Foundation Due Diligence Report

Problem

Foundation due diligence often faces stale data, mixed sources, inconsistent financial definitions, and calculation errors. Audit reports are reliable but lag behind; official websites and news are newer but need credibility labels; budgets can be mistaken for actual spending, and sub-item totals may not match totals.

Workflow

The skill takes a foundation name as input and outputs a single Markdown file. It runs four steps: step0 collects data from official websites, annual reports, audits, projects, qualifications, and public signals, then builds a yearly data availability map; step1 fills 69 checkpoints with query results, sources, compliance judgments, and evidence; step2 generates a 14-chapter report, highlighting the current status snapshot; step3 performs quality checks for data freshness, citation completeness, amount consistency, and ratio accuracy. Every data block should state year, source, and completeness, and compliance judgments should preserve traceable evidence.

Boundary

It is suitable for public-information due diligence on foundations and social organizations, not a substitute for legal opinions or financial audits. Coverage depends on the completeness of public web pages, annual reports, audit PDFs, and search results; missing key files should be marked as not found rather than inferred. For multi-year data, the report presents years in reverse order to prevent older data from masking recent facts.