| name | refund-dispute-handler |
| description | Guide controlled refunds, reversals, chargebacks, and disputes with eligibility checks, evidence, deadlines, approval, and audit trails. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| since | 2026-08-27 |
| last_modified | 2026-08-27 |
| authors | ["platform-engineering"] |
| stability | stable |
| min_platform_version | {"codex":"unknown","amazon-q":"unknown","antigravity":"unknown","auggie":"unknown","bob":"unknown","claude-code":"unknown","cline":"unknown","codebuddy":"unknown","continue":"unknown","costrict":"unknown","crush":"unknown","github-copilot":"unknown","gitlab-duo":"unknown","factory":"unknown","forgecode":"unknown","opencode":"unknown","openhands":"unknown","cursor":"unknown","roo-code":"unknown","kiro":"unknown","junie":"unknown","gemini-cli":"unknown","iflow":"unknown","kilocode":"unknown","kimi":"unknown","lingma":"unknown","pi":"unknown","qoder":"unknown","qwen":"unknown","windsurf":"unknown","ollama":"unknown"} |
| deprecated_since | null |
| replaces | null |
| supersedes | [] |
| changelog | [{"version":"1.0.0","date":"2026-08-27","change":"Initial generated production-ready SDLC / DevSecOps skill"}] |
Refund Dispute Handler
Purpose
Guide controlled refund, reversal, chargeback, and dispute workflows with eligibility checks, evidence packaging, deadlines, segregation of duties, customer communication, and explicit approval. Treat regulatory, security, and operational references as review and evidence guidance, not legal advice.
Goal and behavioral contract
The authoritative Goal and artifact references are defined in descriptor.yaml. Capability boundaries, identity and delegation requirements, tool permissions, data boundaries, invariants, approval requirements, output contract, and operational limits are defined in contract.yaml. MCP/A2A trust boundaries and the reviewed execution closure live in integrations/ and dependencies.yaml; ASPS and assurance requirements live in assurance.yaml.
Treat those declarations as mandatory execution constraints. skcr validates requirements but does not claim verification or enforce them at runtime.
When to use
- refund and dispute handling decisions, controls, or operating practices need independent review.
- A change affects refund and dispute handling artifacts such as refund request, captured-payment record, dispute case, evidence package, approval record, customer communication.
- The user needs evidence-oriented findings for risks such as refund above captured amount, duplicate refund, missed dispute deadline, unsupported evidence submission, approval bypass, unsafe autonomous money movement.
- Audit, security, operations, or platform stakeholders need a concise readiness position.
- Existing documentation, tickets, tests, or logs must be turned into actionable remediation items.
Operating model
- Identify the relevant refund and dispute handling artifacts, owners, systems, environments, and review boundary.
- Compare the available artifacts against expected signals such as refund eligibility decision, provider refund status, dispute due date, approver identity, ledger adjustment, case audit trail.
- Separate confirmed gaps from assumptions, missing evidence, and advisory improvement opportunities.
- Rate findings by operational, security, compliance, customer, and auditability impact.
- Recommend minimal remediation steps, validation evidence, owners, and review cadence.
- Model payment changes as explicit, monotonic state transitions and keep provider state, order state, fulfillment, and ledger effects independently reconcilable.
- Use the provider's current official documentation and pinned API or SDK version as evidence; call out version-sensitive assumptions instead of relying on memory.
