managing-correspondent-banking
Structures correspondent banking analysis with relationship assessment, risk evaluation, and regulatory requirements. Use when managing correspondent relationships, evaluating partner banks, or assessing correspondent risk.
Best use case
managing-correspondent-banking is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Structures correspondent banking analysis with relationship assessment, risk evaluation, and regulatory requirements. Use when managing correspondent relationships, evaluating partner banks, or assessing correspondent risk.
Teams using managing-correspondent-banking 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/managing-correspondent-banking/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How managing-correspondent-banking Compares
| Feature / Agent | managing-correspondent-banking | 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?
Structures correspondent banking analysis with relationship assessment, risk evaluation, and regulatory requirements. Use when managing correspondent relationships, evaluating partner banks, or assessing correspondent risk.
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
# Managing Correspondent Banking ## When To Use - Onboarding a new correspondent bank or evaluating an existing relationship for renewal - Conducting periodic risk reassessment of correspondent banking partners - Responding to regulatory inquiries or exam findings related to correspondent relationships - Assessing whether a correspondent's risk profile has materially changed (sanctions exposure, adverse media, jurisdiction risk) - Preparing management reporting on the correspondent banking portfolio ## Inputs To Gather - **Correspondent profile**: Legal name, LEI, SWIFT/BIC, domicile jurisdiction, ownership structure, and organizational chart - **Relationship scope**: Services used (clearing, FX, trade finance, cash management, nostro/vostro accounts), transaction volumes, and revenue attribution - **Due diligence package**: Most recent KYC/CDD file, audited financials, regulatory licenses, AML/CFT program documentation, and Wolfsberg questionnaire responses - **Risk indicators**: FATF mutual evaluation of correspondent's jurisdiction, Transparency International CPI score, sanctions screening results, adverse media findings, and prior SARs filed on the relationship - **Regulatory context**: Applicable guidance (e.g., BCBS guidelines on correspondent banking, FinCEN advisories, local regulator expectations) [VERIFY — requirements vary by home jurisdiction] - **Historical performance**: Payment processing SLAs, error/rejection rates, prior compliance incidents, and relationship tenure ## Workflow 1. **Map the relationship structure** - Identify all accounts (nostro, vostro, mirror) and the services each supports - Document the payment corridors and currencies involved - Flag any nested or downstream correspondent access (payable-through accounts, respondent banks using the correspondent as an intermediary) 2. **Perform risk assessment** - Score the correspondent across standard risk dimensions: jurisdiction risk, product/service risk, customer-type risk, transaction risk, and sanctions exposure - Apply the institution's correspondent banking risk matrix to assign an overall risk tier (e.g., low / medium / high / prohibited) - Identify red flags: opaque ownership, jurisdictions on FATF grey/black lists, history of enforcement actions, or inability to provide requested documentation [VERIFY — risk matrix categories per internal policy] 3. **Evaluate due diligence adequacy** - Confirm CDD/EDD documentation is current (typically refreshed every 1–3 years based on risk tier) - Verify the correspondent's AML/CFT program covers: customer identification, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, and SAR filing obligations - Assess whether the correspondent conducts its own due diligence on downstream respondents (to mitigate "nesting" risk) - Review Wolfsberg questionnaire or equivalent for completeness and consistency with independent findings 4. **Analyze financial and operational performance** - Review correspondent's capital adequacy, liquidity ratios, and credit ratings - Benchmark transaction processing metrics (STP rates, rejection rates, cut-off times) against SLA targets - Calculate relationship profitability: fee income vs. operational cost, balance benefits, and ancillary revenue 5. **Prepare management report** - Summarize risk tier, key findings, and any open remediation items - Include a recommendation: maintain, enhance monitoring, restrict services, or terminate - Document escalation triggers that would require interim reassessment (e.g., sanctions designation, material adverse event, regulatory action against correspondent) ## Output The deliverable is a **Correspondent Banking Relationship Report** containing: - **Executive summary** — Risk tier, recommendation, and key action items - **Relationship overview** — Correspondent profile, services, volumes, and revenue - **Risk assessment matrix** — Scored dimensions with supporting rationale - **Due diligence status** — Documentation inventory, gaps, and next renewal dates - **Financial and operational analysis** — Credit quality indicators and SLA performance - **Recommendations and conditions** — Maintain/restrict/terminate with specific conditions (e.g., enhanced transaction monitoring, volume caps, geographic restrictions) - **Escalation triggers** — Events requiring immediate reassessment outside the regular cycle ## Quality Checks - Confirm all risk scoring dimensions align with the institution's approved correspondent banking risk framework [VERIFY — internal policy reference] - Verify sanctions screening was run against current OFAC SDN, EU Consolidated List, UN Sanctions List, and any locally mandated lists [VERIFY — applicable lists per jurisdiction] - Ensure nested/downstream respondent risk is explicitly addressed, not just direct correspondent risk - Cross-check adverse media findings against at least two independent sources - Validate that the recommendation is consistent with the assigned risk tier and any regulatory constraints - Confirm revenue and volume data reconciles to core banking system records - Flag any correspondent where CDD refresh is overdue or documentation requests remain outstanding beyond 60 days