janderscience-skills 0.0.0-stage → 1.0.0

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/pricing-and-packaging/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+name: pricing-and-packaging
+description: Sets price, structures packages and tiers, and designs the monetization surfaces that carry them — upgrade paths, paywalls, and offer construction. Use this to set or change pricing, design or restructure tiers, choose a pricing metric, build an offer, design upgrade prompts and paywalls, or evaluate whether a pricing change is safe to make.
+---
+
+# Pricing and packaging
+
+The highest-leverage number in the business and the least examined. Most companies are underpriced
+and have never tested it.
+
+## The pricing metric
+
+Choose what you charge *per* before choosing how much. It should scale with the value the customer
+receives, be predictable enough to budget, and be something they cannot easily game.
+
+Get this wrong and no amount of tuning the number fixes it — a metric that scales with your cost
+rather than their value creates a permanent argument at every renewal.
+
+## Setting the level
+
+Anchor on value delivered, not cost incurred. Cost sets a floor and nothing else.
+
+Evidence to gather: what the alternative costs them today including labor, what similar categories
+charge, and what current customers say about price — with the caveat that nobody says a price is too
+low. Willingness-to-pay research is directional, not decisive; people misreport.
+
+If nobody ever objects to your price, it is too low. Some loss on price is correct.
+
+## Packaging
+
+Tiers should map to distinguishable segments with different needs, not to arbitrary feature counts.
+Three is usually right; more creates paralysis and support load.
+
+Each tier needs one obvious reason to upgrade, tied to something that grows with the customer's
+success. Gating on a feature they will never need does not drive upgrades; gating on a limit they
+will hit does.
+
+Name tiers for who they are for, not by metal. "Team" and "Business" tell a buyer where they belong.
+
+## Monetization surfaces
+
+Upgrade prompts and paywalls should appear at the moment of blocked value — when someone is trying
+to do the thing the tier does not allow, not on a schedule.
+
+Explain what is behind the gate and why the limit exists. An unexplained wall reads as extraction.
+Show the value already received before asking for payment, and make declining easy — dark patterns
+buy one conversion and lose the account.
+
+## Changing price
+
+- Grandfather existing customers, or expect churn well beyond the price-sensitive segment.
+- Announce with real notice and a clear reason.
+- Change one thing at a time — price and packaging together makes the result unreadable.
+- Model the downside first: at what churn rate does this increase lose money?
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Change price without telling existing customers before it takes effect and honoring what they already signed.
+- Pick a pricing metric the customer cannot predict. If they cannot forecast the bill, they will not sign.
+- Add a tier to close a single deal. Tiers are a permanent tax on every conversation after it.
+- Discount without taking something back in exchange — term, scope, payment timing, a reference. A free discount resets the price for everyone.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/pricing-and-packaging/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Sources — `revenue:pricing-and-packaging`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## 15 U.S.C. 8403 — Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act
+
+US Congress, via the Office of the Law Revision Counsel · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section8403&num=0&edition=prelim>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether an online auto-renewal offer is lawful — clear disclosure of material terms before billing, express informed consent, and a simple cancellation mechanism. This area has seen rules issued and struck down, so cite the statute rather than a rule summary.
+
+## App Store Review Guidelines
+
+Apple · global · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/>
+
+Machine-readable: <https://developer.apple.com/app-store/search/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a listing, screenshot set, price presentation or subscription flow will be rejected. Binding for anything shipping through the App Store, and copyrighted — cite the rule number, do not mirror the text.
+
+## California Automatic Renewal Law, Business and Professions Code 17600-17606
+
+California Legislative Counsel · US-CA · public domain — quote freely
+
+<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=1.&part=3.&lawCode=BPC&article=9.>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The concrete cancellation obligations a subscription business actually has to meet, because California's requirements are stricter than the federal floor and apply to any California customer — which in practice makes them the binding ones.
+
+## FASB Accounting Standards Codification
+
+Financial Accounting Standards Board · US · **account required — cite it; the user fetches it**
+
+<https://asc.fasb.org/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** US GAAP as it actually reads — revenue recognition, leases, impairment. The Basic View is free with an account and the text is copyrighted: cite the ASC number, do not reproduce the wording.
