Leopoldo.ai

Examples

See the system at work.

Real sessions. Real deliverables. Real domain expertise.

These are complete workflows, not demos. Each session shows the same pattern: user input routed through the orchestrator, executed by a specialist agent, validated by quality gates, and finalized as a concrete deliverable. No prompt tricks, no cherry-picked outputs.

In this page

  1. 01Family office portfolio review and succession structure
  2. 02Sell-side pitch book for a mid-market manufacturing target
  3. 03DCF valuation for a SaaS M&A target
  4. 04Contract review against playbook: vendor MSA
  5. 05Equity research note and price target on a listed industrial
Example 01/Leopoldo for Wealth and Familyagent: wealth-family

Family office portfolio review and succession structure

A multi-generational HNW principal with EUR 50M AUM receives an updated Investment Policy Statement, a rebalancing proposal, and a succession memo covering trust versus holding structures.

Scenario

Family office, 3 generations, EUR 50M AUM split across listed equity, fixed income, direct real estate, and private funds. Mixed residence (IT and CH).

You:We need to review the family portfolio (EUR 50M AUM) and prepare a succession memo for the next generation. Principal is 74, two children, four grandchildren. Assets are split IT and CH.
[Session start. Integrity check: 🟢. Routing to wealth-family agent.]
Leo:Understood. I will split this into two workstreams: (1) portfolio and IPS review, (2) succession structure. Before rebalancing I need to confirm the current IPS constraints, liquidity horizon, and ESG exclusions. Can you confirm the last IPS is the 2024-Q2 version you shared last session?
You:Yes, 2024-Q2. Liquidity: 15% in 3M, 40% in 12M. ESG: no tobacco, no controversial weapons. Target return: CPI + 3.5%, 10y horizon.
Leo:Noted. Running current allocation against IPS bands.
[Invoking reporting-output agent for the IPS delta table.]
Leo:Current vs target (IPS v2024-Q2): Listed equity: 42% (target 35%, band 30-40%) → +2pp over band Fixed income: 18% (target 25%, band 20-30%) → -2pp under band Real estate: 22% (target 20%, band 15-25%) → within Private funds: 15% (target 15%, band 10-20%) → within Cash: 3% (target 5%, band 3-10%) → at floor Source: user-provided 2026-Q1 NAV statement.
Leo:Proposed rebalance: trim EUR 3.5M from listed equity (3 positions flagged high beta), deploy EUR 2.8M into EU IG corporates, keep EUR 0.7M as dry powder for Q3 private fund call. Expected TE impact on IPS target: -0.4% ex-ante vol.
You:Good. Now the succession memo. The principal wants to separate operating wealth from legacy wealth for the grandchildren.
Leo:Two structures in scope: (a) IT-resident holding with usufruct split, (b) CH irrevocable discretionary trust with protector. I will draft both with tax implications under Italian Art. 2645-ter Civil Code for the first and CH PIL for the second.
[Invoking corporate-counsel for the structure memo.]
Gate check: fiduciary disclaimer injected. Cross-jurisdiction flag: IT and CH require local counsel validation. 🟡
Leo:Draft complete. The memo flags two items that need local counsel: (1) IT anti-abuse rule (Art. 10-bis Statuto Contribuente) on the usufruct split, (2) CH FATCA and CRS reporting obligations for the trust settlor.
[Invoking reporting-output to generate deliverables.]
→ ips-v2026-q2-revision.docx, 14 pages
→ portfolio-rebalance-2026-q2.xlsx, positions + scenario
→ succession-memo-draft.docx, 9 pages, flagged for counsel review

Deliverables

  • IPS v2026-Q2 revision (.docx)
  • Portfolio rebalance model (.xlsx)
  • Succession memo draft (.docx)

Quality gates

  • Fiduciary disclaimer
  • Cross-jurisdiction flag (IT and CH)
  • Source attribution

Time

25 minutes

End-to-end, input to deliverable.

Example 02/Leopoldo for Advisory Deskagent: advisory-desk

Sell-side pitch book for a mid-market manufacturing target

A mid-market investment banking team prepares a pitch for a sell-side mandate on a manufacturing target with EUR 40M EBITDA. Output: pitch book, process letter draft, and buyer universe.

