Verified against Perplexity Pro · 2026-07-27
Run a structured due-diligence brief on a company across fixed categories, not a vague overview
A category-by-category due diligence brief covering corporate basics, leadership, financial signals, legal risk, and reputation, with explicit "should verify independently" flags on single-sourced claims.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
Run a due diligence brief on this company. This is being used for evaluating them as a data-processing vendor before a contract signature, so weight what you surface accordingly — a brief for a vendor decision and one for an investment decision should not look identical. COMPANY Meridian Cloud Systems Inc. JURISDICTION / MARKET Incorporated in Delaware, primary operations in the US and UK SPECIFIC AREAS TO PRIORITIZE Their data-handling and breach history specifically, since this is for a data-processing agreement. CATEGORIES (cover every one — say "nothing significant found" rather than skipping a category silently) 1. Corporate basics — legal entity, ownership structure, founding date, headquarters, size (employees/revenue if disclosed). 2. Leadership — key executives, notable prior roles, any recent leadership departures and, if reported, why. 3. Financial signals — funding history, public financials if applicable, credit or rating signals, anything suggesting financial distress. 4. Legal and regulatory — active litigation, regulatory actions, sanctions, or significant past settlements. 5. Reputation and recent news — the last 6-12 months of coverage, separating substantive news from routine PR. 6. Red flags — anything that appears in only one outlet, is disputed, or you could not independently verify — mark this "should verify independently," not as settled fact. Do not synthesize a cleaner story than the sourcing actually supports — if two sources disagree on a material fact, present both and say so.
Customize the highlighted detailsoptional — the prompt above already works
Why this works
Partitioning the brief into fixed named categories — corporate basics, leadership, financial signals, legal and regulatory, reputation, red flags — forces coverage of areas a narrower 'tell me about this company' would not reliably surface, the same mechanic behind a structured code-review rubric: closed categories with a required verdict per category prevent silent gaps, since skipping one is visibly different from filling it with 'nothing significant found.' For a task that benefits from browsing several distinct source types directly, such as an investor-relations page, a court records search, and a company's own careers or leadership page, running this through Perplexity Comet's agentic browsing lets the same brief navigate to each of those pages directly rather than relying only on what a search index has already crawled. The explicit 'should verify independently' flag on single-sourced claims keeps the synthesis honest about its own confidence level — a due diligence brief that reads as uniformly certain is more dangerous than one that visibly marks its own weak points.
Verified against
Perplexity Pro Sonar Pro · 2026-07-27
Perplexity Comet 2026 browser agent · 2026-07-30
Changelog
- 2026-07-30 — Initial publish, verified against Perplexity Pro Sonar Pro and Perplexity Comet.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — what Scult builds, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE WHAT SCULT BUILDS
