Company First Pass

Generate a concise (~3 page) first-pass tear sheet on any company from public sources. The output is a .md file covering 11 sections: TL;DR, business overview, revenue breakdown, financial or scale snapshot, valuation or funding context, competitive landscape, recent developments, the optimist's and skeptic's cases, and an initial read with sources.

This is NOT a full research report, financial model, valuation, or recommendation to buy, sell, partner, or hire. It is a structured first look — the kind of thing a salesperson prepares before a discovery call, a strategist prepares before a competitive review, a partnerships lead prepares before an intro meeting, a candidate prepares before an interview, or an analyst prepares before deciding whether to dig deeper.

Inputs

Required: a company name, ticker, or website.

Optional but high-value: the purpose (selling to them, partnering, competing, recruiting or interviewing, evaluating as a vendor, investing — shapes which sections get depth and how the initial read is framed); uploaded materials (filings, annual report, investor or pitch deck, press kit); specific questions the user wants answered.

Missing-input behavior: If the user gives only a name or ticker, confirm the right entity before proceeding (many names collide; say which one you picked and why). If no purpose is given, produce the balanced general version and note which sections would sharpen with a stated purpose.

Workflow

1. Identify the company. Confirm name, ticker and exchange if public, headquarters, and ownership type (public, private, subsidiary, nonprofit, government-owned). If the user only gives a name, confirm the right entity before proceeding.
2. Research using WebSearch. Pull data from public sources following the Source Rules below. For a public company, search for regulatory filings, latest results, and investor presentations. For a private company, search for the company site, press coverage, funding announcements, customer case studies, job postings, and any published financials.
3. Build the tear sheet following the 11-section output format below.
4. Save as [SLUG]-first-pass.md (e.g., CRM-first-pass.md for a public company, acme-robotics-first-pass.md for a private one) and share with the user.

Source Rules (priority order)

Use the best available public information in this order:

1. Latest annual report or annual regulatory filing (where the company files)
2. Latest quarterly or interim filing
3. Latest earnings or results release
4. Latest earnings call or results presentation transcript
5. Investor presentation, pitch materials, or published business plan
6. Company website, pricing pages, product documentation, and published case studies
7. Reputable financial and business data sources (regulatory filing databases, company registries, major financial data providers, established funding databases)
8. Reputable news and trade press (major financial press, wire services, respected industry publications)
9. Public competitor information
10. Public signals for private companies: job postings, executive hires, customer announcements, partnership press releases, conference appearances, product reviews

Do NOT use blogs, anonymous commentary, message boards, promotional or stock-picking sites, social media posts, or unsourced claims. If data is unavailable, say so clearly — never fabricate numbers, market share, competitors, funding, or valuation metrics.

Time Period

Use the latest fiscal year and last twelve months where available. Reference the latest quarter or reporting period when relevant. For private companies, use the most recent dated public data and label its age. Only use older history to explain the current state.

Core Principles

These matter because the tear sheet needs to be trustworthy enough for a professional to act on — even if that action is just "worth more work" or "worth a meeting."

• Be neutral and concise. Separate facts from interpretation.
• Prefer specific numbers over vague descriptions ("revenue grew 12% YoY" not "revenue grew nicely"; "reported ~400 employees on its careers page as of [date]" not "mid-sized").
• Do not invent financials, market share, competitors, funding, or valuation metrics.
• No buy/sell/hold, invest/pass, partner/don't-partner, or hire/don't-hire recommendation. No price target. Do not overstate precision in valuation or size estimates.
• Include a balanced optimist's and skeptic's case — don't softball either one.
• Flag missing, stale, or inconsistent information explicitly. For private companies, label every figure as reported, company-stated, or third-party-estimated.
• Use bullets and tables to keep it scannable.

Output Format — 11 Sections

Section 1: TL;DR

3-5 bullets: what it does, why it matters now, financial or scale profile, valuation or funding context, the optimist/skeptic tension. If a purpose was given, add one bullet on what it means for that purpose.

Example (public company):

## TL;DR

- **What it does:** Leading cloud-based CRM platform serving enterprises across sales, service, marketing, and commerce.
- **Why it matters:** Dominant CRM market share (~23%) with expanding platform play into data/AI via recent acquisitions.
- **Financial profile:** $34.9B revenue (FY24), 11% YoY growth, 30.5% non-GAAP operating margin, $12.2B FCF.
- **Valuation context:** Trading at ~26x NTM EV/EBITDA vs. 5-year average of ~35x; FCF yield ~4.5%.
- **Optimist/skeptic tension:** Optimists see margin expansion + AI monetization; skeptics worry about decelerating organic growth and acquisition integration risk.

