Plan-only pricing and packaging audit: value metric, tiers, price points, free-tier boundary, annual and enterprise anchors, credits, plus a willingness-to-pay research plan. Use when "pricing strategy", "what should I charge", "value metric", "seat vs usage", "are we underpriced". Page → enhance-web-conversion.
Scanned 9/23/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add kensaurus/cursor-kenji --skill plan-pricing --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Plan Pricing?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/kensaurus-plan-pricing)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: plan-pricing
description: >
Plan-only pricing and packaging audit: value metric, tiers, price points,
free-tier boundary, annual and enterprise anchors, credits, plus a
willingness-to-pay research plan. Use when "pricing strategy", "what should
I charge", "value metric", "seat vs usage", "are we underpriced". Page →
enhance-web-conversion.
license: MIT
---
# plan-pricing — What to charge for, then how much
**Degree of freedom: MIXED.** Repo inventory and the research-method order
`[LOW freedom — run exactly]`; value-metric choice, tier design, and price
corridor `[HIGH freedom]`. Stay **plan-only**: no price, plan enum, Stripe
product, or copy edits until approved.
**Role:** Pricing lead who reads billing code. The repo shows what is metered
and gated today; the founder owns the number.
**Task:** Inventory the current model, pick the value metric, design ≤3
tiers, propose a price corridor with the research that would confirm it, emit
`plan-pricing.md`. **Change nothing until approved.**
## This skill vs neighbors
| Skill | Owns |
|---|---|
| **plan-pricing** (this) | Value metric, packaging, price points, research plan |
| `plan-gtm` | Chose freemium / trial / open-core; hands the model here |
| `enhance-web-conversion` | The pricing *page* — copy, anchor, toggle, prompts |
| `audit-payment-system` | Whether checkout, webhooks, proration actually work |
| `audit-monetization-iap` | Mobile store prices and entitlements |
| `plan-llm-cost-guardrails` | Caps and breakers when the metric is tokens |
Do **not** fire for "fix the pricing page" → `enhance-web-conversion`.
## How to reason (every proposal)
1. **Metric** — which unit rises when the customer gets more value, and can they estimate it before signing?
2. **Package** — which capabilities belong together for which segment; does one meter span all tiers?
3. **Point** — where does the price sit against alternatives, cost, and the corridor the research gives?
4. **Prove** — which method (Van Westendorp → Gabor-Granger → MaxDiff → conjoint) confirms it, and what would change the answer?
## Worked example
> **Metric:** a bug-report SDK meters `reports/month`; buyers think in
> "apps monitored" and can estimate that before signing. Propose: primary metric
> = apps, secondary overage = reports beyond an allowance.
> **Package:** Free 1 app / 50 reports · Pro 3 apps · Team 10 apps + SSO;
> Enterprise "from ¥…" with audit log. Three tiers, same CTA verb.
> **Point:** Pro at ¥2,900/mo sits under the cheapest alternative's ¥4,800;
> current ¥980 is inside the "too cheap" band two customers named in interviews.
> **Prove:** Van Westendorp on the 40 free-tier accounts for a corridor, then
> Gabor-Granger on Pro; keep the metric fixed for two years, revisit rates.
## Self-critique before the burndown [LOW freedom — do not skip]
1. **one-metric-sentence** — "Our customer receives more value when ___ increases" is written and the metric is that blank
2. **estimable** — a buyer can predict their bill before signing; usage meters show the unit, allowance, and a live estimate
3. **anchor-present** — the enterprise or top tier shows a number or "from"; nothing is pure "Contact sales"
4. **corridor-not-guess** — every price point cites a method run or planned, or a named alternative's price; otherwise **unmeasured**
5. **plan-only** — no plan enum, Stripe product, price, or copy changed
6. **right-owner** — page copy → `enhance-web-conversion`; billing correctness → `audit-payment-system`
---
## Step 1 — Inventory [LOW freedom — run exactly]
| Area | Grep / open | Records |
|---|---|---|
| Plans & gates | `plan`, `tier`, `isPro`, `entitlement`, feature flags keyed on plan; Stripe/Paddle/Lemon product IDs | current tiers, what each gates |
| Metering | `usage`, `credits`, `quota`, `limit`, counters, metered prices, `usage_metered` events | what is counted today, what is billed |
| Price points | pricing route, Stripe dashboard export, `prices` table | monthly / annual / currency per tier |
| Trial & free | `trial_ends_at`, downgrade jobs, free-plan limits | model in force |
| Cost | per-action cost (LLM tokens, storage, compute) | floor for any usage price |
| Customers | plan distribution, upgrade/downgrade events, churn reasons, "too expensive" in support | willingness-to-pay evidence already owned |
| Alternatives | the three the founder named in `plan-gtm`; their public prices and metrics | anchor context |
## Step 2 — Value metric [HIGH freedom]
List candidate units (seats, projects, apps, transactions, rows, runs, revenue
managed, outcomes). Score each 1–5 on: **value connection**, **fairness /
familiarity**, **predictability** (buyer can forecast it), **scalability**
(grows with the account), **billability** (you can meter it). Keep one primary
metric; add a usage component only where a material variable cost is not
covered by the primary. Simulate the metric on real historical accounts —
prices that look absurd for a specific account reveal a missing segment or a
weak proxy.
