Get the FREE Ultimate OpenClaw Setup Guide →

term-sheet-triage

npx machina-cli add skill evalops/open-associate-skills/term-sheet-triage --openclaw
Files (1)
SKILL.md
10.2 KB

Term sheet triage

When to use

Use this skill when you need to:

  • Review a term sheet quickly and identify what matters (< 30 minutes for simple, < 2 hours for complex)
  • Model multi-investor liquidation waterfalls
  • Explain term implications in plain language to partners or founders
  • Compare competing term sheets
  • Advise founders on incoming terms

Inputs you should request (only if missing)

  • The term sheet text (or key terms if redacted)
  • Full cap table (all prior rounds, SAFEs, notes, option pool)
  • Round size and price (or cap/discount if SAFE/note)
  • All prior liquidation preferences (multiples, participation, seniority)
  • Desired ownership / board goals (if investor-side)
  • Founder goals / constraints (if advising founder)

Outputs you must produce

  1. One-line summary (economics in one sentence)
  2. Liquidation stack (who gets paid first, in what order)
  3. Waterfall model (who gets paid at $10m, $30m, $100m, $500m exits)
  4. One-page term summary (economics + control + unusual terms)
  5. Red flags list (ranked, max 5)
  6. Negotiation levers (what to push, what to accept, difficulty rating)

Templates:

  • assets/term-sheet-checklist.md
  • assets/scenario-table.md
  • assets/waterfall-model.md

Procedure

1) One-line economics summary (do this first)

Write one sentence: "$Xm at $Ym pre ($Zm post), Z% ownership to new investors, with [standard/non-standard] prefs."

Examples:

  • "$3m at $12m pre ($15m post), 20% to Series A, 1x non-participating"
  • "$500k SAFE at $8m cap, ~5.9% assuming conversion at cap"
  • "$10m at $40m pre, 20% to Series B, 1x participating with 3x cap"

2) Classify the instrument

  • Priced equity round (Series Seed, A, B, etc.)
  • SAFE (post-money or pre-money cap)
  • Convertible note
  • Other (revenue-based, etc.)

3) Build the liquidation stack (multi-investor)

Seniority order (typical, but verify):

  1. Later rounds (Series B) - often pari passu or senior
  2. Earlier preferred rounds (Series A, Seed)
  3. Converted SAFEs/notes (often pari passu with the round they convert into)
  4. Common stock (founders, employees)

For each investor class, document:

ClassInvestmentLiq pref multipleParticipationSeniorityCap on participation
Series B$10m1xParticipatingSenior3x cap
Series A$3m1xNon-participatingPari passu with SeedN/A
Seed$1.5m1xNon-participatingJunior to BN/A
SAFEs$500k1x (converts to Seed)Non-participatingConverts to SeedN/A
CommonN/ANonePro rataLastN/A

4) Build the waterfall model

Step-by-step waterfall calculation:

For each exit value ($10m, $30m, $100m, $500m):

Step 1: Pay senior liquidation preferences

  • Series B gets min(remaining proceeds, $10m × 1x)
  • If participating: Series B also participates in remaining after Step 2

Step 2: Pay pari passu liquidation preferences

  • Series A and Seed share remaining proceeds pro rata up to their 1x preferences
  • Series A: min(remaining × (3m/4.5m), $3m)
  • Seed: min(remaining × (1.5m/4.5m), $1.5m)

Step 3: Participation (if applicable)

  • Participating preferred gets their preference PLUS pro rata share of remainder
  • Non-participating must choose: preference OR convert to common

Step 4: Distribution to common

  • Whatever remains goes pro rata to common + converted preferred

Waterfall table:

Exit valueSeries BSeries ASeedCommonFounder %Notes
$10m$10m$0$0$00%B takes all
$30m$14m$4.8m$2.4m$8.8m22%B participating to cap
$100m$30m$21m$10.5m$38.5m24%B hits 3x cap
$500m$30m$141m$70.5m$258.5m32%All convert, pro rata

