skillpacks 0.1.1 → 0.1.2

package/packs/business-growth/claude/monetization/archive/v0.10/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+---
+name: monetization
+description: Research-driven monetization strategy — revenue models, pricing architecture, unit economics, and packaging grounded in ICP and competitive data
+type: research
+version: v0.10
+argument-hint: "[optional: focus area e.g. \"pricing tiers\", \"usage-based\", \"freemium\"]"
+interview_depth: full
+visual_tier: visual
+---
+
+## Pack Availability Guard
+
+When recommending a skill from another pack, verify the target pack is installed via `.agents/project.json` `enabled_packs`. If it is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` inside Claude Code, or `npx skillpacks install <pack>` from the project shell. After install, tell Claude users to run `/reload-skills`, then `/clear` or restart if the skill remains invisible. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.
+
+# Monetization — Revenue & Pricing Strategy
+
+## Report-First Approval Gate
+
+Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.
+
+Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.
+
+After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.
+
+## Staged Research Workflow
+
+Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.
+
+1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
+2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
+3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.
+
+Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.
+
+## Evidence And Feedback Handling
+
+Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth.
+
+- For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree.
+- For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence.
+- When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call.
+- When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion.
+
+## Prerequisites
+
+- **Hard**: `research/icp.md` (or `research/{slug}/icp.md`) must exist. If not, tell the user to run `/customer-discovery` first and stop.
+- **Soft**: Read these if they exist — each adds specificity:
+  - `research/competitive-analysis.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis.md`) — competitor pricing, tiers, freemium models
+  - `research/journey-map.md` (or `research/{slug}/journey-map.md`) — where value is delivered, conversion triggers
+  - `research/metrics.md` (or `research/{slug}/metrics.md`) — activation, engagement, retention signals
+  - `research/gtm.md` (or `research/{slug}/gtm.md`) — existing pricing strategy and channel economics
+  - `research/customer-feedback.md` (or `research/{slug}/customer-feedback.md`) — willingness-to-pay signals, pricing complaints
+  - `specs/*.md` (or `specs/{slug}/*.md`) — what's being built, feature scope
+
+## Process
+
+### 0. Product-Path Scope Resolution
+
+Resolve research scope by product path before using code or app structure as a hint:
+
+1. If `$ARGUMENTS` names a non-archived `research/{slug}/` directory or a product-path ID whose `scope_path` points there, use that path. Treat `{slug}` as the product/app name, not the ICP, audience, or segment label.
+2. If `$ARGUMENTS` names only `research/_archive/{slug}/` or a manifest entry with `status: archived` or legacy `status: abandoned`, stop and warn that the path is archived; do not write or update scoped outputs there.
+3. Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize legacy `active_path` to `active_paths` on read and write back `active_paths` on manifest updates. Treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived`; exclude `archived`, `abandoned`, `deferred`, `revisit_candidate`, `promoted`, and any `scope_path` under `research/_archive/` from active target selection.
+4. If active product paths exist in the manifest, use those paths. If multiple active paths exist, ask which one to target unless this skill explicitly supports cross-path output.
+5. If no active manifest target exists, list non-archived product directories under `research/`, excluding `research/_archive/` and dot directories. Auto-select only when exactly one exists; ask when multiple exist.
+6. If no product directories exist, use flat `research/` single-product mode.
+7. Detect monorepo/app/package structure only as a secondary hint. Suggest creating a missing `research/{slug}/` product path when code clearly exposes an app, but do not require code or monorepo detection before using `research/{slug}/`.
+
+When product path `{slug}` is active, read and write research under `research/{slug}/`, specs under `specs/{slug}/`, and treat top-level `research/*.md` files as flat-mode documents or cross-path summaries.
+
+### 1. Product Path Manifest
+
+Read `research/.progress.yaml` when present. Normalize `active_path` (singular legacy) to `active_paths` (plural list) when reading; treat legacy `abandoned` as `archived` and exclude archived/deferred/revisit/promoted paths plus `research/_archive/` scopes from active target selection. Scope monetization strategy to the active product path by default. When pricing or packaging analysis reveals a fundamentally different revenue model for a deferred product path, add a `## Product Path Implications` section.