| Metric | Works when | Watch for |
|---|---|---|
| Seats | value and cost grow with active people | seat friction throttles adoption |
| Usage / transactions | each unit is meaningful work | usage without a matching result; bill shock (41% of buyers cite unpredictable cost as the top objection) |
| Data volume | processing or storage is the value | business buyers cannot forecast bytes |
| Scope (apps, sites, locations) | deployment breadth drives value | flat within a unit |
| Outcomes | attribution is objective and agreed | disputes; measurement debt |
Hybrid (base + usage) is now 41% of B2B SaaS; AI-native products price on
outcomes 4× more often. A model name is shorthand for a metric choice — pick
the metric first, then the cadence.
## Step 3 — Packaging [HIGH freedom]
≤3 self-serve tiers good-better-best from the outside in (what the segment
is trying to accomplish), recommended middle, higher tier on the right as the
anchor, enterprise shows "from". Free-tier boundary sits just before the
activation event's natural repeat — enough to reach value, not enough to
live there. Annual = 15–25% off, stated as months free. Credits: unit,
included amount, live estimate, and a hard cap the user sets.
## Step 4 — Price corridor and research [LOW freedom — order]
1. **Van Westendorp** (four questions: too cheap / bargain / expensive / too
expensive) on current users → acceptable range. Directional only.
2. **Gabor-Granger** on the recommended tier → revenue-maximizing point.
3. **MaxDiff** when too many features compete for tier placement.
4. **Conjoint** last, when redesigning bundles.
Plus win/loss notes and one in-market test after approval. Underpricing "to
reduce friction" attracts the curious, not the committed (one indie raise
£9 → £19 moved month-3 retention 42% → 67%). Sources in
`plan-gtm/references/benchmarks-2026.md`.
## Step 5 — Emit `plan-pricing.md`, end the turn [LOW freedom — run exactly]
```markdown
# Pricing Plan — <product>
_Plan-only. Nothing changes until approved._
## Current model (evidence)
| Tier | Price | Gates | Metered | Source |
## Value metric
"Our customer receives more value when ___ increases."
| Candidate | Value | Fair | Predictable | Scales | Billable | Verdict |
## Proposed packaging
| Tier | For whom | Includes | Limit | Monthly | Annual (months free) |
Enterprise: from … · Free boundary: …
## Price corridor
| Tier | Floor (cost) | Alternatives | VW range | Proposed | Confidence |
## Research plan
| Method | Sample | Question | Decides |
## Risks & keep-working
- migration of existing customers (grandfather / notice period)
- metering accuracy before any usage price ships (`audit-payment-system`)
## Phased burndown
- **Phase 1 — Research** → interviews + Van Westendorp survey (`docs-coauthor` for the script)
- **Phase 2 — Page** → `enhance-web-conversion`
- **Phase 3 — Billing** → `audit-payment-system`, Stripe products, proration, grandfathering
- **Phase 4 — Measure** → `audit-analytics` (`pricing_viewed`, `plan_selected`, `checkout_*`), 60-day review
```
## Guardrails
- **Plan only.** No prices, plan enums, Stripe objects, or copy.
- **The number is the founder's.** Recommend a corridor and a method; log their decision.
- **No bait.** Price shown before checkout; cancel and downgrade paths stay.
- **Grandfather or notify.** Existing customers are a named row in the plan.
## Chains with
- **`plan-gtm`** → model decision in; pricing plan out.
- **`enhance-web-conversion`** → the page after approval.
- **`audit-payment-system`** → before any metered price ships.
- **`plan-llm-cost-guardrails`** → when the metric is tokens or compute.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!