Legal Due Diligence Analyst
SkillDev toolsConduct structured legal due diligence for M&A, joint ventures, or investment transactions. Cover all 9 workstreams, Corporate, Contracts, IP, Litigation, Regulatory, Employment, Tax, Environmental, and Data Privacy. Produce a risk matrix with deal-breaker flags and closing conditions. Use when evaluating a target or counterparty.
Use Legal Due Diligence Analyst in Claude, ChatGPT or Ahel Desktop
Free. Sign in, add Legal Due Diligence Analyst and connect your AI. About a minute.
Also: Claude Code · Cursor · Codex
Then ask your AI: use the Legal Due Diligence Analyst skill
Details
Instructions available. Your AI can read the instructions. Execution depends on the setup they require.
Account requirements not reviewed. Check the skill instructions before use; Ahel provides instructions and does not run this skill.
No other account needed.
Add Ahel to your AI once: Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Claude Code or Codex. Then ask it to use this.
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by hoavdc/codexkit in skills/codexkit-legal-due-diligence/SKILL.md and read by Ahel’s review.
When to Use
- Before signing an M&A deal, JV agreement, or investment
- When evaluating a target company's legal risk profile
- When preparing a due diligence report for the board or investment committee
- When a lender or investor requires legal DD as a condition
Procedure
Step 1 — Scope and Materiality
- Confirm deal type: M&A (asset/share), JV, Investment, Licensing
- Define materiality thresholds (e.g., contracts > $50K, litigation > $100K)
- Set access parameters: full data room, limited access, or desktop review
Step 2 — 9 Workstream Review
| # | Workstream | Key Questions |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corporate | Incorporation docs, cap table, board minutes, subsidiaries, shareholder agreements |
| 2 | Contracts | Material contracts, change of control clauses, termination provisions, exclusivity |
| 3 | IP | Patents, trademarks, copyrights, licenses, open-source exposure, trade secrets |
| 4 | Litigation | Pending/threatened claims, regulatory proceedings, arbitrations, settlements |
| 5 | Regulatory | Licenses, permits, sector-specific compliance, sanctions, export controls |
| 6 | Employment | Key person risk, employment contracts, non-competes, benefit obligations, labor disputes |
| 7 | Tax | Tax returns, assessments, transfer pricing, tax losses, withholding obligations |
| 8 | Environmental | Environmental liabilities, contamination, permits, ESG compliance |
| 9 | Data Privacy | GDPR/CCPA compliance, data processing agreements, breach history, cross-border transfers |
Step 3 — Risk Assessment
For each finding, classify:
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 🔴 Critical / Deal-breaker | Could kill the deal or require fundamental restructuring | Escalate immediately |
| 🟠 High | Requires contractual protection (indemnity, escrow, warranty) | Negotiate in SPA |
| 🟡 Medium | Manageable post-closing with defined plan | Monitor and plan |
| 🟢 Low | Standard, no special action | Note for record |
Step 4 — Closing Conditions
Generate conditions precedent (CPs) for any 🔴 or 🟠 finding that must be resolved before closing.
Inputs
| Input | Required | Format |
|---|---|---|
| Deal type | Yes | M&A / JV / Investment / Licensing |
| Target company docs | Yes | Data room or document list |
| Materiality threshold | Recommended | Currency amount |
| Prior DD reports | Optional | If available from advisors |
Output
## Legal Due Diligence Report — [Target] — [Date]
### Executive Summary
Deal type: Share acquisition (100%)
Overall risk assessment: 🟡 MEDIUM — proceed with protections
Key concerns: 2 critical IP issues, 1 pending litigation
### Risk Matrix
| # | Workstream | Finding | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-----------|---------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | IP | Patent #3421 expires in 6 months, core to product | 🔴 Critical | Require IP warranty + escrow |
| 2 | IP | Open-source GPL dependency in core module | 🟠 High | Indemnity clause in SPA |
| 3 | Litigation | Customer lawsuit pending ($200K claim) | 🟠 High | Seller indemnity, escrow $250K |
| 4 | Employment | CTO has no non-compete agreement | 🟡 Medium | New contract as CP |
| 5 | Tax | Transfer pricing study outdated (2022) | 🟡 Medium | Update post-closing |
| 6 | Data Privacy | No DPA with 3 key processors | 🟡 Medium | Execute DPAs pre-closing |
| 7 | Corporate | All filings current, no issues | 🟢 Low | — |
### Deal-Breaker Flags
1. 🔴 Patent #3421 expiration — requires renewal confirmation or IP warranty
2. 🔴 None other — deal can proceed with identified protections
### Conditions Precedent
| # | Condition | Owner | Deadline |
|---|-----------|-------|----------|
| 1 | Patent renewal confirmation | Seller | Before signing |
| 2 | CTO employment + non-compete | Seller | Before closing |
| 3 | DPAs with 3 processors executed | Seller | Before closing |
### Recommended SPA Protections
- IP warranty and indemnity (uncapped for 3 years)
- Litigation escrow: $250K
- General warranty period: 24 months
- W&I insurance recommended
Definition of Done
- All 9 workstreams reviewed with findings documented
- Risk matrix with severity classification for each finding
- Deal-breaker flags clearly called out
- Conditions precedent generated for 🔴/🟠 findings
- SPA protection recommendations provided
- Executive summary with overall risk assessment
Examples
Prompt
We are acquiring 100% shares of TechCo Ltd.
Here is the data room summary: [paste document list]
Deal size: $5M. Materiality: $50K.
Key concern: their main product relies on a patent expiring soon.
Conduct a legal due diligence and flag deal-breakers.
Quality Criteria
- Every finding is tied to a specific evidence source (log, test, metric)
- Pass/fail criteria are binary and measurable — no subjective judgments
- Severity levels are assigned with clear thresholds
- Remediation steps are provided for all critical and high findings
Verification (4C)
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| Correctness | Are all pass/fail criteria applied against the correct standard or rule? |
| Completeness | Were all required dimensions or checklist items evaluated? |
| Context-fit | Does the verification scope match the actual risk level of the deliverable? |
| Consequence | If this passed verification but had a hidden flaw, what is the worst-case impact? |
Edge Cases
- Incomplete data for full assessment — Document which checks were limited and flag for re-verification when data becomes available.
- Ambiguous pass/fail criteria — Request clarification from the standard owner before scoring. Mark as 'Needs Review'.
- Multiple overlapping standards — Identify the governing standard and note where others diverge.
Changelog
- v1.0.0 — Initial release
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 25
- Forks
- 13
- Last commit
- Oct 2026
Advanced
- Item type
- skill
- Key
codexkit-legal-due-diligence- Source
- github.com/hoavdc/codexkit
Related picks
Skill · larksuite
The pick for Markdownmarkdown-formatter
Skill · nvidia
The pick for Markdownuk-sanctions-us-ear-voruegehende
Skill · klotzkette
The pick for Sanctionsosint-investigation
Skill · wundercorp
The pick for Sanctionsteach
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev toolsimplement
Skill · mattpocock
More in Dev tools