Update to OloLand DD

{
  "description": "Use when the user asks to analyze an announced or rumored acquisition between two companies they are not a principal in (banker, equity analyst, merger-arb desk, antitrust counsel, target's board, journalist). Distinct from ololand-dd-dd-analyze, which assumes the user's firm is the acquirer.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 440
    }
  ],
  "name": "merger-analysis",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: merger-analysis\ndescription: Use when the user asks to analyze an announced or rumored acquisition\n  between two companies they are not a principal in (banker, equity analyst, merger-arb\n  desk, antitrust counsel, target's board, journalist). Distinct from ololand-dd-dd-analyze,\n  which assumes the user's firm is the acquirer.\n---\n\n# Merger Analysis (third-party perspective)\n\nOloLand's `third_party_merger` perspective treats both the target and the acquirer as first-class entities. The user is an *outside observer* — never a principal — and every output frames evidence from both sides.\n\n## Triggering phrases\n\nInvoke `ololand-dd-dd-merger-analyze \"<their phrasing>\"` whenever the user says any of:\n\n- \"examine the acquisition of X by Y\"\n- \"analyze the X-Y merger\"\n- \"is the [deal] accretive?\"\n- \"what's the premium on [deal]?\"\n- \"what's the HHI on [deal]?\"\n- \"could [deal] survive antitrust review?\"\n\nIf the phrasing is ambiguous about which company is the target vs. acquirer, ask back; do not guess.\n\n## What the deal looks like\n\n`ololand-dd-dd-merger-analyze` creates a deal stamped `perspective=third_party_merger` and dispatches three ingestion lanes in parallel:\n\n- **Lane A** — target-side ingestion (10-K, 10-Q, target market intel)\n- **Lane B** — acquirer-side ingestion (same)\n- **Lane C** — combined-entity artifacts (announcement 8-K, S-4 proxy if filed, antitrust filings)\n\nEach side then carries a per-side data-readiness tier: `high`, `medium`, `low`, or `missing`. The four deterministic engines (premium, accretion/dilution, antitrust HHI, combined DCF) refuse to run when required inputs are missing — they never impute.\n\n## Cockpit hero tiles\n\nAfter ingestion, direct the user to the cockpit (`view_url`). It exposes five hero tiles plus per-side risk and financial tiles:\n\n1. **Deal terms** — offer mix (cash / stock / mixed), enterprise value, exchange ratio.\n2. **Premium analysis** — premium vs unaffected price, 52wk high, 30d VWAP, percentile within sector precedents.\n3. **Accretion / dilution** — Year 1/2/3 EPS impact + breakeven synergy threshold.\n4. **Antitrust HHI** — pre/post HHI per market definition, DOJ presumptive-challenge flag.\n5. **Combined-entity DCF** — pro-forma valuation with synergy delta block.\n\n## Engine usage discipline\n\n- **Engines before prose.** Quote engine outputs; do not state premium / EPS impact / HHI from your own reasoning.\n- **Cite per side.** Every numeric claim ends in a citation. Use `[T:N]`, `[A:N]`, `[C:N]` prefixes per the merger-mechanics skill (target / acquirer / combined-entity document).\n- **Surface insufficiency.** When a `run_*` engine returns `INSUFFICIENT_DATA`, tell the user which fields are missing and where they would typically come from (e.g., \"target unaffected price is unavailable — typically pulled from the 8-K Item 1.01 filing window\").\n- **Two-sided risk.** Scope every taxonomy-classified risk to a side; never lump \"merger risk\" without saying whose.\n- **Don't pick a side.** Frame \"should X have done this deal?\" answers as \"evidence for/against from each side's perspective.\" You are not advocating for either principal.\n\n## Companion commands\n\n- `ololand-dd-dd-merger-readiness <deal_id>` — per-side readiness tier + missing-data summary.\n- `ololand-dd-dd-merger-rerun-math <deal_id> [--engine ...] [--overrides ...]` — re-run one or all four engines with input overrides (sensitivity analysis, e.g. halved synergies).\n\n## Subscription\n\nThe four engine tools and `ololand-dd-dd-merger-analyze` run on Developer as part of the bounded single-deal trial, metered against the monthly credit budget; `ololand-dd-dd-merger-readiness` is a zero-credit read. None are Pro-gated anymore — only the saleable Forensic Screen PDF (`generate_forensic_screen_pdf`) is paid. If a call ever returns `tier_gated: true`, surface the upgrade CTA at https://app.ololand.ai/settings/billing in your reply.\n\n\n## OpenAI execution requirements\n\nUse the connected MCP server's current tool schemas. Do not invent tool arguments, job-status endpoints, inputs, or outputs. If a referenced tool is unavailable, explain the limitation and request the needed connection or data. Invoke writes only when the user has requested the corresponding action. Do not initiate purchases or payments. An unrun, unsupported, or unavailable procedure is a gap, never a passing result.\n\n\nOpenAI cannot execute local lifecycle hooks. Use the packaged explicit setup/review workflow when requested. Server-side MCP auditing remains authoritative; preserve evidence blockers and human-only approval gates.\n\nClaim-correction submission is unsupported in this OpenAI upload because the current handler records surface=cowork. Do not invoke submit_agent_claim_correction from OpenAI. Explain the limitation and retain proposed correction text for human review without claiming submission. See unsupported-workflows.json for the excluded canonical workflow.\n"
}