Scenario

Mid-market IB firm. CEO-level meeting with target shareholders next week. Target: industrial manufacturing, EUR 180M revenue, EUR 40M adjusted EBITDA, Northern Italy, family-owned, no prior intermediation.

You:Pitch for sell-side mandate. Target: industrial manufacturing, EUR 180M sales, EUR 40M adj EBITDA, family-owned, Northern Italy. Meeting Thursday.
[Routing to advisory-desk agent.]
Leo:Understood. Standard pitch architecture: (1) market context, (2) indicative valuation range with 3 methodologies, (3) process design and timeline, (4) buyer universe, (5) our credentials, (6) proposed mandate terms. Starting from valuation, then building around it. Do you have latest comps set or should I assemble?
You:Assemble. Last 24M of EU industrial M&A, EBITDA between 25M and 75M.
[Invoking deal-execution for comps and valuation.]
Leo:Comps set built (14 transactions). Median EV/EBITDA: 8.2x. Quartile range: 7.1x to 9.4x. Applied to target adj EBITDA of EUR 40M: DCF (5y explicit + Gordon, WACC 9.2%, g 1.5%): EUR 360M to EUR 395M Trading comps (9 listed peers, median 7.8x fwd EBITDA): EUR 295M to EUR 340M Transaction comps (median 8.2x TTM EBITDA): EUR 310M to EUR 380M Triangulated range: EUR 310M to EUR 380M EV. Source attribution: Mergermarket + S&P CapIQ.
Leo:Process design: 2-stage auction (teaser + IM + NBO, then MP + SPA). Timeline 6 months from signed mandate to closing. Buyer universe next.
You:Focus buyer universe on strategics EU plus US, plus PE with existing industrial platforms in the sector.
[Invoking ci-flow for buyer universe scan.]
Leo:Buyer universe: 28 names. Strategics EU: 11 (4 likely Tier-1, 7 Tier-2) Strategics US: 6 (2 Tier-1 with declared EU buy-side mandate, 4 opportunistic) Financial sponsors: 11 (6 with active industrial platform in sector, 5 generalist mid-market with dry powder) All names tagged with last 24M activity, fund vintage, platform fit.
Gate check: fairness opinion disclaimer injected. Number coherence across slides: 🟢. Buyer universe flagged CONFIDENTIAL, not for target disclosure. 🟢
[Invoking reporting-output for pitch book assembly.]
Leo:Pitch book built. 24 slides, branded, with valuation bridge, process roadmap, and buyer universe (redacted version for target, full version for internal).
→ pitch-book-targetco-2026.pptx, 24 slides, branded
→ process-letter-draft.docx, 4 pages
→ buyer-universe-internal.xlsx, 28 names, scored

Deliverables

  • Pitch book, 24 slides (.pptx)
  • Process letter draft (.docx)
  • Buyer universe scored, 28 names (.xlsx)

Quality gates

  • Fairness opinion disclaimer
  • Number coherence
  • Buyer universe confidentiality

Time

35 minutes

End-to-end, input to deliverable.

Example 03/Leopoldo for Investment Coreagent: due-diligence-flow

DCF valuation for a SaaS M&A target

A PE fund sizes entry valuation on a SaaS target (ARR EUR 15M, 40% growth). Output: full DCF model, valuation memo, and IC-ready 2-page summary.

Scenario

PE fund, growth equity strategy. Target: European SaaS, vertical software, EUR 15M ARR, 40% YoY growth, 75% gross margin, Rule of 40 at 55. Process running, NBO due in 10 days.

