agentleFS
poorvith-mppoorvith-mp/skills-finance/skills/cap-table/SKILL.md

cap-table

Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Model cap tables, dilution scenarios, waterfalls and round structures — SAFE, convertible notes, priced. Use when modeling founder equity, SAFEs, option pools, or dilution waterfalls.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Never accept participating preferred shares in a venture term sheet unless in a distressed recapitalization.

    line 52
  2. Distinctive:

    Always calculate dilution using a post-money capitalization model that accounts for all outstanding SAFEs and promissory notes.

    line 53
  3. Distinctive:

    NEVER promise percentage ownership in an offer letter.

    line 64
  4. Distinctive:

    NEVER stack multiple un-capped SAFEs without modeling the catastrophic founder dilution at the priced round.

    line 65
  5. Distinctive:

    NEVER grant equity without a standard 4-year vesting schedule with a 1-year cliff.

    line 66

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Cap Table

The capitalization table models economic ownership, governance rights, and liquidation economics. Accurately managing a cap table requires modeling fully-diluted share counts, calculating post-money vs pre-money SAFEs, configuring employee equity option pools, and structuring preferred share liquidation waterfalls.

1. Share Counts: Issued vs. Fully-Diluted

Distinguish between voting shares and total diluted shares:

  • Issued & Outstanding: Common stock held by founders, early employees, and exercised shares.
  • Fully-Diluted Shares (FD): $$\text{Fully-Diluted Shares} = \text{Issued Common} + \text{Unexercised Options Granted} + \text{Unallocated Option Pool} + \text{Convertible Securities}$$ Rule: Always use the fully-diluted share count when calculating per-share price and percentage ownership.

2. SAFE Conversion Mechanics (Valuation Cap & Discount)

Simple Agreements for Future Equity (SAFEs) convert into preferred stock upon a qualified priced equity financing:

  • Pre-Money SAFE Conversion Price: $$\text{Conversion Price} = \min\left( \frac{\text{Valuation Cap}}{\text{Pre-Money Fully-Diluted Shares}}, \text{Priced Round Price} \times (1 - \text{Discount Rate}) \right)$$
  • Post-Money SAFE Ownership (Y Combinator Standard): $$\text{Investor Ownership %} = \frac{\text{Investment Amount}}{\text{Post-Money Valuation Cap}}$$ Note: Post-money SAFEs dilute existing common shareholders with mathematical certainty, but do not dilute other post-money SAFE holders until the priced round.

3. Option Pool Shuffle Mechanics

Lead investors in priced rounds frequently demand an unallocated option pool (typically 10%–15% post-financing):

  • Investor Preference (Pre-Money Option Pool Shuffle): The option pool is created/expanded before the investor's cash goes in, forcing 100% of the dilution onto the existing founders and common holders.
  • Founder Counter: Negotiate the pool size based on a hiring plan for the next 12–18 months (e.g. 7% instead of a generic 15%), or negotiate a post-money option pool expansion where all shareholders share dilution proportionally.

4. Liquidation Waterfall Architecture

In an exit or liquidity event, proceeds are distributed according to security preference:

  1. Seniority Tier: Senior debt -> Convertible notes -> Preferred equity holders -> Common shareholders.
  2. Preference Multiple: 1x Non-Participating Preferred is the venture standard.
    • Non-Participating: Investor takes the greater of: (a) 1x original investment amount, or (b) their pro-rata common share of total exit proceeds.
    • Participating (Founder Anti-Pattern): Investor gets 1x investment back FIRST, AND ALSO shares pro-rata in the remaining proceeds ("double dipping").

5. Sample Cap Table Summary

Shareholder ClassShares Held% Issued & Outstanding% Fully-DilutedLiquidation Preference
Founders (Common)6,000,00066.7%60.0%None (Pari-passu common)
Early Employees (Vested Options)1,000,00011.1%10.0%None
Unallocated Option Pool1,000,0000.0%10.0%None
Seed Investors (Series Seed Preferred)2,000,00022.2%20.0%1x Non-Participating ($2.0M)
Total10,000,000100.0%100.0%$2,000,000

Critical Rules

  1. Never accept participating preferred shares in a venture term sheet unless in a distressed recapitalization.
  2. Always calculate dilution using a post-money capitalization model that accounts for all outstanding SAFEs and promissory notes.
  3. Model option pool expansions against an explicit hiring roadmap to avoid giving away unneeded founder equity.

Verification Checklist

  • Share counts tie out across common, vested/unvested options, and preferred classes.
  • SAFE conversion formulas verified (valuation cap, discount rate, and MFN clauses).
  • Pre-money vs post-money option pool dilution modeled accurately.
  • 1x non-participating liquidation preference confirmed in term sheet review.
  • Section 83(b) elections confirmed filed within 30 days of equity grants.

Anti-Patterns

  • NEVER promise percentage ownership in an offer letter; grant an explicit number of option shares.
  • NEVER stack multiple un-capped SAFEs without modeling the catastrophic founder dilution at the priced round.
  • NEVER grant equity without a standard 4-year vesting schedule with a 1-year cliff.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.