+
+### 2. Load Context
+
+Read all prerequisite files. From each, extract monetization-relevant signals:
+
+- **ICP**: buyer budget, purchasing process, current spend on alternatives, company size segments, price sensitivity
+- **Competitive analysis**: competitor pricing models, tier structures, free vs paid boundaries, published pricing pages
+- **Journey map**: where the "aha moment" happens, what triggers conversion, what drives expansion
+- **Metrics**: activation rate, engagement depth, retention curves — these constrain what models are viable
+- **GTM**: if pricing strategy already exists in gtm.md, treat it as a starting point to deepen, not duplicate
+- **Customer feedback**: direct willingness-to-pay signals, complaints about competitor pricing, feature requests tied to upgrade triggers
+
+Read CLAUDE.md, README, and key source files for product context.
+
+### 3. Market Research — Revenue Models in Category
+
+Use WebSearch with **6–10 targeted queries**. Log every query and finding to the research log.
+
+Query strategies (adapt to domain):
+1. **Category pricing** — "[category] pricing models", "[category] SaaS pricing"
+2. **Competitor pricing pages** — "[competitor] pricing", "[competitor] plans" (use WebFetch on pricing pages for detail)
+3. **Revenue model analysis** — "[category] revenue model", "[category] business model"
+4. **Pricing benchmarks** — "[category] average deal size", "[category] ARPU", "[category] pricing benchmark"
+5. **Freemium analysis** — "[category] freemium conversion rate", "freemium vs free trial [category]"
+6. **Usage-based research** — "usage-based pricing [category]", "consumption pricing [category]"
+7. **Pricing psychology** — "[category] pricing page best practices", "SaaS pricing strategy [market segment]"
+8. **Unit economics** — "[category] CAC", "[category] LTV", "[category] payback period"
+9. **Expansion revenue** — "[category] expansion revenue", "[category] upsell triggers"
+10. **Pricing failures** — "[competitor] pricing backlash", "[category] pricing mistakes"
+
+### 4. Identify Revenue Model Options — Present & Validate
+
+From research evidence and product context, identify **2–4 viable revenue model options**. For each:
+
+- **Model type**: subscription (flat/tiered), usage-based, hybrid, marketplace, freemium, open-core, one-time, etc.
+- **Evidence**: which competitors or adjacent products use this model, and how it performs
+- **Fit with ICP**: does the buying process support this? (e.g., seat-based works poorly if the buyer doesn't know team size upfront)
+- **Fit with product**: does the value delivery pattern match? (e.g., usage-based works when value scales with consumption)
+- **Risks**: what could go wrong? (e.g., usage-based creates unpredictable costs that enterprise procurement hates)
+
+**Checkpoint 1 — Present models with a recommendation.** Use AskUserQuestion to show all options with evidence and fit analysis. State which model you recommend and why (grounded in ICP fit, product fit, and market evidence). Then ask:
+- "I recommend [model] based on [key evidence]. Does this feel right, or should we explore a different model?"
+- "Any hard constraints I should know? (e.g., must have a free tier, can't do per-seat)"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 5. Deep-Dive: Pricing Architecture
+
+For the selected model (or top 2 if the user is undecided), research and design:
+
+#### A. Value Metric
+- What unit does the customer pay for? (seats, usage, features, outcomes)
+- Does the value metric align with how the customer perceives value?
+- Does it grow naturally as the customer gets more value? (expansion-friendly)
+
+#### B. Tier Design
+- How many tiers? (typically 2–4 for B2B SaaS)
+- What's the free tier / trial structure? What's the upgrade trigger?
+- What features gate each tier? (map against journey stages — free tier should reach "aha moment")
+- What's the "good-better-best" progression?
+
+#### C. Price Points
+- Anchor against competitor pricing and ICP budget signals
+- Entry price: low enough to reduce friction, high enough to signal value
+- Price-to-value ratio vs. alternatives
+- Annual vs. monthly discount structure
+
+#### D. Packaging
+- What's bundled vs. add-on?
+- Are there usage limits, and where do they kick in?
+- Enterprise tier: what justifies the custom pricing? (SSO, SLA, dedicated support, compliance)
+
+**Checkpoint 2 — Present pricing architecture to the user.** Use AskUserQuestion to show tier design, price points, and packaging — cite competitor pricing benchmarks that anchor each price point, ICP willingness-to-pay signals that validate the range, and journey-stage alignment that justifies feature gates. Then ask:
+- "Does this pricing feel right for your market? Too high, too low?"
+- "Any features that absolutely must be free? Any that must be gated?"
+
+Incorporate feedback before proceeding.
+
+### 6. Unit Economics & Viability
+
+Estimate (with stated assumptions and confidence levels):
+
+- **CAC** — cost to acquire a customer, based on GTM channels
+- **LTV** — lifetime value, based on pricing × estimated retention
+- **LTV:CAC ratio** — is it viable? (target: 3:1+ for SaaS)
+- **Payback period** — months to recoup acquisition cost
+- **Expansion revenue potential** — how much can revenue grow per account over time?
