pricing-experiments
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Design pricing and packaging experiments — A/B tests, willingness-to-pay research (van Westendorp), and tier/packaging tests. Use when the user is unsure what to charge, wants to raise prices, is choosing seat vs usage vs outcome pricing, or wants to test packaging without guessing.
In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- cold-outreachSkill
- competitor-analysisSkill
- fundraising-narrativeSkill
- growth-experimentsSkill
- landing-page-copySkill
- market-researchSkill
- mvp-specSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- tam-sam-somSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 23
Find willingness-to-pay: before A/B testing prices:
- Distinctive: line 28
Test ONE variable (price OR packaging), not both.
- Distinctive: line 32
Grandfather existing customers: when you raise prices; announce early.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
pricing-experiments — test what to charge
When to use
The user asks "what should I charge?", "can I raise prices?", "how do I test a new plan?", or is deciding between seat / usage / outcome-based pricing. Pricing is the highest-leverage growth lever and the most under-tested.
Process
- Pick the model first (this constrains the experiment):
- per-seat — predictable, good for collaboration tools
- usage — aligns cost with value, good for infra/APIs
- outcome-based — charge per result delivered; strongest NRR in 2026, but you must be able to measure the outcome
- Find willingness-to-pay before A/B testing prices:
- Van Westendorp 4 questions (too cheap / cheap / expensive / too expensive) → plot to find the acceptable price band.
- Or fake-door / Stripe pricing-page test with real "Buy" intent.
- Run the test cleanly:
- Test ONE variable (price OR packaging), not both.
- Randomize by new visitor, never switch an existing customer's price mid-flight.
- Decide sample size and stop rule up front; watch conversion AND revenue per visitor (a higher price with slightly lower conversion often wins on revenue).
- Grandfather existing customers when you raise prices; announce early.
What to produce
- A recommended model with a one-line rationale.
- A concrete experiment: variants, the single variable, the metric (revenue per visitor, not just conversion), sample size, and stop rule.
- A van Westendorp question set if WTP is unknown.
Pitfalls
- Optimizing conversion instead of revenue-per-visitor → you leave money on the table.
- Testing price and packaging at once → uninterpretable result.
- Surprise price hikes on existing users → churn and trust damage.
Report back
State the chosen model, the experiment design, and the decision criterion you'll use to call a winner.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

