Agent-Skills.md

Agent Skills: Intelligence Dossier

>

[dossierintelligencedue-diligencemarket-entrybriefingresearch]
researchID: borghei/claude-skills/dossier

Repository

borghei/claude-skills
borgheiLicense: NOASSERTION
34669

Install this agent skill to your local

pnpm dlx add-skill https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills/tree/HEAD/research/dossier

Skill Files

Browse the full folder contents for dossier.

Download Skill

Loading file tree…

research/dossier/SKILL.md

Skill Metadata

Name
dossier
Description
>

Intelligence Dossier

A research skill for producing structured intelligence dossiers — the kind of document a CEO reads before a meeting, a PM reads before market-entry, or an investor reads before due diligence.

When to use this skill

  • Deal-prep dossier before a major partnership / acquisition meeting
  • Executive briefing ahead of a board, customer, or regulator meeting
  • Market-entry analysis for a new geography or vertical
  • Due-diligence overview for investment or M&A consideration
  • Competitor profile in depth
  • Person dossier ahead of executive recruiting or board engagement

Inputs the advisor expects

  • Subject (company / person / market / domain)
  • Purpose (deal-prep, due diligence, briefing — affects depth + emphasis)
  • Audience (exec, board, working team)
  • Timeline / deadline
  • Known starting sources
  • Sensitive areas to dig into

Clarify First

Before building the dossier, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

  • [ ] Subject + subject type (company / person / market) — selects the outline template and which sections apply
  • [ ] Purpose (deal-prep, due diligence, briefing, market-entry) — drives depth, emphasis, and the Implications section
  • [ ] Audience (exec, board, working team) — sets altitude and length of the executive summary
  • [ ] Key decision or risk to inform — drives the Risks + Open Questions and Recommendations sections

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.

Workflows

Workflow 1 — Generate dossier outline

  1. Specify subject type + purpose.
  2. Run dossier_outline_generator.py to produce a structured outline tailored to subject + purpose.
  3. Assign owners + research targets per section.
python3 dossier/scripts/dossier_outline_generator.py \
  --subject-type company --purpose deal-prep --format markdown

Workflow 2 — Validate source triangulation

  1. Capture claims with supporting sources.
  2. Run source_triangulation_validator.py to check each claim has multiple independent supporting sources + source reliability.
  3. Flag thinly-sourced claims for additional research.
python3 dossier/scripts/source_triangulation_validator.py \
  --input claims_with_sources.json --format markdown

Workflow 3 — Separate facts from inferences

  1. Capture dossier statements.
  2. Run fact_inference_separator.py to classify each statement and flag unsupported inferences.
python3 dossier/scripts/fact_inference_separator.py \
  --input dossier_statements.json --format markdown

Decision frameworks

The dossier hierarchy

A useful structure for any dossier:

  1. Executive summary (1 page, lead with takeaway)
  2. Subject overview (facts: what they are)
  3. Context (market, history, environment)
  4. Capabilities + assets (what they can do)
  5. People + leadership (who runs it)
  6. Performance + trajectory (numbers, trends)
  7. Relationships + ecosystem (who they're with)
  8. Risks + open questions (what we don't know)
  9. Implications + recommendations (so what)
  10. Sources + methodology (how we know)

Fact vs inference discipline

Three categories per statement:

| Category | Definition | Example | |----------|------------|---------| | Fact | Verifiable, sourced | "Founded 2018; HQ in Chicago" | | Inference | Reasoned from facts | "Likely targeting enterprise segment based on hiring pattern" | | Speculation | No supporting evidence | "Might pivot to AI next year" |

A trustworthy dossier separates these clearly. Mixing them = loss of credibility.

Source reliability scoring (Admiralty Code adapted)

| Reliability | Code | Description | |-------------|------|-------------| | Completely reliable | A | Established, history of completely reliable info | | Usually reliable | B | History of mostly reliable info | | Fairly reliable | C | History of reliable info with notable errors | | Not usually reliable | D | Limited history; mixed accuracy | | Unreliable | E | Known for inaccurate info | | Cannot be judged | F | New / unknown source |

| Information credibility | Code | Description | |--------------------------|------|-------------| | Confirmed | 1 | Confirmed by other independent sources | | Probably true | 2 | Not confirmed; consistent with other info | | Possibly true | 3 | Not confirmed; reasonable but unsupported | | Doubtful | 4 | Inconsistent with other info | | Improbable | 5 | Contradicted by other info | | Cannot be judged | 6 | New info; no validation possible |

A "B-2" rated claim is "usually reliable source, probably true" — workable. An "F-6" claim is "unknown source, unverified" — barely worth including.

Triangulation principle

For each significant claim:

  • 1 source: anecdotal; flag explicitly
  • 2 independent sources: workable (most dossier claims should reach this)
  • 3+ independent sources: confirmed; safe to assert

"Independent" means not derived from the same underlying source. Two news articles citing the same press release ≠ 2 independent sources.

Common engagements

"Build a dossier on company X before our acquisition meeting"

  1. Run outline generator (subject=company, purpose=deal-prep).
  2. Pull: financials, leadership, products, customers, IP, tech stack, regulatory posture.
  3. Identify red flags: undisclosed litigation, key person dependencies, customer concentration, regulatory risk.
  4. Recommendations: questions to ask in meeting; deal structure implications.

"Executive briefing for senator's office meeting"

  1. Run outline (subject=person/organization, purpose=briefing).
  2. Pull: voting record, recent statements, committee assignments, donor profile, alignment with our position.
  3. Anticipate likely questions; prepare positions.

"Market-entry analysis for [country]"

  1. Run outline (subject=market, purpose=market-entry).
  2. Pull: market size, growth, competitive landscape, regulatory, distribution, cultural / business norms, talent.
  3. Compare entry options (direct, partner, acquisition).

Anti-patterns to avoid

  • Mixing facts + inferences without labels. Reader can't calibrate trust.
  • Single-source claims presented as confirmed. Anecdote dressed as data.
  • Unsourced "everyone knows" claims. Often turn out wrong.
  • Padding with low-relevance facts. Bloated dossier loses signal.
  • Burying risks at the end. Risks should be surfaced upfront.
  • No update mechanism. Stale dossier on important subject = bad decisions.
  • Adversarial language about subject. Bias erodes credibility.

References

  • references/dossier-frameworks-and-structure.md — outline patterns per subject type
  • references/source-triangulation-and-reliability.md — source assessment, triangulation
  • references/fact-vs-inference-discipline.md — categorization + writing patterns

Related skills

  • research/litreview — academic literature search
  • c-level-advisor/ceo-advisor — strategic briefing patterns
  • c-level-advisor/general-counsel-advisor — legal due diligence overlap
  • marketing/competitive-teardown — competitive intel angle
  • business-growth/customer-success-manager — account research patterns