Model Checker

Two different things can be wrong with a model: the arithmetic, and the underwriting. A model whose formulas are flawless can still be built on a figure that contradicts the filing it cites, or on an estimate nobody refreshed after the last print. This skill tests both, and ends in a report a reader can act on rather than a list of cells.

Evidence labels, source tiers, staleness, the readiness posture and the intake limits: .agents/skills/research-conventions/SKILL.md, read before the first finding.

Step 1: Ingest and scope the audit

• Accept the user's model (.xlsx or .xlsm) from {task}/
• Identify the model type: DCF, LBO, merger, 3-statement, comps, returns, or custom
• Map the structure: which tabs exist, how they link, where inputs live against outputs

Scope discipline. Judge the model against the job it was built for. A standalone operating model with no valuation layer is not missing a DCF, and a quick screen is not a failed initiation. Where the model's purpose is unclear, state the scope you audited against at the top of the report and let the user correct it. A finding that amounts to "this is not the model I would have built" belongs in a scope note, not in the issue log, where it dilutes the findings that matter.

Missing files are surfaced first. An absent workbook, a source document the model cites and does not include, or a tab referenced by formulas and not present goes at the top of the report, not into a source appendix at the bottom. The reader's first question is whether you audited what they think you audited.

Done when the model type, the tab map, and the scope you are auditing against are written down, and any missing file is named.

Step 2: Recalculate, then read the Checks sheet