Example (private company, purpose: partnership):

## TL;DR

- **What it does:** Field-service scheduling software for mid-size HVAC and plumbing contractors, ~2,000 customers per its site.
- **Why it matters:** Recently expanded into payments and financing for contractors — moving up the value chain toward where we operate.
- **Scale profile:** ~180 employees (careers page, [date]); $45M Series B announced [date]; revenue not disclosed.
- **Funding context:** $72M total raised per announcements; last round led by [investor]; valuation not disclosed.
- **Optimist/skeptic tension:** Optimists see a sticky vertical platform with room to add products; skeptics see a crowded category with two better-funded competitors and no disclosed retention data.
- **For the partnership:** Their payments push overlaps our core product — the meeting should establish whether this is a channel or a competitor.

Section 2: Business Overview

What the company does, core products/services, primary customers, end markets, geographic exposure, and business model. Keep it concise — avoid corporate history. Focus on what someone needs to understand the business today.

Section 3: How the Company Makes Money

Table format breaking down revenue streams. This answers "where do the dollars actually come from?" For a private company that discloses nothing, describe the pricing model from the website and label the mix as unknown.

Example:

| Revenue Stream / Segment | What It Includes | Key Drivers | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subscription & Support | Cloud CRM licenses, premium support | Seat expansion, upsell to higher tiers | ~94% of revenue, highly recurring |
| Professional Services | Implementation, consulting, training | New deployments, platform migrations | ~6% of revenue, lower margin |

Section 4: Key Financial or Scale Snapshot

Table of core financial metrics for a public company, or the best available scale signals for a private one. Only include what's actually available — do not estimate or fabricate.

Example (public company):

| Metric | Latest FY (FY24) | LTM / Latest Available | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $34.9B | $35.6B (LTM) | FY ends Jan 31 |
| Revenue Growth (YoY) | 11% | 10% (LTM) | Decelerating from 18% two years prior |
| Gross Margin | 76.1% | 76.4% | Stable; subscription mix supports margin |
| Operating Income (non-GAAP) | $10.6B | $11.0B | 30.5% margin, up from 22% prior year |
| Net Income (GAAP) | $4.1B | $4.5B | Includes SBC of ~$3.8B |
| Free Cash Flow | $12.2B | $12.8B | FCF margin ~35%, strong conversion |
| Cash & Equivalents | $14.2B | — | Net debt ~$4B after long-term debt |
| Total Debt | $18.3B | — | Primarily acquisition financing |

For a private company, use the columns Signal | Value | Source / As-of | Notes and include whatever is actually findable: reported revenue (with the outlet and "unverified"), headcount from the careers page, company-stated customer counts, total funding, and open roles as an expansion signal.

Include relevant items like segment revenue (if not in Section 3), capex, R&D, dividends/buybacks, or anything material for a public company. Caveat stale or estimated figures.

Section 5: Valuation or Funding Context

Current valuation metrics for a public company; funding and ownership history for a private one. These are context, not conclusions.

Example (public company):

| Valuation Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Market Cap | $265B | As of [date] |
| Enterprise Value | $269B | Includes net debt of ~$4B |
| P/E (NTM) | ~28x | Based on consensus NTM EPS |
| EV / Revenue (NTM) | ~7.0x | vs. large-cap SaaS median of ~8x |
| EV / EBITDA (NTM) | ~26x | vs. 5-year average of ~35x |
| FCF Yield | ~4.5% | Based on LTM FCF / market cap |
| 52-Week Performance | -8% | Underperforming S&P 500 by ~15pp |

For a private company, table the funding rounds instead — Round | Date | Amount | Lead / Notable Investors | Reported Valuation — and label any valuation that comes from press rather than the company as unconfirmed.

If data is stale or unavailable, say so (e.g., "Consensus estimates not available; using trailing metrics only" or "No funding announcements found; ownership unknown").

Section 6: Competitive Landscape

Table mapping competitors — direct, adjacent, and substitutes. If the user's own company competes with the subject, include it in the table with the same neutral treatment.

