Due Diligence Agents

Open-source forensic M&A due diligence: 13 AI agents read your data room across 9 domains, connect findings no single reviewer catches, and trace every one to an exact page and quote.

Stars
★ 111
Last updated
1mo ago
License
Apache-2.0
Primary language
Python

At a glance

How it runs
CLISelf-hosted service
Works with
Universal · cross-platformClaude API
Cost
Free software; you pay for model usage
Setup effort
Low · running in minutes
You'll need
Python 3.12+Anthropic API key (or AWS Bedrock / Google Vertex AI / Anthropic-compatible gateway)Docker (optional)pymupdf (optional, AGPL-3.0, via [pdf] extra)Shell / CLINetwork accessLocal filesystem
Typical use
A corp dev team screening hundreds of targets runs --quick-scan for a GREEN/YELLOW/RED red-flag signal in minutes before committing to full analysis.
Not a fit if
  • Users expecting it to replace qualified legal/financial advisors' conclusions
  • Organizations that cannot run Python 3.12+ or adapt their runtime
Source review
72/100 · Some gaps

What does this agent do, and when should you use it?

Due Diligence Agents is an open-source M&A due diligence system driven by the `dd-agents` CLI. It reads an entire data room (PDF, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, images) and analyzes every document through 9 parallel domain specialist agents: Legal, Finance, Commercial, ProductTech, Cybersecurity, HR, Tax, Regulatory, and ESG. A 38-step Python pipeline with 5 blocking quality gates runs cross-domain analysis using symbolic trigger rules, plus 4 orchestration agents including a Judge and an Executive Synthesis agent. Every finding carries severity, an exact page-and-quote citation, and cross-references, producing an interactive HTML report, a 16-sheet Excel report, and per-subject JSON. Analysis runs locally; documents leave your machine only as API calls to your configured LLM endpoint, with no telemetry and a read-only data room. Built by Zohar Babin, the author reports it has been battle-tested across multiple completed acquisitions.

The core flow: dd-agents run deal-config. starts the pipeline, where a Python orchestrator runs 38 steps and 9 domain specialists analyze every data-room document in parallel, each tracing findings to exact page, section, and quote. A cross-domain analysis layer uses symbolic trigger rules to detect inter-domain dependencies (e.g., a termination clause in one contract plus revenue concentration risk on the same subject); an optional Judge agent adversarially spot-checks findings; merge & audit applies dedup, numerical checks, and citation verification across 31 QA checks; an Executive Synthesis agent calibrates severity and emits a Go/No-Go signal. Output lands in {data_room_path}/_dd/forensic-dd/runs/latest/ including report/dd_report.html (interactive report with a clause library and market-norm comparisons), report/dd_report.xlsx (16 sheets), audit., and per-subject JSON. Companion tools: dd-agents search prompts. --data-room ./data_room answers targeted contract questions with citations and verification scores in Excel; --quick-scan gives GREEN/YELLOW/RED triage; and post-run commands include chat, query, cost, portfolio compare, diff, and lineage. Agent personas are customized via dd-config/agents/*.md markdown files with no code changes.

  1. A corp dev team screening hundreds of targets runs --quick-scan for a GREEN/YELLOW/RED red-flag signal in minutes before committing to full analysis.
  2. A PE firm runs the full pipeline on portfolio targets and uses dd-agents portfolio add and portfolio compare to track and compare risk across deals.
  3. A legal team uses dd-agents search with a JSON prompts file to ask specific questions across hundreds of contracts (e.g., is consent required on change of control) and get an Excel report with answers, citations, and verification scores.
  4. A deal team preparing an IC memo or negotiation checklist filters findings by severity in the interactive HTML report and verifies each to its exact page and quote.
  5. An M&A advisor on a compressed timeline needs the cross-domain risk picture — legal, financial, and commercial flags on the same subject connected — that siloed advisor reports never assemble.

How do you install or deploy this agent?