+- **Gross margin** — revenue minus cost of delivery (infrastructure, support)
+
+If data is insufficient for estimates, state what data is needed and recommend how to gather it (e.g., "run a pricing survey", "track activation-to-conversion for 30 days").
+
+**Checkpoint 3 — Present unit economics to the user.** Use AskUserQuestion to show the estimates with assumptions, then ask:
+- "Do these assumptions feel reasonable? Any I should adjust?"
+- "What's your target margin or payback period?"
+
+### 7. Monetization Timing & Sequencing
+
+Based on product stage and ICP:
+
+- **When to introduce paid**: before launch (validate willingness-to-pay), at launch, or post-traction?
+- **What stays free permanently** vs. what's a trial/teaser
+- **Pricing evolution**: how should pricing change as the product matures? (e.g., start low and raise, start high and introduce a free tier)
+- **Revenue diversification**: are there secondary revenue streams? (marketplace, data, services, partnerships)
+
+### 8. Populate Next Steps
+
+Check which files exist to populate the `## Next Steps` section contextually. Include 3–5 applicable items with a "Recommended + Other options" framing — the first matching condition becomes the **Recommended** item, remaining items become **Other options**:
+
+- IF no `research/gtm.md`: `/gtm` — Build go-to-market plan with pricing from this strategy
+- IF `research/gtm.md` exists but predates this analysis: `/gtm` — Update GTM with refined pricing strategy
+- IF no `research/metrics.md`: `/metrics` — Define metrics to track monetization health (conversion, expansion, churn)
+- IF no `research/journey-map.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `customer-lifecycle` — if `customer-lifecycle` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install customer-lifecycle` first; if `customer-lifecycle` is enabled, recommend `/journey-map` — Map the journey to validate where pricing gates belong
+- IF `specs/` exist and no `tasks/roadmap.md`: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `agent-work-admin` — if `agent-work-admin` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install agent-work-admin` first; if `agent-work-admin` is enabled, recommend `/roadmap` — Plan the build with monetization milestones
+- IF codebase exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if `business-ops` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` first; if `business-ops` is enabled, recommend `/mvp-gap` — Check if the product delivers enough value to charge
+- IF product is live and revenue exists: check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs` for `business-ops` — if `business-ops` is not enabled, recommend `/pack install business-ops` first; if `business-ops` is enabled, recommend `/runway-model` — Track actual financial performance against these estimates
+
+### 9. Final Review & Write
+
+Present the **complete monetization strategy** to the user — revenue model, pricing architecture, unit economics, timing. Ask:
+- "Ready to write this to `research/monetization.md`? Anything to adjust first?"
+
+Only after the user confirms, write the output files.
+
+## Output
+
+### `research/monetization.md` (or `research/{slug}/monetization.md`)
+
+```markdown
+# Monetization Strategy
+
+> Based on: research/icp.md (or research/{slug}/icp.md)[, research/competitive-analysis.md, research/journey-map.md, research/metrics.md, research/gtm.md, research/customer-feedback.md]
+> Date: [current date]
+
+## Summary
+[2-3 sentences: the core monetization thesis — revenue model, target price range, and why this approach fits the ICP]
+
+## Revenue Model
+**Selected model**: [model type]
+**Rationale**: [why this model fits the ICP, product, and market]
+**Evidence**: [competitor precedent, market research]
+
+### Models Considered & Rejected
+| Model | Why Considered | Why Rejected |
+|-------|---------------|-------------|
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+## Value Metric
+**Customers pay for**: [the unit — seats, usage, features, outcomes]
+**Why this metric**: [alignment with perceived value, expansion-friendliness]
+
+## Pricing Tiers
+
+| Tier | Price | Target Segment | Key Features | Upgrade Trigger |
+|------|-------|----------------|-------------|----------------|
+| Free / Trial | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+| Starter | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+| Pro | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+| Enterprise | Custom | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Free Tier / Trial Design
+[What's included, what's limited, what triggers the upgrade — must reach "aha moment"]
+
+### Feature Gating
+[Which features are in which tier, and why — grounded in journey stages]
+
+### Enterprise Justification
+[What justifies custom pricing — SSO, SLA, compliance, dedicated support, volume]
+
+## Price Points
+
+### Anchoring & Rationale
+[How prices were set — competitor anchoring, ICP budget signals, value-based reasoning]
