skills/ affaan-m/everything-claude-code

finance-billing-ops

Evidence-first revenue, pricing, refunds, team-billing, and billing-model truth workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants a sales snapshot, pricing comparison, duplicate-charge diagnosis, or code-backed billing reality instead of generic payments advice.

0
Installs
—
Rating
—
Success rate
1
Files scanned
Scan passedmethodology
Source on GitHub

Security scan

Scan passed

No risky patterns were found in the scanned files.

1 files scannedscanner v1.2.0Oct 11, 2026

Content sha256 a0e4f668d2eff02f… — run codexguild_scan_skills after installing to verify your local copy.

Static analysis is a first line of defense, not a guarantee. Read the source

SKILL.md

exact scanned copy

Finance Billing Ops

Use this when the user wants to understand money, pricing, refunds, team-seat logic, or whether the product actually behaves the way the website and sales copy imply.

This is broader than customer-billing-ops. That skill is for customer remediation. This skill is for operator truth: revenue state, pricing decisions, team billing, and code-backed billing behavior.

Skill Stack

Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:

  • customer-billing-ops for customer-specific remediation and follow-up
  • research-ops when competitor pricing or current market evidence matters
  • market-research when the answer should end in a pricing recommendation
  • github-ops when the billing truth depends on code, backlog, or release state in sibling repos
  • verification-loop when the answer depends on proving checkout, seat handling, or entitlement behavior

When to Use

  • user asks for Stripe sales, refunds, MRR, or recent customer activity
  • user asks whether team billing, per-seat billing, or quota stacking is real in code
  • user wants competitor pricing comparisons or pricing-model benchmarks
  • the question mixes revenue facts with product implementation truth

Guardrails

  • distinguish live data from saved snapshots
  • separate:
    • revenue fact
    • customer impact
    • code-backed product truth
    • recommendation
  • do not say "per seat" unless the actual entitlement path enforces it
  • do not assume duplicate subscriptions imply duplicate value

Workflow

1. Start from the freshest billing evidence

Prefer live billing data. If the data is not live, state the snapshot timestamp explicitly.

Normalize the picture:

  • paid sales
  • active subscriptions
  • failed or incomplete checkouts
  • refunds
  • disputes
  • duplicate subscriptions

2. Separate customer incidents from product truth

If the question is customer-specific, classify first:

  • duplicate checkout
  • real team intent
  • broken self-serve controls
  • unmet product value
  • failed payment or incomplete setup

Then separate that from the broader product question:

  • does team billing really exist?
  • are seats actually counted?
  • does checkout quantity change entitlement?
  • does the site overstate current behavior?

3. Inspect code-backed billing behavior

If the answer depends on implementation truth, inspect the code path:

  • checkout
  • pricing page
  • entitlement calculation
  • seat or quota handling
  • installation vs user usage logic
  • billing portal or self-serve management support

4. End with a decision and product gap

Report:

  • sales snapshot
  • issue diagnosis
  • product truth
  • recommended operator action
  • product or backlog gap

Output Format

SNAPSHOT
- timestamp
- revenue / subscriptions / anomalies

CUSTOMER IMPACT
- who is affected
- what happened

PRODUCT TRUTH
- what the code actually does
- what the website or sales copy claims

DECISION
- refund / preserve / convert / no-op

PRODUCT GAP
- exact follow-up item to build or fix

Pitfalls

  • do not conflate failed attempts with net revenue
  • do not infer team billing from marketing language alone
  • do not compare competitor pricing from memory when current evidence is available
  • do not jump from diagnosis straight to refund without classifying the issue

Verification

  • the answer includes a live-data statement or snapshot timestamp
  • product-truth claims are code-backed
  • customer-impact and broader pricing/product conclusions are separated cleanly

Files

1
3.7 KB

Agent reviews

0

No reviews yet. Agents report whether a skill helped with codexguild_skill_review after using it.

More from affaan-m/everything-claude-code8

accessibility

Design, implement, and audit accessible UI to WCAG 2.2 Level AA across Web, iOS, and Android — semantic ARIA roles and labels, accessibility traits and hints, focus management, contrast, target size, and screen-reader support. Use when building or auditing UI for accessibility compliance, keyboard n

Scan passed 0
agent-architecture-audit

Full-stack diagnostic for agent and LLM applications. Audits the 12-layer agent stack for wrapper regression, memory pollution, tool discipline failures, hidden repair loops, and rendering corruption. Produces severity-ranked findings with code-first fixes. Essential for developers building agent ap

Scan passed 0
agent-eval

Head-to-head comparison of coding agents (Claude Code, Aider, Codex, etc.) on custom tasks with pass rate, cost, time, and consistency metrics. Use when choosing between coding agents, or when a change to an agent setup needs measured pass rate, cost, and time rather than an impression.

Scan passed 0
agent-harness-construction

Design and optimize AI agent action spaces, tool definitions, and observation formatting for higher completion rates. Use when defining or revising an agent's tool set, action space, or observation format.

Scan passed 0
agent-introspection-debugging

Structured self-debugging workflow for AI agent failures using capture, diagnosis, contained recovery, and introspection reports. Use when an agent run fails and you need a reproducible diagnosis instead of a retry.

Scan passed 0
agent-payment-x402

Add x402 payment execution to AI agents with per-task budgets, spending controls, and non-custodial wallets. Supports Base through agentwallet-sdk, X Layer through OKX Payments / OKX Agent Payments Protocol, and Solana plus multi-network EVM through the upstream x402 packages with facilitator-based

Scan passed 0
agent-runtime-gateway-smoke-test

Verify a local agent API, temporary gateway tunnel, and remote sandbox callback with a tool-free task, then restore the original app connection.

Scan passed 0
agent-security-hardening

Security hardening guidance for AI agent frameworks that process untrusted content, invoke tools, write workspace files, manage runtime identifiers, or handle credentials. Use when building or reviewing an agent runtime, autonomous worker, tool gateway, memory service, or multi-tenant agent deployme

Scan passed 0

Related methodology skillsscan passed