本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

analyzing-insurtech-models

Evaluates insurtech business models with distribution innovation, underwriting technology, and claims automation. Use when analyzing insurtech, evaluating digital insurance, or assessing insurance technology.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Analyzing Insurtech Models

When To Use

  • Evaluating an insurtech startup's business model for investment, partnership, or competitive analysis
  • Assessing the viability of a digital insurance distribution strategy (D2C, embedded, marketplace)
  • Analyzing underwriting technology capabilities — ML-based risk scoring, parametric triggers, or real-time data ingestion
  • Reviewing claims automation platforms for efficiency, fraud detection, and customer experience impact
  • Benchmarking an insurtech's unit economics against traditional carrier or MGA models

Inputs To Gather

  • Company overview: Entity name, founding date, funding stage, total capital raised, key investors
  • Business model classification: Full-stack carrier, MGA/MGU, broker/agent platform, embedded insurance provider, claims-only SaaS, or reinsurance intermediary
  • Product lines: Coverage types offered (P&C, life, health, specialty), target customer segments (SMB, consumer, enterprise)
  • Technology stack: Core platform architecture, underwriting engine details, data sources used for risk assessment, claims processing tools
  • Distribution channels: Direct-to-consumer, B2B2C embedded partnerships, agent/broker network, API-first distribution
  • Financial data: GWP/NWP, loss ratio, combined ratio, expense ratio, retention rates, LTV/CAC where available
  • Regulatory posture: Licenses held, states/jurisdictions of operation, carrier partners (if MGA), reinsurance arrangements [VERIFY jurisdiction-specific licensing requirements]

Workflow

  1. Classify the model type

    • Determine whether the company operates as a full-stack carrier, MGA/MGU, technology vendor, or hybrid
    • Map the value chain position: product design, underwriting, distribution, servicing, claims, or multi-segment
    • Identify whether risk is retained on-balance-sheet, ceded to carrier partners, or passed through reinsurance
  2. Evaluate distribution innovation

    • Assess channel strategy: embedded insurance via API partnerships, digital-direct, affinity groups, or platform marketplace
    • Analyze customer acquisition cost relative to traditional brokers (~15-25% commission) and digital benchmarks
    • Review integration depth with distribution partners (API-level, white-label, co-branded)
    • Gauge switching costs and channel lock-in potential
  3. Assess underwriting technology

    • Identify data sources beyond traditional actuarial inputs (telematics, IoT, satellite imagery, behavioral data, social signals)
    • Evaluate real-time vs. batch underwriting decisioning and bind-time latency
    • Examine adverse selection controls and portfolio composition management
    • Determine whether proprietary algorithms create defensible underwriting advantage or merely automate standard tables
    • Flag parametric or index-based trigger mechanisms if applicable [VERIFY regulatory treatment of parametric products varies by state/country]
  4. Analyze claims automation

    • Map the claims lifecycle: FNOL intake, triage, investigation, adjustment, payment
    • Quantify automation rate at each stage — straight-through processing percentage for low-complexity claims
    • Evaluate fraud detection capabilities (rules-based, ML-based, network analysis)
    • Assess customer NPS/satisfaction metrics tied to claims experience
    • Review average cycle time vs. industry benchmarks (auto: ~12 days, homeowners: ~15-30 days) [VERIFY benchmarks shift by line and geography]
  5. Stress-test unit economics

    • Calculate loss ratio trends over 12-36 months; distinguish attritional from catastrophe losses
    • Compute combined ratio and compare to breakeven thresholds (~100% for carriers, ~80-85% for MGAs after ceding commissions)
    • Model LTV/CAC for policyholders, factoring retention rate and cross-sell potential
    • Evaluate expense ratio drivers: technology spend amortization, customer acquisition, regulatory compliance overhead
    • Assess capital efficiency: premium-to-surplus ratio, reinsurance leverage, and risk-based capital adequacy [VERIFY RBC requirements per domicile state]
  6. Identify regulatory and structural risks

    • Review carrier dependency risk for MGAs (single vs. multi-carrier panel, contract renewal terms)
    • Assess regulatory concentration — number of state licenses, surplus lines vs. admitted market positioning
    • Evaluate data privacy exposure given volume of personal/health/telematics data processed [VERIFY CCPA, state privacy law, and HIPAA applicability depending on line of business]
    • Flag any pending regulatory actions, market conduct exams, or consumer complaints