5) Extract economics that matter

For priced rounds:

TermValueStandard?Impact on founders
Pre-money valuation
Post-money valuation
New investor ownership
Option pool (pre/post)>10% post is aggressive
Liquidation preference1x is standard
ParticipationNon-participating is founder-friendly
Participation cap3x is reasonable if participating
Anti-dilutionBroad-based weighted avg is standard
Pro-rata rights
Pay-to-playNone is standard

For SAFEs/notes:

TermValueStandard?Impact
Cap
Discount20% is standard
MFNYes is standard
Interest rate (notes)5-8% is standard
Maturity (notes)18-24 months is standard
Conversion triggerQualified financing is standard
Pro-rata rights

6) Extract control terms

TermProvisionStandard?What it blocks
Board composition2 founders + 1 investor + 1 independent is common at A
Board observer1 observer is standard
Protective provisionsSee standard list below
Information rightsQuarterly financials is standard
Drag-alongMajority preferred + majority common is standard
Founder vesting4-year with 1-year cliff is standard
Voting agreement

Standard protective provisions (investor consent required):

  • Change authorized shares
  • Create senior or pari passu preferred
  • Change charter or bylaws materially
  • Sell or merge the company
  • Change board size
  • Declare dividends
  • Wind down the company

Non-standard protective provisions to flag:

  • Consent for hiring/firing executives
  • Consent for budget approval
  • Consent for contracts over $X
  • Consent for debt over $X

7) Identify red flags (max 5, ranked)

Red flagWhy it mattersSeverity (1-5)Negotiable?
Participating preferred without capDouble-dips on exit, can take 40%+ of small exits5Yes - push for cap or non-participating
>1x liquidation preferenceBlocks smaller exits, misaligns incentives5Yes - push for 1x
Full ratchet anti-dilutionPunitive in down round, can wipe out founders4Yes - push for broad-based weighted
Overly broad protective provisionsInvestor can block normal operations4Yes - narrow scope
Redemption rightsForces liquidity event, time bomb4Yes - remove or extend horizon
Founder vesting resetDemotivates founders, often unreasonable3Yes - push for acceleration
Aggressive option poolDilutes founders pre-money3Yes - negotiate size
Side letters with extra rightsCreates conflicts between investors3Depends

8) Side letter analysis (often where sharp edges hide)

Common side letter provisions to review:

ProvisionStandard?Impact
Super pro-rataNon-standardSqueezes other investors in future rounds
Board seat guaranteeDepends on check sizeMay conflict with other investors
Information rights upgradeSometimesExtra reporting burden
Most favored nationStandardIf anyone gets better terms, they do too
Anti-dilution protection upgradeNon-standardBetter protection than other investors
Co-sale rightsStandardCan sell alongside founders
Veto on specific actionsNon-standardExtra control

Side letter red flag: If side letters give one investor materially better terms, other investors will likely demand the same (MFN cascade).

9) Multi-round complexity handling

When comparing multiple term sheets:

TermOffer AOffer BOffer CNotes
Pre-money$15m$12m$18m
Check size$3m$4m$3m
Ownership16.7%25%14.3%
Liq pref1x NP1x Part1x NPB has participating
Board2/1/12/2/02/1/1B wants 2 seats
Pro-rataYesSuperYesB wants super pro-rata

Effective valuation comparison (factor in option pool, prefs):

  • Offer A effective value: $Xm
  • Offer B effective value: $Ym (lower due to participation)
  • Offer C effective value: $Zm

10) Summary recommendation

One paragraph:

  • Is this a fair deal?
  • What are the 1-2 terms worth negotiating?
  • What should be accepted as-is?
  • Any deal-breakers?
  • How does the waterfall look at realistic exit scenarios?

