Quick Screen Structural Comparison

Use This Skill When

• The user wants a fast but high-signal peer comparison.
• The task is to decide whether a name deserves deeper work.
• The analysis needs normalized structural dimensions, not a long fundamental write-up.
• The user wants an initial ranking across multiple companies or against a peer set.

Required Inputs

• target and peer set
• screening objective: long idea generation, short screen, quality filter, or watchlist prioritization
• comparison dimensions if provided; otherwise choose a sensible default set
• basic facts: growth, margins, cash conversion, balance sheet, business model, customer exposure, valuation
• time horizon: current state, next 12 months, or cycle
• If some data is missing, use fewer dimensions with higher confidence rather than scoring every company mechanically.

Workflow

1. Define the 6 to 8 structural dimensions that best matter for the screen, such as:
   • revenue quality
   • margin structure
   • cash conversion
   • customer concentration
   • competitive positioning
   • capital intensity
   • balance sheet resilience
   • valuation burden
2. Normalize the compare set on those dimensions.
3. Identify where the target is clearly above, around, or below peer quality.
4. Explain which differences are structural versus cyclical.
5. Conclude whether the target merits deep research and what question would make or break the next step.

Output Requirements

• Keep it concise, ranking-oriented, and useful for triage.
• Avoid pretending a quick screen replaces full diligence.
• Use directional scoring with explanations instead of fake exactness.
• Highlight the one or two structural reasons the name should move up or down the priority list.
• End with a clear recommendation: deepen, watch, or deprioritize.

Output Template

Quality Checks

• Confirm the dimensions chosen are relevant to the screen objective.
• Check that structural and cyclical differences are not collapsed into one bucket.
• Verify at least one reason is given for why the target should move up or down the research queue.
• Make sure the output does not imply a full investment conclusion from a quick screen alone.
• Remove any exact scoring that the evidence does not support.

Guardrails

• Do not use a generic dimension set if the industry calls for something more specific.
• Do not mistake valuation cheapness for structural strength.
• Do not penalize a company for missing data without saying data quality is a limitation.
• Do not rank names without explaining the main driver of the ranking.
• Do not turn this into a full memo; keep it a triage framework.

Example Prompts

• Quickly compare this vertical SaaS name against peers and tell me whether it deserves deeper work.
• Run a structural comparison across these three semiconductor equipment names and rank research priority.
• Screen this target against peers on revenue quality, margin structure, and balance sheet resilience.