Output

Produce an Insurtech Model Analysis Report containing:

  • Executive summary: One-paragraph assessment of model viability, competitive positioning, and key risk/opportunity
  • Model classification table: Business type, value chain position, risk retention structure, and regulatory status
  • Distribution scorecard: Channel mix, CAC benchmarks, integration depth, and scalability assessment
  • Underwriting technology assessment: Data advantage rating, automation level, adverse selection controls
  • Claims capability matrix: Automation rate by stage, cycle time benchmarks, fraud detection maturity
  • Financial profile: Loss ratio, combined ratio, expense ratio, LTV/CAC, capital efficiency metrics
  • Risk register: Top 5 risks ranked by likelihood and impact (regulatory, concentration, technology, capital, competitive)
  • Comparative positioning: Where the company sits relative to 2-3 named peers or traditional incumbents

Quality Checks

  • All financial ratios are sourced or calculated from stated inputs — no fabricated metrics
  • Loss ratio and combined ratio calculations are internally consistent (loss + expense = combined)
  • Model classification aligns with actual risk retention structure, not marketing language
  • Regulatory status flags carry [VERIFY] where jurisdiction-specific confirmation is needed
  • Benchmark comparisons cite the line of business and time period used
  • Report distinguishes between confirmed data and analyst inference throughout
  • Carrier dependency and reinsurance arrangement risks are addressed for MGA/MGU models

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Complete architecture reference for the A3 insurance platform — file locations, data flow, conventions, microservice map, and fullstack patterns

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

Drafts U.S. commercial real estate access and indemnity (right-of-entry) agreements for pre-closing due diligence. Covers license grants, non-invasive vs invasive testing gates, insurance/endorsement requirements, indemnity with discovery carve-outs, restoration and lien remedies, confidentiality, and anti-indemnity guardrails. Trigger: access agreement, right of entry, due diligence access, Phase I/II, invasive testing, pre-PSA site inspection.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

当用户需要对意外险投保问卷进行专业、结构化的核保审查,提取职业类别、工作环境、作业内容、危险活动参与情况、交通出行习惯、特殊工作暴露及其他可能影响意外险承保判断的高风险信息,并生成适合意外险核保、补问流转和风险分层处理的结构化分析结果时使用本 skill。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

Inspect, schema, and fill true AcroForm PDFs using sciClaw's pdf_form_inspect, pdf_form_schema, and pdf_form_fill tools. Use when: (1) checking whether a PDF is a real fillable AcroForm, (2) listing form field names, types, and choices, (3) filling a supported form from structured values, (4) preparing reviewable insurance, legal, administrative, or clinical form drafts, (5) reporting skipped fields or unused input keys after a fill. Do not use for scanned PDFs, OCR tasks, or XFA-only forms.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

Guide actuarial analysis for insurance pricing. TRIGGERS - Use when user needs help with actuarial-analysis related tasks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

Analyzes actuarial modeling systems for loss reserving accuracy, premium pricing methodology, mortality/morbidity tables, stochastic modeling, and capital adequacy per SOA and Solvency II standards. USE THIS SKILL WHEN: - You need to review or audit actuarial models (reserving, pricing, capital) - Someone asks about loss triangle analysis or reserve adequacy - You are evaluating IBNR calculations, chain ladder methods, or Bornhuetter-Ferguson - A project involves insurance pricing, GLM rating models, or ratemaking - You need to assess Solvency II SCR calculations or RBC compliance - Someone mentions actuarial opinions, ASOP compliance, or SOA standards - You are reviewing stochastic models, ESG configurations, or DFA frameworks - A codebase uses actuarial libraries (chainladder, lifetables, ChainLadder R package) TRIGGER PHRASES: "actuarial", "loss reserving", "IBNR", "chain ladder", "premium pricing", "mortality table", "Solvency II", "capital adequacy", "ratemaking", "GLM pricing", "risk-based capital", "reserve analysis", "actuarial opinion"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

FDU-INS/Insurance-Skills762026年7月12日 更新

FDU-INS のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する