Version 1

# research-finance Financial management of internal R&D programs and portfolios: program budgeting with F&A, burn/runway tracking, and capitalize-vs-expense routing. Every number ships with its **assumptions block**, and accounting-treatment calls **route to a named finance owner** — this skill never books an entry. ## Purpose R&D finance partners, program controllers, and operations leads manage money that has already been allocated or raised — not the corporate close, not the next funding round, not finding a grant. This skill structures three recurring decisions: Three deterministic tools: 1. `program_budget_planner.py` — Builds a multi-period budget from work-package line items, applies the F&A (indirect) rate to an MTDC-style eligible base, and rolls up direct / F&A / fully-loaded cost per period with an explicit assumptions block. 2. `burn_runway_tracker.py` — Computes average + trailing burn, runway in periods/months, and whether each value-inflection milestone is reachable before cash runs out. Flags accelerating burn and below-threshold runway. 3. `capex_vs_opex_router.py` — Scores each R&D cost item against the IAS 38 development-phase criteria (or flags US GAAP ASC 730 expense-as-incurred) and routes it to **CAPITALIZE-CANDIDATE / EXPENSE / FINANCE-OWNER-REVIEW** with a named owner. Never auto-decides. ## When to use Invoke this skill when: - You are building or revising an R&D program budget and need the F&A split made explicit. - A program's runway is in question and you need a milestone-vs-cash read. - Finance asks whether a development cost can be capitalized and you need a defensible first routing. - You are preparing a portfolio review and need per-program burn consistency. **Do NOT use this skill to**: run corporate DCF / valuation / close (use `finance/financial-analysis`), discover or position grants (use `research/grants`), or make the final accounting determination (that is the controller's + auditor's call — this tool only routes). ## Workflow 1. **Lay out the program** — Fill `assets/rd_program_budget_template.md` with work-package lines, categories, and per-period amounts. 2. **Build the budget** — Run `program_budget_planner.py --input program.json --profile {pharma-rd|biotech|medtech|deep-tech|software-rd|university-lab} --fa-rate <negotiated rate>`. Read direct / F&A / fully-loaded rollups + assumptions. 3. **Track burn & runway** — Run `burn_runway_tracker.py --input ledger.json --threshold-months 6`. Read runway + milestone verdicts + flags. 4. **Route accounting treatment** — Run `capex_vs_opex_router.py --input costs.json --standard {ifrs|usgaap}`. Read the per-item routing; send CAPITALIZE-CANDIDATE and FINANCE-OWNER-REVIEW items to the named owner. 5. **Assemble the review** — Combine into a program-finance packet. Every number carries its assumptions; treatment calls carry a named owner. ## Scripts | Script | Purpose | Profiles | |---|---|---| | `scripts/program_budget_planner.py` | Multi-period budget + F&A split + assumptions | pharma-rd, biotech, medtech, deep-tech, software-rd, university-lab | | `scripts/burn_runway_tracker.py` | Burn, runway, milestone-vs-cash alignment | n/a (ledger-driven) | | `scripts/capex_vs_opex_router.py` | IAS 38 / ASC 730 routing to named finance owner | pharma-rd, biotech, medtech, deep-tech, software-rd, university-lab | All three: stdlib-only, `--help`, `--sample`, `--output {human,json}`. ## Onboarding & customization Run the onboarding questionnaire **once before you start** — it captures your defaults so every tool in this skill is pre-configured. Customization is the point: the answers actually change tool behavior. ```bash python3 scripts/onboard.py # interactive (also: --defaults, --set key=value, --reset) python3 scripts/onboard.py --show # see the questions + current effective config ``` Answers are saved to `~/.config/research-ops/research-finance.json` (global) or `./.research-ops/research-finance.json` (`--scope project`) and are read automatically by `config_loader.py`. They set the default R&D-area **profile**, the default **F&A rate**, the **runway alert threshold**, the **accounting standard**, and the named **finance owner** printed on capitalize-vs-expense routing. CLI flags always override saved config; `RESEARCH_OPS_NO_CONFIG=1` ignores it. **The five questions:** R&D area · F&A rate · runway threshold · accounting standard · finance owner. ## Optimize with autoresearch (opt-in) This skill ships an **isolated, opt-in** bridge to `engineering/autoresearch-agent`. Only when you ask to "optimize" / "extend runway" / "run a loop" does an autoresearch experiment iteratively improve a program plan against this skill's runway metric. `scripts/ar_evaluator.py` is the ground-truth evaluator; it prints `runway_months: <float>` (higher is better). ```bash /ar:setup --domain custom --name extend-runway \ --target ledger.json \ --eval "python3 ar_evaluator.py --target ledger.json" \ --metric runway_months --direction higher /ar:loop custom/extend-runway ``` Isolated: no hard dependency — autoresearch runs only on demand, and the loop edits `ledger.json`, never the evaluator. ## References - `references/rd_program_finance_canon.md` — IAS 38 (research vs development); ASC 730 + ASC 985-20; Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200 (F&A); FASB/IFRS capitalization criteria; NICRA basics. - `references/burn_and_portfolio.md` — Cooper stage-gate; rNPV / real-options for R&D; risk-adjusted portfolio ROI; burn-rate / runway frameworks; milestone-based budgeting. - `references/indirect_rate_modeling.md` — F&A pool composition (facilities + administration); MTDC base; de minimis 10%; fringe/overhead loading; CAS primer. ## Assumptions - The F&A rate is the most error-prone input. The planner applies whatever rate you pass; it warns you to confirm it is a negotiated NICRA, not a guess. - Burn/runway uses the trailing (recent-weighted) burn as the forward run-rate and assumes flat forward spend unless your ledger encodes a ramp. - The capex router asserts criteria from your input; asserting "technical feasibility" does not make it true — the named finance owner and auditor validate it. - Profiles annotate context (e.g., "most drug R&D is expensed") but do not change the accounting test. ## Anti-patterns - **Stating a budget number without its assumptions.** F&A rate, escalation, and base must travel with the number. - **Auto-deciding capitalize-vs-expense.** This tool routes; the controller (and auditor where required) decides. - **Using lifetime-average burn for runway.** Recent burn is the honest forward run-rate; averages hide a slowdown or a ramp. - **Applying F&A to the full base.** Capital equipment, large subaward portions, and certain categories are MTDC-exempt. - **Confusing this with corporate finance.** Valuation, close, and fundraising live in `finance/`. ## Distinct from | Sibling / neighbor | Scope | Difference | |---|---|---| | `finance/financial-analysis` | Corporate DCF, ratios, close, rolling forecast, SaaS metrics | That is **company-level**; this is **R&D-program-level** | | `research/grants` | NIH funding discovery + positioning | That **finds funding**; this **manages money already won** | | `clinical-research` (sibling) | Study design + feasibility + budget gate-check | That **scopes** the study; this **funds + tracks** the program | | `ra-qm-team` | Regulatory/QM submission | Unrelated — no financial scope | ## Quick examples ```bash python3 scripts/program_budget_planner.py --sample python3 scripts/program_budget_planner.py --input program.json --profile university-lab --fa-rate 0.585 python3 scripts/burn_runway_tracker.py --sample --output json python3 scripts/capex_vs_opex_router.py --sample --standard ifrs ``` The sample budget excludes the sequencer (capital equipment) and CRO subaward from the F&A base; the capex router routes exploratory screening to EXPENSE, a fully-criteria'd pilot line to CAPITALIZE-CANDIDATE, and a partial-criteria software build to FINANCE-OWNER-REVIEW. ## Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline) Walked one at a time by `/cs:grill-research-ops` or the orchestrator. Recommended answer + canon citation per question. Never bundled. 1. **"Is this spend in the research phase or the development phase — and can you evidence technical feasibility?"** Recommended: research = expense; development = capitalize-candidate only with feasibility evidence, routed to a named finance owner. Canon: IAS 38.54-57; ASC 730. 2. **"What F&A / indirect rate are you applying, and is it your negotiated NICRA, a de minimis 10%, or an assumption?"** Recommended: use the negotiated rate; if assumed, flag it explicitly. Canon: 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance); NICRA basics. 3. **"What's runway in months at current burn, and does it clear the next value-inflection milestone?"** Recommended: runway must cover the milestone plus a buffer; surface the gap. Canon: Cooper stage-gate; SaaS/startup efficiency frameworks (a16z, Bessemer). 4. **"Is portfolio ROI risk-adjusted (rNPV / probability-of-success weighted) or raw NPV?"** Recommended: risk-adjusted; raw NPV overstates R&D value. Canon: rNPV drug-development valuation; real-options literature. 5. **"Who is the named finance / controller owner who signs the capitalize-vs-expense treatment?"** Recommended: name them — this tool recommends, it never books the entry. Canon: ASC 730 / IAS 38 governance; auditor sign-off requirements. Walk depth-first. Lock 1-2 before opening 3-5. After all are answered, invoke `program_budget_planner.py` → `burn_runway_tracker.py` → `capex_vs_opex_router.py`.