Example:

| Competitor | Relationship to Company | Relevant Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Microsoft Dynamics 365 | Direct competitor in CRM/ERP | Bundled with Office 365; enterprise integration advantage |
| HubSpot | Direct competitor in SMB CRM | Freemium model, stronger in inbound marketing |
| SAP | Adjacent (ERP with CRM module) | Stronger in manufacturing/supply chain verticals |
| ServiceNow | Adjacent (ITSM expanding into CX) | Competing in service/workflow automation |
| Freshworks | Substitute (lower-cost CRM) | Price-competitive for SMB segment |

Section 7: Recent Developments

Last 6-12 months. Use bullets. Be specific with dates and numbers. Cover:

• Latest results and guidance changes (public), or latest funding, revenue milestones, and growth claims (private)
• Product launches or strategic pivots
• M&A activity (completed, announced, rumored)
• Leadership changes and notable hires
• Regulatory developments
• Major customer wins/losses, partnerships, or market developments
• Capital allocation changes (buybacks, dividends, debt paydown) or layoffs, office moves, and hiring surges

Section 8: The Optimist's Case

What needs to go right? Growth drivers, margin expansion, competitive advantages, market structure, capital allocation upside, catalysts.

Ground every point in evidence. "Revenue could accelerate" is weak. "Revenue could accelerate as the $2B AI/Data Cloud segment (growing 35% YoY) scales and drives platform upsell" is useful.

No recommendation — this is "here's why an optimist would be interested."

Section 9: The Skeptic's Case

What could go wrong? Growth deceleration, margin pressure, competitive threats, customer concentration, cyclicality, balance sheet or runway risk, regulatory risk, key-person risk, valuation downside.

Don't exaggerate for false balance, but don't softball either. A useful skeptic's case identifies scenarios that would actually cause losses, failed partnerships, or wasted sales cycles — not just "competition could increase."

Section 10: Initial Read

Synthesize Sections 8 and 9 into a framework for further work, framed for the user's stated purpose where one was given:

• Central debate: The one question that most determines outcome (e.g., "Can the company sustain 10%+ organic growth while expanding margins, or is this a maturing platform?" or "Is their payments expansion a channel opportunity for us or a head-on competitor?")
• What needs to be true for the optimist's case: 2-3 specific, falsifiable conditions
• What needs to be true for the skeptic's case: 2-3 specific, falsifiable conditions
• Key variables to study next: What would you research, ask in the meeting, or diligence before forming a stronger view?

No price target. No rating. No recommendation. Just a clear-eyed framing of what matters.

Section 11: Sources Used

List every source referenced with title, publisher/filing type, and date.

Example:

| Source | Publisher / Filing Type | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Salesforce FY24 10-K | SEC Filing (Annual Report) | March 2024 |
| Q4 FY24 Earnings Release | Company Press Release | February 2024 |
| Q4 FY24 Earnings Call Transcript | Company / transcript provider | February 2024 |
| "Salesforce Raises Full-Year Outlook" | Reuters | November 2023 |
| Acme Robotics careers page | Company website | Accessed [date] |

Handling Missing Information

If information isn't available, say so directly:

• "Not available in the reviewed public sources"
• "Not disclosed in the reviewed filings"
• "Consensus estimates not available; using trailing metrics only"
• "Company-stated; not independently verified" / "No public financials; scale inferred from dated headcount and funding signals"

If the source set is incomplete (e.g., couldn't access the annual filing or latest transcript, or the private company has almost no footprint), add a note at the end explaining what's missing and how it affects the analysis.

Quality Checklist

Before delivering, verify:

• Total length ~3 pages (rendered markdown)
• Neutral, professional tone throughout
• Every financial figure or scale signal is sourced or caveated, with as-of dates for private-company data
• Valuation or funding metrics are current or explicitly flagged as stale
• Optimist's and skeptic's cases are balanced and grounded
• No recommendation or price target anywhere
• Missing information is flagged, not fabricated
• Sources section is complete
• Tables are properly formatted
• If a purpose was stated, the TL;DR and Initial Read speak to it

Example prompts

"Pull up Shopify before my call with their partnerships team Thursday — we're a logistics provider and I want to know how they make money and where we'd fit."

"First pass on a private company called [name], they make robotic welding cells. We're evaluating them as a supplier. What can you find on scale, funding, customers, and who else does this?"

"Tear sheet on [ticker] — I'm considering it for the portfolio. Balanced optimist and skeptic cases, no recommendation."

Output

Save as [SLUG]-first-pass.md and share with the user.

Works well with

Go deeper on a private company's funding and ownership history with private-company-tear-sheet; on the economic engine with unit-economics-memo; on the whole category with market-map-builder. Before a meeting with a specific person at the company, add professional-profile-brief.