Waterfall model template

Exit value: $___m

STEP 1: Senior preferences
- Series B: min($___m, $___ preference) = $___m
- Remaining: $___m

STEP 2: Pari passu preferences  
- Series A: min($___m × __%, $___ preference) = $___m
- Seed: min($___m × __%, $___ preference) = $___m
- Remaining: $___m

STEP 3: Participation
- Series B (participating): $___m × __% ownership = $___m (capped at $___m)
- Remaining: $___m

STEP 4: Conversion analysis
- Series A as-if-converted: $___m × __% = $___m
- Series A chooses: preference ($___m) vs converted ($___m) = $___m
[Repeat for each non-participating class]

STEP 5: Distribution
- Series A: $___m (___%)
- Seed: $___m (___%)
- Common: $___m (___%)
- Founder take-home: $___m (___%)

Public references

  • Brad Feld & Jason Mendelson's Venture Deals (liquidation preference mechanics)
  • HSBC Innovation Banking waterfall guides
  • Allied VC cap table modeling guides

Salesforce logging (optional)

  • Attach the term sheet as a File to the Opportunity
  • Create a Note: "Term summary: [one-line] | Red flags: [list] | Rec: [accept/negotiate/walk]"
  • Update Opportunity stage to "Term Sheet"
  • Log waterfall model output in Notes

Edge cases

  • If terms are incomplete: list missing terms and explain what each missing term could change. Assume standard terms for modeling but flag assumptions.
  • If there are side letters: treat them as first-class. Model their impact on the waterfall.
  • If cap table is messy: clean it up first. SAFEs and notes must be modeled with conversion assumptions.
  • If multiple SAFEs at different caps: model each conversion scenario separately.
  • If there's a bridge round: model bridge terms and how they interact with the new round.

Source

git clone https://github.com/evalops/open-associate-skills/blob/main/term-sheet-triage/SKILL.mdView on GitHub

Overview

Term-sheet triage analyzes venture financing terms using waterfall modeling to reveal economics, control, and gotchas. It handles complex cap tables, including participating preferred and side letters, and translates terms into clear implications for founders and investors. This accelerates evaluation and comparison of term sheets, typically in under 2 hours for complex cases.

How This Skill Works

The process starts by classifying the instrument (priced equity, SAFE, or convertible note) and documenting seniority. It then builds a liquidation stack for multi-investor scenarios and runs a waterfall model at multiple exit values, producing a one-page term summary, red flags, and negotiation levers.

When to Use It

  • Review a term sheet quickly to identify what matters (simple cases in <30 minutes, complex in <2 hours).
  • Model multi-investor liquidation waterfalls across Series A/B, SAFEs, and notes.
  • Explain term implications in plain language to partners or founders.
  • Compare competing term sheets side-by-side.
  • Advise founders on incoming terms and potential trade-offs.

Quick Start

  1. Step 1: Gather term sheet text, full cap table, round sizes/prices (or cap/discount for SAFEs/notes), and all prior liquidation preferences.
  2. Step 2: Classify the instrument and define seniority and ownership goals for each investor class.
  3. Step 3: Build the liquidation stack, run the waterfall at target exits (e.g., $10m, $30m, $100m, $500m), and generate the term summary, red flags, and negotiation levers.

Best Practices

  • Request the full term sheet text and a complete cap table (all prior rounds, SAFEs, notes, option pool) before modeling.
  • Capture all prior liquidation preferences (multiples, participation, seniority).
  • Document each investor class with investment amount, liq pref multiple, participation, and seniority.
  • Verify seniority and participation decisions at each exit value in the waterfall.
  • Flag unusual terms early and prepare negotiation levers with clear trade-offs.

Example Use Cases

  • "$3m at $12m pre ($15m post), 20% to Series A, 1x non-participating"
  • "$500k SAFE at $8m cap, ~5.9% assuming conversion at cap"
  • "$10m at $40m pre, 20% to Series B, 1x participating with 3x cap"
  • "Complex multi-investor stack with Series A, Series B and SAFEs, including side letters, evaluated across exits"
  • "Waterfall run demonstrating pay-out at $10m, $30m, $100m, $500m exits for a hypothetical stack"

Frequently Asked Questions

Add this skill to your agents
Sponsor this space

Reach thousands of developers