You:Need entry valuation on a SaaS target. ARR 15M EUR, 40% growth, 75% GM, Rule of 40 at 55. LTV/CAC 4.2x, NRR 118%. Process is running, NBO in 10 days.
[Routing to due-diligence-flow agent.]
Leo:Clean set. Building a 5-year explicit DCF with terminal value, plus sensitivity and comps cross-check. First I need growth decay assumption. Management case at 40% decays to what by year 5? Standard SaaS fade curve suggests 40 → 32 → 26 → 21 → 18. Confirm or override.
You:Use standard. Terminal growth 3%, WACC 11%.
Leo:Building model.
[Invoking advanced-excel-analyst for DCF build.]
Leo:DCF v1 built: 5-year revenue path: 15 → 21 → 27.7 → 34.9 → 42.2 → 49.8 (EUR M) EBITDA margin ramp: 12% → 18% → 24% → 28% → 31% FCF conversion: 65% year 1 → 78% year 5 Terminal value (Gordon, g 3%): EUR 285M PV at WACC 11%: EUR 142M enterprise value midpoint Sensitivity 2D (WACC 9.5% to 12.5%, terminal g 2% to 4%): range EUR 118M to EUR 178M.
Leo:Comps cross-check. 8 listed vertical SaaS peers, median EV/ARR fwd 6.8x. Applied to fwd ARR EUR 21M: EUR 143M. Converging with DCF midpoint.
Gate check: 'not investment advice' disclaimer injected. Assumption flags listed: growth decay (standard curve), terminal growth (user-provided), WACC (user-provided), FCF conversion ramp (estimated). Source attribution applied. 🟢
Leo:Valuation triangulation: EUR 135M to EUR 160M EV. At 6.8x ARR entry (EUR 102M), implied IRR at 5y exit (8x ARR) = 26%. At 8.0x entry (EUR 120M), IRR = 21%. I recommend anchoring NBO at EUR 115M to EUR 125M range.
[Invoking reporting-output for memo and IC summary.]
→ dcf-targetco-v1.xlsx, 5y explicit + sensitivity + comps
→ valuation-memo.docx, 7 pages, 3 methodologies triangulated
→ ic-summary-2pager.pdf, 2 pages, branded

Deliverables

  • DCF model (.xlsx) with sensitivity and comps
  • Valuation memo (.docx), 7 pages
  • IC-ready 2-pager (.pdf)

Quality gates

  • Not investment advice disclaimer
  • Assumption flags
  • Source attribution

Time

20 minutes

End-to-end, input to deliverable.

Example 04/Leopoldo for Legalagent: contract-flow

Contract review against playbook: vendor MSA

In-house counsel reviews a vendor-favourable SaaS MSA against the company playbook. Output: redlined draft, negotiation matrix, and risk-rated summary memo.

Scenario

In-house counsel, B2B company. Vendor-drafted MSA for a mid-size SaaS procurement. Playbook loaded: standard positions, fallback language, walkaway clauses. Counterparty: US vendor, governing law New York.

You:Review this vendor MSA against our playbook. Flag anything off-market, propose redline.
[Routing to contract-flow agent. Loading playbook from .leopoldo/playbooks/contract-review.yaml.]
Leo:Playbook loaded (14 standard positions, 8 fallback clauses, 3 walkaway triggers). Running clause-by-clause diff.
Leo:Clause-by-clause diff complete. 11 deviations from playbook: 🔴 Liability cap at 6M of fees (playbook: 12M). Walkaway trigger crossed. Must negotiate. 🔴 IP ownership: vendor retains 'Aggregated Data' (playbook: customer retains all data). Risk: competitive intelligence leakage. 🟡 Indemnification excludes IPR third-party claims (playbook: includes). Fallback language available. 🟡 Termination for convenience: 90 days (playbook: 30 days). 🟡 Service credits capped at 10% of monthly fee (playbook: 25%). 🟡 Auto-renewal 36 months (playbook: 12 months). 🟡 Audit rights: once per year, 30-day notice (playbook: once per 6 months, 15-day notice). 🟢 Payment terms: Net 30 (matches playbook) 🟢 Governing law: NY (acceptable per playbook for US vendors) 🟢 Dispute: AAA arbitration, NY seat (acceptable) 🟢 DPA: attached, GDPR-compliant (meets playbook)
Leo:Preparing redline. Ask, Fallback, Walkaway matrix for each red and yellow item. References: Art. 1341 Italian Civil Code for onerous clauses, NY UCC Art. 2 for limitations.
[Invoking contract-reviewer sub-routine for redline generation.]
Gate check: 'not legal advice' disclaimer injected. Legal citations formatted (full article + code). Jurisdiction flag: NY governing law, cross-border enforcement noted. 🟢
Leo:Redline complete. 11 tracked changes, 6 margin comments, 3 walkaway flags. Negotiation matrix built.
[Invoking reporting-output for deliverables.]
→ msa-vendor-redline.docx, tracked changes + comments
→ negotiation-matrix.xlsx, 11 items, Ask/Fallback/Walkaway
→ review-memo.docx, 5 pages, risk-rated

