- Home
- Skills
- Finance & Accounting
- Multiple Sanity-Checker
Works with the AI Agents you already use
Multiple Sanity-Checker
Give a plain reality check on price before you anchor, the implied multiple shown, whether it's rich/cheap/fair for the profile, what you'd be betting on,...
$9
Multiple Sanity-Checker
Example session with this skill installed
Use the Multiple Sanity-Checker skill. I am thinking of offering $5.0M enterprise value, cash-free and debt-free, for Project Sentinel (Sentinel Fire & Safety, Inc.). That $5.0M is my own idea, not a number from the documents; no asking price has been given.
From the financial statements (page 4): reported EBITDA $1.08M, seller-adjusted EBITDA $1.42M. Profile from the CIM and financials: TTM revenue $6.21M, prior years $5.78M and $5.34M, 78% recurring (defined broadly), largest customer about 22%, founder-held licence, unaudited statements. Am I overpaying?
- Read your context and instructions
- Compiled the multiple sanity-checker
Multiple sanity check: $5.0M for Project Sentinel
1. Implied multiple (calculation shown)
| EBITDA basis | EBITDA | $5.0M / EBITDA |
|---|---|---|
| Reported (FS p.4) | $1.08M | 4.63x |
| Seller-adjusted (FS p.4) | $1.42M | 3.52x |
| Adjusted less the $210,000 owner-compensation add-back (mine) | $1.21M | 4.13x |
| Adjusted without the $65,000 settlement add-back, if it was not booked in the period (mine) | $1.355M | 3.69x |
The honest multiple is not 3.5x. The $1.42M includes $340,000 of add-backs, 31.5% of reported EBITDA, none backed by documents yet. If you must hire a manager to replace the owner, 4.1x is closer.
2. Is that reasonable, rich or cheap for this profile?
Working band I am using: roughly 3.5x to 5.5x EBITDA for a business of this size and profile. That is general benchmark reasoning (my estimate), not a market database or a formal valuation, so challenge it.
Pushes up: code-driven demand, 78% recurring on the seller's definition, growth of 8.2% and 7.4% (FS p.2, mine, years undated), a two-decade history.
Pushes down: top account about 22% and top ten about 61% (CIM p.9), founder-held licence (CIM p.14), unaudited statements (FS p.5), "recurring" includes repair work (CIM p.22), 2009 system with untested export (CIM p.16).
View: $5.0M is inside the band on every basis, in the lower-to-middle part. It is not an overpayment on the seller's number, and it is fair, not cheap, on a realistic number. That conclusion depends on the add-backs surviving, which is unproven.
3. What you would be betting on
- That the $130,000 of non-owner add-backs ($65,000 + $41,000 + $24,000) survives a change of ownership, and that the $210,000 owner add-back survives a replacement-manager cost. If only $1.21M is real, you pay 4.1x.
- That Northgate ($1,366,000, CIM p.9) stays through the transition.
- That the founder's licence can be transferred or replaced (CIM p.14).
- That the 2009 system's data can be extracted (CIM p.16).
4. The case for offering less
- Revenue does not reconcile: TTM $6.21M against tax-year 2025 receipts of $5.95M, a $260,000 gap (Tax p.1; mine). Until explained, the earnings base is soft.
- Losing Northgate would remove 22.0% of revenue. The EBITDA effect cannot be sized because customer margin is not in the materials.
- A structure can bridge it without cutting the headline: tie part of the $5.0M to Northgate staying for a stated period, or to the add-backs being proven.
Missing inputs
Gross margin, cash flow, capex, debt and working capital are not in the materials, so this check is on EBITDA only.
This is an analytical aid and not investment, legal, tax or accounting advice, and not a formal valuation. The Project Sentinel documents are synthetic test data.
Connects securely to your tools. The creator never sees your data.
About this skill
Give a plain reality check on price before you anchor, the implied multiple shown, whether it's rich/cheap/fair for the profile, what you'd be betting on, and the case for offering less. Use before anchoring on a price or making an offer, or when asked to 'am I overpaying', 'sanity-check this multiple', or 'is this price reasonable'.
Works with
Any agent that reads the SKILL.md standard and can read attached documents. No scripts, no network access, no installs.
Known limitations
It works from the price, earnings and business profile you give it and uses general benchmark reasoning. It does not use a market database and is not a formal valuation.
About the author
Original work, listed by its author: part of the free, MIT-licensed open-deal-kit,
https://github.com/MariusGithub13/open-deal-kit
The hosted version that writes a fully cited diligence brief across a whole data room is Deal OS:
How to use
Skills on Agensi run inside your AI agent. Copy the prompt, paste it into your agent, and it connects to Agensi and installs this skill for you. If a payment is needed, your agent shows it to you first.
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be one of the first to try it. Every listed skill passes our trust checks below.
Security scanned
Passed our 8-point scan before listing
Fresh listing
Recently published to Agensi
30-day refund
Not a fit? Get your money back
Trust & safety
Security scanned
Verified clean 4 days ago
- Passed all security checks, Safe to install