+
+## Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 16 CFR 233
+
+US Federal Trade Commission · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-233>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a 'was $X, now $Y', list-price, free-offer or percentage-off claim is lawful as presented.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/referral-programs/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+---
+name: referral-programs
+description: Designs and improves referral, affiliate, and word-of-mouth programs — incentive structure, mechanics, timing, and fraud control. Use this to build a referral or affiliate program, diagnose one that is not producing, decide what incentive to offer, or judge whether referral is a realistic channel for a product.
+---
+
+# Referral programs
+
+## Qualify the channel first
+
+Referral programs amplify existing word of mouth. They do not create it.
+
+If customers are not already recommending you unprompted, a program will not produce them — it will
+produce incentive-motivated signups that churn. Check first: is anyone referring today, and what do
+they say when they do?
+
+## Incentive design
+
+- **Two-sided beats one-sided** in most cases. It gives the referrer something to offer rather than
+  something to gain, which removes the awkwardness that stops most referrals.
+- **Match the reward to the product's value**, not to a round number. Account credit usually
+  outperforms cash, and costs less.
+- **Reward the outcome you want.** Paying on signup buys signups; paying on a retained, activated
+  customer buys customers.
+- **Cash rewards attract fraud**, and fraud scales faster than the program does. Budget for
+  detection before launch, not after.
+
+## Mechanics
+
+The referral has to be effortless at the moment of enthusiasm, which means the ask must appear right
+after a success moment — not in a settings page nobody visits.
+
+- One-click share with pre-written text the referrer can edit.
+- A link that works everywhere and survives being pasted into any app.
+- Visible status: who was invited, what stage they reached, what has been earned. Ambiguity kills
+  repeat referrals.
+- The referred person's experience must be better than a normal signup. Landing them on the generic
+  homepage wastes the introduction.
+
+## Fraud control
+
+Self-referral, disposable accounts, and coordinated rings. Minimum viable controls: reward only on a
+qualifying event well past signup, hold a payout window, deduplicate on payment method and device,
+and cap per-referrer volume pending review.
+
+## Affiliates are a different program
+
+Affiliates are a paid channel with commercial terms, not enthusiastic customers. They need
+attribution rules, cookie windows, prohibited-methods terms — brand bidding and coupon-site
+behavior in particular — and monitoring. Run without terms and you will pay commission on customers
+you already had.
+
+## Measuring
+
+Track referred-customer retention against baseline. If referred customers retain worse, the
+incentive is buying the wrong behavior and the program is losing money while appearing to work.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Launch referrals before the product retains. A referral program amplifies whatever is already there, churn included.
+- Pay a reward before the referred account is real — activated, paid, and past the refund window.
+- Ask for a referral in the same breath as an apology or an open support escalation.
+- Run affiliates and customer referrals on the same terms. They attract different people and need different controls.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/referral-programs/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Sources — `revenue:referral-programs`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, 16 CFR 255
+
+US Federal Trade Commission · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-255>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a given influencer, affiliate, employee or review arrangement requires disclosure, and what counts as an adequate one. The regulation itself, rather than a summary of it.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/retention/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: retention
+description: Diagnoses and reduces churn — cancellation flows, save offers, failed-payment recovery, at-risk detection, and the product and service causes underneath. Use this when churn is rising or unexplained, to design a cancellation or win-back flow, to recover involuntary churn, to identify at-risk accounts before they leave, or to decide whether a retention problem is a product problem.
+---
+
+# Retention
+
+## Separate the two churns first
+
+They have nothing in common but the outcome, and conflating them wastes effort:
+
+- **Involuntary** — payment failed. Often a large share of total churn, entirely mechanical, and the
+  cheapest thing to fix in the whole business.
+- **Voluntary** — they chose to leave.
+
+Fix involuntary first. Card retries on a sensible schedule, dunning emails that reach a human,
+pre-expiry notification, and a grace period that does not immediately cut off access. This is
+recoverable revenue sitting untouched in most companies.
+
+## Diagnosing voluntary churn
+
+Ask when the decision was actually made. It is almost never at cancellation — it is weeks earlier,
+at a failed expectation, an unresolved support issue, or a champion leaving.
