packages Compares
| Feature / Agent | analyzing-covenant-packages | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Evaluates financial and incurrence covenant packages with headroom analysis, definition review, and covenant-lite comparison. Use when analyzing loan covenants, negotiating covenant levels, or assessing borrower flexibility.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
SKILL.md Source
# Analyzing Covenant Packages ## When To Use - Reviewing a credit agreement or term sheet to assess borrower flexibility and lender protections - Comparing covenant packages across competing deal proposals or precedent transactions - Calculating headroom on maintenance covenants against projected financials - Evaluating a covenant-lite structure versus a traditional maintenance-covenant package - Advising on covenant negotiation strategy for new issuances, amendments, or refinancings ## Inputs To Gather - **Credit agreement or term sheet** — full covenant section including definitions - **Financial model or projections** — at minimum: revenue, EBITDA, total debt, capex, interest expense, and cash flow forecasts over the covenant testing horizon - **Borrower's historical financials** — trailing 4–8 quarters of actuals for trend context - **Precedent deal comps** — covenant packages from comparable credits (same sector, rating, leverage profile) - **EBITDA definition details** — addbacks schedule, pro forma adjustment language, run-rate cost savings caps - **Basket and builder schedules** — restricted payments, permitted investments, permitted debt capacity ## Workflow 1. **Map the covenant architecture** - Classify each covenant as maintenance (tested periodically) or incurrence (tested at transaction) - List all financial covenants: leverage ratio, interest coverage, fixed charge coverage, minimum EBITDA, capex limits, etc. - Identify testing frequency, cure rights, and equity cure mechanics if present 2. **Deconstruct EBITDA and key definitions** - Parse the Consolidated EBITDA definition for addback categories: restructuring charges, non-cash items, transaction costs, run-rate synergies, pro forma cost savings - Flag any uncapped or loosely capped addbacks — note the percentage-of-EBITDA cap (commonly 15–25%) or absence thereof [VERIFY against specific agreement] - Compare the definition against LMA/LSTA standard forms to identify borrower-favorable deviations 3. **Calculate covenant headroom** - For each maintenance covenant, compute the ratio using both reported EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA (stripping discretionary addbacks) - Project headroom quarter-by-quarter against the financial model: headroom = (covenant threshold − projected ratio) / covenant threshold - Stress-test headroom under downside scenarios (e.g., 10%, 20%, 30% EBITDA decline) to identify the quarter of first breach - If equity cure exists, quantify the cure amount needed per scenario 4. **Analyze negative covenants and baskets** - Map restricted payments capacity: fixed baskets, builder baskets (typically 50% of cumulative consolidated net income), available amount mechanics - Assess permitted debt capacity: ratio-based incurrence tests, fixed-dollar carveouts, incremental facility terms (MFN protections, maturity constraints, inside maturity limits) - Review permitted investments, asset sale reinvestment periods, and J-crew / Chewy-style trapdoor provisions for unrestricted subsidiary transfers 5. **Benchmark against covenant-lite and precedent deals** - Score the package on a maintenance-to-cov-lite spectrum: full maintenance → springing revolver only → pure incurrence - Compare individual covenant levels, EBITDA definition breadth, and basket sizes to 3–5 precedent transactions - Note any sunset provisions, portability features, or MFN step-downs 6. **Assess overall borrower flexibility vs. lender protection** - Summarize where the package sits relative to market: tight, market, or aggressive - Identify the covenants or definitions most likely to be negotiation flashpoints - Flag provisions that could enable value leakage or structural subordination ## Output - **Covenant summary table** — each covenant with type, threshold, current level, and projected headroom by quarter - **EBITDA definition markup** — addback categories with capped/uncapped status and comparison to standard forms - **Headroom analysis** — base case and stress scenario projections showing quarters-to-breach - **Basket capacity schedule** — restricted payments, permitted debt, and permitted investments with current available amounts - **Covenant-lite comparison matrix** — side-by-side against 3–5 precedent deals on key dimensions - **Negotiation risk flags** — ranked list of provisions requiring attention, with suggested market-based counterpositions ## Quality Checks - Confirm all ratio calculations use the agreement's specific definitions (not generic textbook formulas) — numerator and denominator components must match the credit agreement - Verify that EBITDA addback analysis accounts for interaction effects (e.g., capped addbacks applied before or after other adjustments) [VERIFY] - Cross-check headroom projections against the financial model's own covenant compliance tab if available - Ensure basket analysis reflects all builder basket components, including contribution debt and excluded contribution carveouts - Validate that precedent comps are genuinely comparable: same credit rating band, similar leverage, same broad sector, and originated within relevant market window [VERIFY vintage within 12–18 months] - Flag any provisions where jurisdiction-specific law affects enforceability (e.g., fraudulent conveyance limitations on upstream guarantees, local law restrictions on security packages) [VERIFY by jurisdiction]