analyzing-credit-ratings
Interprets and anticipates credit rating actions with methodology analysis and surveillance monitoring. Use when analyzing credit ratings, predicting rating changes, or understanding rating methodology.
Best use case
analyzing-credit-ratings is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Interprets and anticipates credit rating actions with methodology analysis and surveillance monitoring. Use when analyzing credit ratings, predicting rating changes, or understanding rating methodology.
Teams using analyzing-credit-ratings 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-credit-ratings/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How analyzing-credit-ratings Compares
| Feature / Agent | analyzing-credit-ratings | 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?
Interprets and anticipates credit rating actions with methodology analysis and surveillance monitoring. Use when analyzing credit ratings, predicting rating changes, or understanding rating methodology.
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 Credit Ratings Interprets and anticipates credit rating actions with methodology analysis and surveillance monitoring. ## When To Use - Evaluating an issuer's current credit rating relative to fundamental performance and peer positioning - Predicting potential rating upgrades, downgrades, or outlook changes before official agency action - Assessing the impact of a rating action on bond spreads, portfolio positioning, or trade execution - Comparing rating methodologies across S&P, Moody's, and Fitch for the same issuer or sector - Monitoring CreditWatch/Rating Watch placements and estimating resolution direction and timing ## Inputs To Gather - **Issuer identity and sector**: Name, ticker, CUSIP/ISIN, GICS sector, and sub-industry classification - **Current ratings**: Long-term and short-term ratings from each agency, including outlook (Stable/Positive/Negative) and any Watch status - **Rating history**: Timeline of all rating actions over the prior 3-5 years with stated rationale for each move - **Financial statements**: At minimum, last 4 quarters and 3 annual periods — income statement, balance sheet, cash flow - **Agency methodology**: The applicable criteria document (e.g., S&P Corporate Ratings Methodology, Moody's sector-specific scorecard) [VERIFY: confirm current published version for the relevant sector] - **Market data**: Current credit spreads (OAS), CDS levels, and recent price action on the issuer's bonds - **Event catalysts**: Any pending M&A, debt issuance, restructuring, litigation, or regulatory action that could trigger a rating review ## Workflow 1. **Map the current rating position** - Record ratings from all three major agencies with outlooks and Watch status - Identify any split ratings (e.g., BBB- at S&P vs. Ba1 at Moody's) and note the divergence drivers - Determine where the issuer sits within the rating category (high/mid/low end) based on agency commentary 2. **Apply the relevant scorecard methodology** - Pull the applicable agency criteria document for the issuer's sector [VERIFY: sector-specific methodology version and effective date] - Score each key factor (leverage, coverage, liquidity, business risk, governance) using agency-defined thresholds - Compute the indicative scorecard outcome and compare to the assigned rating — flag any notching gaps 3. **Analyze financial trajectory and triggers** - Calculate key credit metrics: Debt/EBITDA, FFO/Debt, Interest Coverage (EBITDA/Interest), Free Cash Flow/Debt - Identify agency-stated upgrade and downgrade triggers from the most recent rating action report - Project metrics forward 1-2 years under base and stress scenarios to test trigger proximity - Flag any covenant or liquidity thresholds that could accelerate a negative trajectory 4. **Assess qualitative and structural factors** - Evaluate management's stated financial policy (leverage targets, shareholder return priorities, M&A appetite) - Review structural subordination, recovery analysis, and debt maturity profile - Consider sovereign ceiling constraints for non-US issuers [VERIFY: applicable country ceiling policy] - Weigh ESG factors where agencies have explicitly incorporated them into the methodology 5. **Benchmark against peer group** - Select 4-6 rated peers within the same sector and rating category - Compare key metrics on a relative basis — identify whether the issuer is an outlier in either direction - Note any recent peer rating actions that could signal sector-wide momentum 6. **Formulate the rating outlook assessment** - Synthesize scorecard output, financial trajectory, qualitative factors, and peer positioning - Assign a directional probability: Upgrade likely / Stable / Downgrade risk / Imminent Watch negative - Estimate the time horizon for potential action (near-term 0-6 months vs. medium-term 6-18 months) - Identify the single most important swing factor that would change the assessment ## Output - **Rating Summary Table**: Current ratings (all agencies), outlooks, Watch status, and last action dates - **Scorecard Analysis**: Factor-by-factor scoring with indicative vs. assigned rating comparison - **Key Metrics Dashboard**: Historical and projected credit metrics with agency trigger thresholds highlighted - **Peer Comparison Matrix**: Side-by-side metrics for the issuer and selected peers - **Rating Direction Assessment**: Directional call with supporting rationale, confidence level, key swing factor, and estimated time horizon - **Risk Flags**: Any items requiring immediate attention (trigger breach, Watch placement, event catalyst) ## Quality Checks - Confirm that all three agency ratings are current and reflect the most recent action — cross-check against agency websites - Verify that the scorecard methodology version used matches the agency's currently effective criteria [VERIFY] - Ensure financial metrics are calculated using agency-specific adjustments (e.g., Moody's standard adjustments for leases, pensions, hybrid equity credit) rather than unadjusted GAAP/IFRS figures - Check that upgrade/downgrade triggers cited are sourced directly from the agency's published rating action, not inferred - Validate that peer comparisons use a consistent metric definition across all issuers - Confirm that any forward projections clearly state assumptions and are labeled as estimates, not agency guidance - Flag split ratings explicitly and explain the divergence rather than defaulting to the median