+
+Segment churn by tenure, plan, acquisition channel, and activation status. Concentrations tell you
+the cause:
+
+- **Early churn** — activation problem, not retention. Fix onboarding.
+- **Churn at renewal** — value not visible enough to justify the line item.
+- **Churn after a specific event** — find the event: a price change, an outage, a redesign, a
+  champion departure.
+- **Churn concentrated in one channel** — an acquisition problem. You are buying the wrong
+  customers, and no retention work fixes that.
+
+## Cancellation flow
+
+Make canceling straightforward. Obstruction generates chargebacks, public complaints, and in a
+growing number of jurisdictions, regulatory exposure.
+
+Do ask why, with specific options plus free text — this is the highest-quality product feedback you
+will ever receive, from people with no reason to be polite.
+
+Offer a save only where it addresses the stated reason. A discount offered to someone leaving
+because a feature is missing confirms you were not listening. Pause is often the better offer and is
+rarely available.
+
+## At-risk detection
+
+Build a simple signal from declining usage, a support escalation, a champion going quiet, or a seat
+count dropping. Then act on it while intervention is still possible — a health score nobody works is
+a dashboard, not a program.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Count a saved cancellation as retained without checking whether they stayed a quarter later.
+- Treat retention as a service problem when the data says it is a product or acquisition problem.
+- Make cancellation require a phone call.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/retention/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Sources — `revenue:retention`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## 15 U.S.C. 8403 — Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act
+
+US Congress, via the Office of the Law Revision Counsel · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section8403&num=0&edition=prelim>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether an online auto-renewal offer is lawful — clear disclosure of material terms before billing, express informed consent, and a simple cancellation mechanism. This area has seen rules issued and struck down, so cite the statute rather than a rule summary.
+
+## California Automatic Renewal Law, Business and Professions Code 17600-17606
+
+California Legislative Counsel · US-CA · public domain — quote freely
+
+<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?division=7.&chapter=1.&part=3.&lawCode=BPC&article=9.>
+
+**Authoritative for:** The concrete cancellation obligations a subscription business actually has to meet, because California's requirements are stricter than the federal floor and apply to any California customer — which in practice makes them the binding ones.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/revenue-operations/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+---
+name: revenue-operations
+description: Runs the mechanics of the revenue engine — lead lifecycle definitions, routing, CRM hygiene, forecasting process, pipeline reporting, and the marketing-to-sales handoff. Use this to fix a broken handoff, define lifecycle stages, improve forecast accuracy, clean up CRM data, design territory or routing rules, or diagnose why pipeline numbers are not trusted.
+---
+
+# Revenue operations
+
+## Definitions before dashboards
+
+Most revenue reporting arguments are definitional. Write down and get agreement on, in one place:
+
+- What each **lifecycle stage** means and the observable event that moves a record into it.
+- What makes a lead **qualified** — and by whose judgment.
+- When an opportunity is **created**, and what evidence is required.
+- What each **pipeline stage** requires to be entered, stated as a buyer action rather than a seller
+  feeling. "Prospect has confirmed budget" is observable; "showing strong interest" is not.
+- What **closed-lost** means versus stalled, and when a stalled deal exits the pipeline
+  automatically.
+
+Without these, every number is negotiable and forecasting is a genre of fiction.
+
+## The handoff
+
+Where most revenue leaks. Specify: the exact criteria for passing a lead, the SLA for first contact,
+what context transfers with it, and the route back when it is rejected — including the reason,
+recorded.
+
+A rejection loop with no recorded reason means marketing keeps sending the same unqualified leads,
+and both sides believe the other is the problem.
+
+## Lead scoring
+
+Scoring exists to route attention, not to produce a number. If sellers do not change what they work
+on because of the score, it is decoration.
+
+Score on two independent dimensions and keep them separate:
+
+- **Fit** — do they look like a customer? Company size, industry, geography, role and seniority,
+  technology in use. Static, knowable before any engagement.
+- **Intent** — are they acting like a buyer now? Pricing page visits, repeat sessions, demo request,
+  content depth, response to outreach. Dynamic, and it decays.
