affaan-m/ecc

finance-billing-ops

Evidence-first revenue, pricing, refunds, team-billing, and billing-model truth workflow for ECC.

ソースを見る

使い方

  1. インストールコマンドをコピーし、自分の環境へ導入する前にソースを確認します。
  2. 必要なツール、認証情報、対応環境を原文で確認します。
  3. 入力と成果物を指定し、出力を資料と照合します。
npx skills add https://github.com/affaan-m/ecc --skill finance-billing-ops

開始前の確認

  • 導入にはモデル契約、API枠、ファイルへのアクセス許可は含まれません。
  • スター数や導入数は活動の指標であり、独立した品質・安全性試験ではありません。
リポジトリの原文

見出し、例、コード、表、リンク、参照画像を含む原文を表示しています。

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

text
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

タスクに関連する項目

同じリポジトリから

関連する Skills

すべての Skills
affaan-m
コミュニティ

agentic-os

Build persistent multi-agent operating systems on Claude Code. Covers kernel architecture, specialist agents, slash commands, file-based memory, scheduled automation, and state management without external databases. Use when building a persistent multi-agent system on Claude Code with its own memory, commands, and scheduling.

導入数
4
GitHub Stars
28.6万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

autonomous-loops

Patterns and architectures for autonomous Claude Code loops — from simple sequential pipelines to RFC-driven multi-agent DAG systems. Retained for compatibility only: when new autonomous loop guidance is needed, use continuous-agent-loop instead.

導入数
4
GitHub Stars
28.6万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

coding-standards

Baseline cross-project coding conventions for naming, readability, immutability, and code-quality review. Use detailed frontend or backend skills for framework-specific patterns. Use when reviewing code quality or naming with no framework-specific skill that applies.

導入数
4
GitHub Stars
28.6万
更新日
10月20日
affaan-m
コミュニティ

configure-ecc

Run the conversational ECC setup wizard inside the current harness: inventory the install, collect scope (user/project/local) and hook mode (off/minimal/standard/strict) in Claude Code, use Codex's native plugin lifecycle, or install the project surface under ./.kimi-code, then preview, apply, and verify. Use when installing, updating, reconfiguring, or repairing an ECC installation, changing hook profiles, or moving ECC between install scopes.

導入数
4
GitHub Stars
28.6万
更新日
10月20日