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.
By affaan-m · 2,833 installs
npx skills add affaan-m/ecc --skill finance-billing-ops
Source repository · Upstream listing
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
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