+
+Collapsing the two into one score is the standard mistake: a perfect-fit account with no activity
+and a poor-fit account browsing aggressively land on the same number and get treated identically,
+which is wrong in both directions.
+
+Build the model from closed-won and closed-lost history, not intuition. Look at what actually
+separated the two, and be prepared for the finding that a favored attribute has no predictive value.
+
+Decay intent scores over time and recalibrate on a schedule. A scoring model built once and never
+revisited drifts as the market and the product change, and nobody notices because it keeps producing
+numbers.
+
+## Forecasting
+
+Forecast accuracy comes from process, not optimism.
+
+- Stage-based probabilities derived from your own historical conversion, recalculated periodically —
+  not from defaults.
+- Commit, best case, and pipeline reported separately.
+- Every forecasted deal has a date and a next step. A deal with neither is not in the forecast.
+- Track forecast accuracy itself, by rep. It is the only way to know whose numbers to trust and it
+  improves quickly once measured.
+
+## CRM hygiene
+
+Data quality decays continuously. Required fields at stage gates, validation at entry, scheduled
+duplicate merges, and automatic aging of stale records. Rely on discipline alone and the data will
+be unusable within two quarters.
+
+Never require a field whose value is not used in a decision. Every unnecessary field trains sellers
+to enter garbage in all of them.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Tooling
+
+CRM: Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Zoho CRM, and similar. The CRM is the record for
+pipeline. Anything that disagrees with it is a report, not a number.
+
+Enrichment and routing: Clay, ZoomInfo, Apollo, Chili Piper, and similar.
+
+Forecasting and conversation data: Clari, Gong, and similar — useful once you have enough
+deals for a pattern to mean anything.
+
+## Never
+
+- Change a definition without restating history on the new one. A metric that moved because you redefined it is not a result.
+- Report a forecast number you cannot trace back to named deals.
+- Let two systems each keep their own version of the same field. Pick the source of truth and make the other read from it.
+- Score leads with a model you cannot explain to the reps who have to work them.
+
+## Return contract
+
+State the definitional gaps found, the process change proposed, what it costs sellers in time, and
+the metric that will show it worked.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/revenue-operations/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+# Sources — `revenue:revenue-operations`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## 15 U.S.C. 7001 — Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
+
+US Congress, via the Office of the Law Revision Counsel · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title15-section7001&num=0&edition=prelim>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether an electronically signed contract, a clickwrap acceptance or an emailed order form is enforceable, and what consumer consent steps must precede it.
+
+## 16 CFR Part 310 — Telemarketing Sales Rule
+
+US Federal Trade Commission · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-16/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-310>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What an outbound seller must disclose before taking payment, which misrepresentations are prohibited, and what records the program must keep. The rule that makes a call script lawful or not.
+
+## California Labor Code 2751 — commission agreements in writing
+
+California Legislative Counsel · US-CA · public domain — quote freely
+
+<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2751>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a commission arrangement is enforceable. California requires a signed written contract setting out how commission is computed and paid, which settles whether a plan can be changed mid-year by email.
+
+## Commission Guidance on Management's Discussion and Analysis, Release 33-10751
+
+US Securities and Exchange Commission · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/02/25/2020-02296/commission-guidance-on-managements-discussion-and-analysis-of-financial-condition-and-results-of>
+
+**Authoritative for:** What a company must do when it publishes an operating metric — define it, disclose how it is calculated, apply it consistently, and explain any change in method. It disciplines metrics like recurring revenue and net retention without defining them, which is the honest ceiling on authority here.
+
+## FASB Accounting Standards Codification
+
+Financial Accounting Standards Board · US · **account required — cite it; the user fetches it**
+
+<https://asc.fasb.org/>
+
+**Authoritative for:** US GAAP as it actually reads — revenue recognition, leases, impairment. The Basic View is free with an account and the text is copyrighted: cite the ASC number, do not reproduce the wording.
+
+## Regulation (EU) 910/2014 — eIDAS
+
+Publications Office of the European Union · EU · free to use with attribution — credit the publisher
+
+<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2014/910/oj>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether an electronic signature has legal effect in the EU and which of the three tiers a given contract requires. Settles whether an ordinary e-signature suffices for a particular European deal.