+
+### Annual vs. Monthly
+[Discount structure, rationale]
+
+### Packaging & Add-ons
+[What's bundled, what's separate, usage limits and overages]
+
+## Unit Economics (Estimated)
+
+| Metric | Estimate | Assumption | Confidence |
+|--------|----------|------------|------------|
+| CAC | ... | ... | Low/Medium/High |
+| LTV | ... | ... | ... |
+| LTV:CAC | ... | ... | ... |
+| Payback Period | ... | ... | ... |
+| Gross Margin | ... | ... | ... |
+| Expansion Revenue | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Data Gaps
+[What data is needed to improve these estimates — and how to gather it]
+
+## Monetization Timing
+
+### When to Charge
+[Before launch / at launch / post-traction — with rationale]
+
+### What Stays Free
+[Features or usage levels that remain free permanently, and why]
+
+### Pricing Evolution
+[How pricing should change as product matures — roadmap of pricing milestones]
+
+### Revenue Diversification
+[Secondary revenue streams if applicable — marketplace, services, data, partnerships]
+
+## Open Questions
+[Pricing experiments to run, decisions that need real-world data, A/B tests to consider]
+
+## Next Steps
+
+**Recommended:** [first matching item from step 8]
+
+**Other options:**
+- [remaining conditional items from step 8 — only include items whose conditions are met]
+```
+
+### `research/monetization-interview.md` (or `research/{slug}/monetization-interview.md`)
+Raw interview log — questions, options presented, user responses, checkpoint validations, and a closing summary of key decisions and deviations.
+
+Create the `research/` (or `research/{slug}/`) directory if it doesn't exist.
+
+## Task Classification
+
+When this skill produces follow-up work, file it by execution semantics:
+
+- Immediately actionable implementation or documentation work goes in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- Human-only external actions tied to automated steps go in `tasks/manual-todo.md` with `_(blocks: Step N.X)_` or `_(after: Step N.X)_`; repo edits, SDK wiring, generated assets, local commands, tests, audits, and authenticated CLI/API work stay in `tasks/todo.md`.
+- One-time condition-gated records, baselines, or future measurements go in `tasks/record-todo.md` with source, condition, non-blocking reason, evidence, and promotion rule.
+- Cadence-based reviews, playtests, adoption checks, investor updates, retros, or docs-health checks go in `tasks/recurring-todo.md` with cadence, owner/agent, next due, evidence path, and escalation conditions.
+- Do not put non-blocking records or recurring obligations in `tasks/todo.md` unless they have been explicitly promoted into current execution work.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- **Requires ICP.** Cannot build a monetization strategy without knowing who pays and why.
+- **Evidence-based.** Every pricing decision must trace back to research evidence (competitor data, market benchmarks, ICP signals). Do not invent price points from intuition.
+- **Present before writing.** Never write output files until findings have been presented and validated through all three checkpoints.
+- **Don't duplicate GTM.** If `research/gtm.md` already has a pricing section, deepen it rather than contradict it. Note any conflicts and ask the user to resolve.
+- **Don't prescribe product changes.** If the product doesn't deliver enough value to support the pricing, note it as a gap — that's `/mvp-gap`'s job.
+- **Do not overwrite existing `research/monetization.md`** (or `research/{slug}/monetization.md`) without asking the user first.
+- **Minimum research depth**: at least 6 WebSearch queries before presenting revenue model options, then targeted queries per model option.
+- **State assumptions.** Every unit economics estimate must include the assumption behind it and a confidence level. Never present estimates as facts.
+
+## Interview Protocol
+
+**Step 1 — Gather context.** Read `.agents/project.json`, README, CLAUDE.md, existing research and specs, git history, and any argument-provided context. Build an internal evidence base before asking questions.
+
+**Step 2 — Assumptions manifest.** Present 3–7 assumptions about the user's situation, goals, and constraints. Tag each with source (`[from prompt]`, `[from repo]`, `[from research]`, `[inferred]`). Ask the user to confirm, correct, or flag before proceeding.
+
+**Step 3 — Focused interview.** Ask 1–3 questions per turn via `AskUserQuestion`. Research and recommend by default — present options with a recommended default. Continue until all areas are covered or the user signals enough.
+
+**Step 4 — Coverage checkpoint.** Present a summary of everything established. Ask the user to confirm completeness before building the alignment page.
+
+## Alignment Page
+
+When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/monetization-{topic}.html`.
+
+## Default Shipping Contract
+
+Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.