Deliverables

  • Redlined MSA (.docx) with tracked changes
  • Negotiation matrix, 11 items (.xlsx)
  • Review memo, risk-rated (.docx)

Quality gates

  • Not legal advice disclaimer
  • Legal citation format
  • Jurisdiction flag

Time

30 minutes

End-to-end, input to deliverable.

Example 05/Leopoldo for Markets Proagent: markets-pro

Equity research note and price target on a listed industrial

Portfolio manager of a mid-cap fund requests a valuation and recommendation on a listed European industrial. Output: 2-page research note, comp table, and Buy/Hold/Sell rating with price target.

Scenario

PM of European mid-cap fund. Target: listed industrial, market cap EUR 2.8B, 3-year revenue CAGR 7%, EBITDA margin 14%, net debt 1.4x EBITDA, dividend yield 3.2%. Needs note by EOD for Monday's investment committee.

You:Need a research note on a listed industrial, mkt cap 2.8B EUR. Valuation + rating + PT by EOD. Internal IC Monday morning.
[Routing to markets-pro agent.]
Leo:Acknowledged. Standard note structure: (1) thesis, (2) financials last 3Y + forecast, (3) peer valuation, (4) DCF, (5) technical layer, (6) risks, (7) rating + PT. Confirm ticker and I pull financials.
You:Ticker is IND.MI. Pull last 3 years from consolidated accounts.
[Invoking markets-pro for financial extraction. Data source: user-confirmed consolidated accounts.]
Leo:Financials extracted (2023-2025): Revenue CAGR: 7.2% EBITDA margin: 14.1% (2023) → 14.6% (2025) FCF conversion: 62% avg ND/EBITDA: 1.4x (2025), from 1.9x (2023) → deleveraging trend ROIC: 11.8% (2025), vs WACC 8.5%
Leo:Peer group assembled (5 comps, EU mid-cap industrials): Median fwd EV/EBITDA: 7.2x (target trades at 6.4x → 11% discount) Median P/E: 13.5x (target 12.1x → 10% discount) Median dividend yield: 2.8% (target 3.2% → premium)
Leo:DCF (5y explicit, WACC 8.5%, g 2%): fair value per share EUR 38.50. Current price EUR 34.20. Upside 12.6%.
Leo:Technical layer: 200-day MA at EUR 32.80, acting as support. Resistance at EUR 36.50 (2023 high). RSI 58 (neutral). Momentum positive but not overbought.
Gate check: 'informational only, not investment advice' disclaimer injected. Source attribution applied (user-provided financials, public peer data). Assumption log attached (WACC, terminal g, margin path). 🟢
Leo:Triangulated target: EUR 37.00 to EUR 39.00. Midpoint EUR 38.00. Current EUR 34.20. Upside 11%. Rating: BUY. Main risks: (1) cyclical exposure to EU capex, (2) input cost inflation, (3) FX EUR/USD. Catalysts: (1) margin expansion plan, (2) potential M&A in aftermarket.
[Invoking reporting-output to build note and comp table.]
→ research-note-ind-mi.pdf, 2 pages, branded
→ comp-table.xlsx, 5 peers, EV/EBITDA + P/E + FCF yield
→ rating-summary.docx, BUY, PT EUR 38.00, risks + catalysts

Deliverables

  • Research note, 2 pages (.pdf)
  • Peer comp table (.xlsx)
  • Rating summary: BUY, PT EUR 38.00

Quality gates

  • Informational only disclaimer
  • Source attribution
  • Assumption log

Time

25 minutes

End-to-end, input to deliverable.

Configure this for your team.

Every example above was produced with a standard domain configuration. When we deploy Leopoldo on your workflows, the same system runs on your templates, your methodology, your quality standards.

See servicesBook a call