+
+## Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2 — Sales
+
+American Law Institute and Uniform Law Commission · US · **read and cite only — copyrighted, do not reproduce**
+
+<https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2>
+
+**Authoritative for:** When a contract for goods is formed, whose terms prevail in a battle of the forms, and what warranty disclaimer language is effective. Settles a purchase-order-versus-order-form dispute as law rather than as negotiating posture.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/sales-compensation-and-territory/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+---
+name: sales-compensation-and-territory
+description: Designs quotas, territories and commission plans that produce the behavior the business needs — sizing territories against real potential, setting quotas people can hit often enough to believe in, choosing what to pay on, handling accelerators, draws, clawbacks and disputes, and changing a plan without destroying trust. Use this to build or fix a comp plan, allocate territories, work out why reps are chasing the wrong deals, or plan a mid-year change.
+---
+
+# Sales compensation and territory
+
+A compensation plan is the clearest statement a company makes about what it actually wants. Reps
+will optimize it precisely, including in the ways you did not intend, and that is not a character
+flaw — it is the plan working.
+
+## Size territories on potential, not on the current book
+
+A territory built from existing accounts rewards whoever inherited the good one and guarantees the
+argument that follows. Build from addressable potential — accounts that fit, weighted by how many
+of them could plausibly buy — then check that each territory can support the quota you intend to
+put on it.
+
+**A quota a territory mathematically cannot carry is not a stretch goal, it is a resignation on a
+delay.** Do that arithmetic before assigning, and expect to find one or two territories that fail
+it.
+
+Rebalance on a known cadence, so it is a process rather than a punishment, and account for
+in-flight pipeline when accounts move.
+
+## Set quotas people hit often enough to believe
+
+If most of the team misses, the plan has stopped motivating and started demoralizing; the number is
+noise and everyone knows it. If nearly everyone clears easily, you are paying above market for
+average performance.
+
+A distribution where a solid majority reach target, with real upside above it, keeps the plan
+credible. Build the aggregate from the territories rather than dividing the company number by
+headcount — the second is how you end up with quotas nobody accepted.
+
+Account for ramp explicitly for new hires rather than pretending a first quarter is a normal one.
+
+## Pay on the outcome you actually want, and keep it simple
+
+- **What you pay on** should be the thing you want more of. Paying purely on new bookings gets you
+  new bookings, including bad ones that churn.
+- **Consider what protects quality**: margin or discount-adjusted credit, a clawback window on
+  early churn, or paying on collected revenue rather than signed.
+- **Three components is usually the limit.** A plan a rep cannot compute in their head does not
+  change behavior, because they cannot see which action pays. Complexity in a comp plan is a design
+  failure, not sophistication.
+
+**Accelerators above target are worth the money** — that is where discretionary effort lives.
+Decelerators below target usually just accelerate the departure of someone already struggling.
+
+## Draws, caps and clawbacks
+
+A recoverable draw supports ramp but creates debt; make the recovery schedule explicit or it
+becomes a surprise. Caps on upside are almost always a mistake — you are punishing the outcome you
+paid to create, and the rep will simply move the deal into the next period, which is worse for
+forecasting than the extra commission.
+
+Clawbacks for early churn or non-payment are defensible when the window is short and stated in
+advance. Applied retroactively they cost more trust than they recover in money.
+
+## Write down how disputes get settled
+
+Split credit, who owns an account that moved territories, what happens when a deal slips across a
+period boundary, how a commission on a modified contract is computed. Decide these before they
+occur and publish them — every one of these arguments is worse when the answer is invented under
+pressure by someone with an interest in the outcome.
+
+## Change plans with notice, and honor what was already earned
+
+Mid-period changes are occasionally necessary and always expensive in trust. Give notice, explain
+the reason, and never restate a commission already earned under the prior plan. A team that
+believes the plan can be changed retroactively stops treating it as an incentive.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Tooling
+
+Commission calculation: CaptivateIQ, Spiff, Everstage, Xactly, and similar. The threshold for
+buying is not headcount, it is the point at which a spreadsheet error would go unnoticed — which
+arrives earlier than most teams expect.
