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.
Scanned 9/19/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add majinmagros/magros.ai-skills --skill finance-billing-ops --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Finance Billing Ops?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/majinmagros-finance-billing-ops)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: finance-billing-ops
description: 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.
metadata:
origin: ECC
---
# 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
## Exemplo
```text
Pergunta: "o per-seat é real ou só copy do site?"
Evidência: Stripe (MRR, reembolsos) + código (entitlement trava 2ª sessão?)
Verdade: plano diz "ilimitado" mas código limita seats → gap p/ backlog
Separado: fato receita / impacto cliente / verdade no código / recomendação
```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!