Prerequisites: Python 3.12+ and an Anthropic API key (or AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, or an Anthropic-compatible gateway).

Recommended install (includes PDF extraction):
bash

pip install 'dd-agents[pdf]'

Alternatives:
bash

brew install zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents/dd-agents
docker pull zoharbabin/due-diligence-agents:latest
pip install dd-agents              # core only (no PDF extraction)
pip install 'dd-agents[vector]'    # + ChromaDB semantic search
pip install 'dd-agents[ocr]'       # + OCR for scanned docs (English)

Note: the optional [pdf] extra installs pymupdf, which is AGPL-3.0 licensed — if you redistribute software bundling pymupdf, AGPL copyleft terms apply.

How do you use this agent?

Set your key and run:
bash

export ANTHROPIC_API_KEY="sk-ant-..."
dd-agents auto-config "Buyer Corp" "Target Inc" --data-room ./data_room

dd-agents doctor --config deal-config.
dd-agents run deal-config.

Results appear at {data_room_path}/_dd/forensic-dd/runs/latest/report/dd_report.html — open it in your browser.

Quick triage without the full pipeline:
bash

dd-agents run deal-config. --quick-scan --model-profile economy

Generate a config without any API calls:
bash

dd-agents init --data-room ./data_room

Organize the data room into folders by subject or counterparty; PDFs, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and images are supported, with OCR for scanned PDFs. The minimal config requires config_version, buyer.name, target.name, deal.type, deal.focus_areas, and data_room.path.

What are this agent's strengths and limitations?

Pros
  • Cross-domain cross-referencing is the core differentiator: symbolic trigger rules automatically connect findings from different domains on the same subject (e.g., termination clause + revenue concentration risk) — exactly what siloed reviewers miss.
  • A substantial trust layer: 31 QA checks, 5 blocking quality gates that halt the pipeline on failure, numerical_manifest. tracing every financial figure to source, and every finding bound to an exact page and quote.
  • No vendor lock-in: model and provider are switchable via env config (Anthropic API, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, or any model behind an Anthropic-compatible gateway — GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, local), verifiable with dd-agents doctor.
  • Explicit privacy design: local execution, no telemetry, read-only data room, and API keys never stored in output artifacts; agent personas are markdown-customizable with safety rules that can never be removed.
Limitations
  • Requires Python 3.12+ and paid LLM API calls — a full pipeline over a large data room can incur significant token costs (dd-agents cost gives per-provider rollups, but the source gives no typical cost range).
  • The optional [pdf] extra depends on AGPL-3.0 pymupdf; redistributing software that bundles it triggers copyleft obligations.
  • Explicit positioning statement: the tool does not replace professional advisors — legal, financial, and regulatory conclusions must be made by qualified professionals.
  • Billing through a model provider means document content is sent as API calls to a cloud LLM endpoint; deals with sensitive data require reviewing the data-handling details in SECURITY.md.

How does this agent compare with similar options?

Key facts side by side with the most closely related agents.

Agent Source review Form / cost Stars Updated Language Full support on
Due Diligence Agents This agent 72 · Some gaps CLIFree + model costs ★ 111 1mo ago Python Claude API
SwarmVault 67 · Some gaps CLIFree + model costs ★ 696 2mo ago TypeScript Codex · Claude Code
PipesHub Enterprise AI Context Platform 66 · Some gaps Self-hosted serviceFree + model costs ★ 3.8k 2d ago Python —
LLM Wiki Agent 52 · Major gaps Agent plugin / skillFree + model costs ★ 3.6k 6d ago Python Codex · Claude Code

How does FollowAgents rate this agent?