+
+Territory and quota planning: Fullcast, Salesforce Maps, Varicent, and similar; a well-built model
+covers a single-segment team.
+
+Whatever calculates it, reps need a statement they can check themselves. Disputes are expensive in
+trust long before they are expensive in money.
+
+## Never
+
+- Assign a quota to a territory that cannot mathematically support it.
+- Add a component to a plan that a rep cannot compute without a spreadsheet.
+- Cap upside on the performance you designed the plan to produce.
+- Change terms retroactively for a period already worked.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/sales-compensation-and-territory/references/sources.md

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# Sources — `revenue:sales-compensation-and-territory`
+
+<!-- Generated by scripts/build-sources.py from sources/*.toml. Do not edit. -->
+
+Check these before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. The use note on each one is binding: most of what a professional cites is free to read and not free to reproduce.
+
+## California Labor Code 2751 — commission agreements in writing
+
+California Legislative Counsel · US-CA · public domain — quote freely
+
+<https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=2751>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a commission arrangement is enforceable. California requires a signed written contract setting out how commission is computed and paid, which settles whether a plan can be changed mid-year by email.
+
+## Fact Sheet 17F: exemption for outside sales employees
+
+US Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division · US · public domain (US government) — quote freely
+
+<https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/17f-overtime-outside-sales>
+
+**Authoritative for:** Whether a sales role is exempt from overtime — the inside against outside classification question that territory design quietly creates.
+
+---
+
+Sources are maintained in `sources/` upstream, not here. If one is wrong, out of date, or missing, fix it there — this file is regenerated and an edit to it is lost.

package/sources/headcount/plugins/revenue/skills/sales-enablement/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+---
+name: sales-enablement
+description: Builds what a sales team needs to sell — pitch decks, one-pagers, objection handling, competitive battlecards, demo scripts, and case studies. Use this to create or fix sales collateral, prepare for a competitive deal, build a demo flow, document objection responses, or diagnose why a pitch is not converting.
+---
+
+# Sales enablement
+
+Collateral gets used when it solves a problem the seller has in a live conversation. Everything else
+is filed and forgotten.
+
+## Know where deals actually stall
+
+Before making anything, find where deals die: first call, after the demo, at pricing, at security
+review, at the champion's boss. Each stall has a different remedy, and building for the wrong one
+produces beautifully designed collateral nobody opens.
+
+## The core set
+
+**Pitch deck** — a structure, not a script. Problem the buyer recognizes, why current approaches
+fail, what you do differently, proof, commercials, next step. Ten to fifteen slides, each with a
+takeaway headline.
+
+**One-pager** — what the champion forwards internally to people you will never meet. It must survive
+being read with no context and no presenter. This is usually the highest-leverage asset and the most
+neglected.
+
+**Objection handling** — the real objections, in the words prospects use, with responses that
+acknowledge the legitimate part first. A response that denies the objection reads as evasion and
+ends trust.
+
+**Battlecards** — per competitor: where they genuinely win, where you do, the traps to avoid, and
+what to say when the prospect raises them. Cards claiming you win everywhere get ignored by sellers,
+who know better.
+
+**Case studies** — situation, what changed, measurable result, in the buyer's language. One
+verifiable number beats a page of adjectives.
+
+## Demo
+
+Demo the outcome, not the interface. Start where the value is visible, not at login and settings.
+
+Tailor to the problem they told you about — a feature tour of everything demonstrates that you were
+not listening. Prepare for the three things that always go wrong, and know how to reach the value
+moment inside five minutes when time gets cut.
+
+## Maintaining
+
+Collateral rots. Every asset needs an owner and a review date, and anything referencing pricing,
+competitors, or product capability needs checking every quarter. A battlecard describing a
+competitor's old product loses deals.
+
+## Sources
+
+`references/sources.md` in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions
+here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before
+answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free
+to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.
+
+## Never
+
+- Build collateral before you know where deals actually stall. Ask the reps and read the losses first.
+- Ship a deck or one-pager with no owner and no review date. Unmaintained collateral is worse than none.
+- Order a demo around the product's feature list instead of the order the buyer's problem unfolds in.
+- Count enablement as done at delivery. It is done when reps use it in live deals.