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.

1. "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.

1. "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).

1. "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.

1. "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.