| name | finance-billing-ops |
| description | Evidence-first revenue, pricing, refunds, team-billing, and billing-model truth workflow for an autonomous agent operator. Use when the user wants a sales snapshot, pricing comparison, duplicate-charge diagnosis, or code-backed billing reality instead of generic payments advice. |
| origin | ECC |
| cluster | agentic-ops |
| version | 1.0.0 |
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 agent-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
customer-billing-ops for customer-specific remediation and follow-upresearch-ops when competitor pricing or current market evidence mattersmarket-research when the answer should end in a pricing recommendationgithub-ops when the billing truth depends on code, backlog, or release state in sibling reposverification-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