FollowAgents source review · FARS-2.1
Some gaps
72/ 100 5-point scale 3.6 / 5
Trust 21/29
Reliability 8/14
Adaptability 14/18
Convention 14/18
Effectiveness 9/13
Verifiability 6/8
Why each dimension lost points
Trust21 / 29 · 3.6/5

README/SECURITY.md claim local execution, read-only data room, no telemetry, env-var-only keys, Bash guard and SSRF limits. However, these are assertions; no implementation code (e.g., the Bash guard) is present in the provided files, and no user-confirmation gate appears anywhere. Deducted for unverified security claims and absence of confirmation mechanisms.

Reliability8 / 14 · 2.9/5

Layered CI (lint, mypy strict, unit/integration/E2E), per-test timeouts, shared SDK mocks, resumable pipeline steps. But user-facing failure message quality has no direct evidence beyond 'halts on quality failures'. Deducted for unshown error handling.

Adaptability14 / 18 · 3.9/5

Clear audience (corp dev, PE, legal), multi-provider support, multiple install paths, agent customization via markdown. Cross-domain symbolic trigger rules are only described in one sentence with no rule detail. Deducted for unstatically-verifiable trigger precision.

Convention14 / 18 · 3.9/5

Well-organized docs, examples, semver 1.18.0, full Apache-2.0 text, disciplined pyproject, proactive AGPL-3.0 (pymupdf) disclosure. Maintenance rests on a single named individual with no governance evidence; changelog content itself not shown. Deducted accordingly.

Effectiveness9 / 13 · 3.5/5

Multiple output formats (HTML/Excel/JSON), quick-scan, rich post-run tooling, sample report. Cost has per-provider rollup and economy profile but no concrete cost estimates. Deducted for indirect cost-benefit evidence only.

Verifiability6 / 8 · 3.8/5

Page-and-quote citation is the core claim, backed by citation fixtures, audit., numerical_manifest. design. But fact/inference separation has no explicit schema evidence, and the 31 QA checks are described not shown. Deducted for missing implementation detail of verification mechanisms.

Risks and how to mitigate them
  • Security claims (Bash guard, SSRF limits, no telemetry) are asserted in docs but no implementation code appears in the reviewed files; audit the source independently.
  • All data-room documents leave the machine as LLM API calls to the configured endpoint; assess outbound data risk for sensitive deal files, especially with third-party gateways.
  • Agent personas are user-editable markdown; the claim that safety rules can never be removed is not verifiable from the provided code.
  • Maintenance depends on a single individual; the 48-hour vulnerability response commitment is a personal pledge, not an organizational one.
  • Optional pymupdf dependency is AGPL-3.0 — copyleft applies if you redistribute a bundle.
  • The 'battle-tested across multiple completed acquisitions' claim cannot be statically verified and should not be a procurement basis.
Evidence confidence: Low Reviewed Sep 27, 2026 Reviewed revision 6949cf84f030
See the full review method →

FAQ

Does my data leave my machine during analysis?
All analysis runs locally, but document content is sent as API calls to your configured LLM endpoint (Anthropic API, AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, or an Anthropic-compatible gateway you point it at). The tool itself has no telemetry, reads the data room read-only, and never stores keys in outputs. See SECURITY.md.
Am I locked into Anthropic models?
No. Environment variables switch you to AWS Bedrock, Google Vertex AI, or any model behind an Anthropic-compatible gateway (GPT, Gemini, DeepSeek, local) with no code changes; verify with dd-agents doctor.
What does running it cost?
The software is Apache 2.0 open source, but you pay for LLM API calls. --quick-scan with --model-profile economy offers a low-cost first read, and dd-agents cost gives a per-provider/per-model cost rollup for each run.
What happens if quality fails mid-run?
The pipeline has 5 blocking quality gates and 31 QA checks — it halts on failure rather than producing unreliable output, and runs can be resumed from any step. dd-agents assess ./data_room checks data room quality before a run.
Can it replace my lawyers and financial advisors?
No. The project explicitly states it does not replace professional advisors; its output is structured findings and cross-references that help your team and advisors build IC memos, advisor reports, and negotiation checklists faster.
View on GitHub ↗ Install ↓

Related agents