Imported from TapnTell-AI/awesome-legal-aiagent-skills (corporate-ma/draft-equity-commitment-letter/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add TapnTell-AI/awesome-legal-aiagent-skills --skill draft-equity-commitment-letter. Copyright stays with the author.

Skill: Draft Equity Commitment Letter

1. Subject-matter triage

• Treat the equity commitment letter as the primary deliverable and the issues memo as secondary.
• Draft the commitment letter first; do not let the memo substitute for a complete executable letter.
• If the source set contains multiple versions of a term sheet, merger agreement, fund-side document, or draft ECL, identify the controlling version before drafting.

2. Failure modes the skill is correcting

• Identifying the wrong committing party, such as an affiliate or sponsor-adjacent entity, instead of the actual equity investor entity making the commitment.
• Addressing the letter to the wrong transaction entity, such as the target instead of the acquisition vehicle.
• Omitting core economic and remedy language needed to support funding at closing.
• Stating funding conditions inconsistently with the transaction agreement or financing package.
• Drafting limited-recourse or remedy language that conflicts with the agreed transaction remedies.
• Failing to prepare a separate issues memo that captures discrepancies and open items across the deal documents.
• Treating a draft or precedent as if it were fully aligned without checking for deviations in names, defined terms, amounts, or closing mechanics.
• Writing conclusions in the issues memo without identifying the legal or transactional source that supports the point.

3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply

• Use the exact legal name of the committing investor entity and match the signatory authority to that entity’s organizational documents.
• Address the letter to the acquisition entity created for the transaction and align the salutation with the acquisition structure in the deal documents.
• Include the date, commitment amount, purpose, funding conditions, limited-recourse language, remedy trigger, expiration, governing law, and signature blocks.
• State the purpose broadly enough to cover equity funding, transaction fees and expenses, and any additional amounts required to consummate the transaction, but only as reflected in the source documents.
• Tie funding to closing of the transaction, satisfaction or waiver of the merger agreement closing conditions, and any required debt financing being funded or otherwise available as specified in the deal package.
• Make the remedy language consistent with the transaction agreement’s buyer-failure-to-close provisions and the transaction’s exclusive-remedy structure.
• Use the source documents’ defined terms and operative provisions where available; do not invent new defined terms when existing ones control.
• For any legal proposition relied upon in the draft or memo, cite the controlling authority by name and section, clause, or rule when the source materials identify it, or by generally recognized transaction-document authority when they do not.
• For the issues memo, assign each issue an ordinal severity level on a consistent scale defined once at the top.
• For the issues memo, every issue should tie back to the relevant document conflict, explain the practical consequence, and end with a concrete recommendation.
• For all advisory conclusions, include a recommended action, the responsible role, and a timing anchor tied to signing, closing, or another transaction milestone.
• Where the source materials present more than one party, date, document version, or closing scenario, enumerate them explicitly before comparing them.

4. Analytical scaffolds

• Identify the governing deal package and determine which document controls each disputed point.
• Reconcile names, dates, defined terms, consideration mechanics, and closing conditions across the precedent, term sheet, merger agreement, financing materials, and fund documents.
• Build the ECL from the operative transaction mechanics rather than from the precedent alone.
• Check that the committing entity, addressee, and authorized signatory line up with the ownership and signing authority reflected in the source materials.
• Confirm that the remedy and limited-recourse provisions track the transaction agreement’s failure-to-close framework and do not expand or narrow the intended liability package.
• Verify that any expiration, termination, or outside-date language is consistent with the merger agreement and financing timeline.
• For the issues memo, separate:
  • drafting deviations that should be conformed,
  • open items that require business resolution,
  • and fund-document issues that may affect execution or enforceability.
• If a source document is silent on an item, say so plainly and identify the implication for drafting rather than filling the gap silently.
• If there are multiple competing formulations in the source set, compare them side by side and choose the one that best fits the operative transaction structure, noting the alternative in the issues memo.
• Support each legal or transactional conclusion with the specific document provision, clause reference, or recognized deal-document convention that drives it.

5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships

• Sequence the letter so that identity, commitment, purpose, and funding mechanics appear before remedies and termination.
• Keep the remedy provisions vertically aligned with the closing-condition language they depend on.
• Ensure the expiration provision tracks the transaction’s outside date or termination mechanics, not an unrelated calendar date.
• Keep signature authority temporally consistent with the entity’s status at signing and closing.
• In the issues memo, organize each entry from source conflict to consequence to proposed fix so the reader can move directly from diagnosis to drafting action.

6. Output structure conventions

• Produce a standalone draft ECL suitable for conversion into a clean .docx file.
• Produce a separate issues memo in issue-by-issue format with a defined severity scale at the top.
• The ECL should read as an operative agreement, not a commentary on drafting choices.
• The issues memo should be concise but complete, with each issue including:
  • the affected document(s),
  • the nature of the discrepancy or open point,
  • the consequence for the ECL or transaction,
  • the supporting authority or controlling document reference,
  • the recommended resolution,
  • and the severity label.
• End the issues memo with a Recommended Actions section that assigns each next step to a role and ties it to a transaction milestone.
• Do not embed the issues memo inside the ECL.
• Confirm in the working product that both deliverables are actually produced and non-empty before finalizing the task.