saas-unit-economics
Skill0 starsChanged 45 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Assess SaaS growth efficiency and unit economics for a portfolio company (ARR bridge, NRR/GRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, magic number, burn multiple, Rule of 40, gross margin) using deterministic metric tools, then turn weaknesses into evidence-cited findings and sales-efficiency or gross-margin opportunities. Use for go-to-market efficiency, sales productivity, "are the unit economics healthy", or growth-vs-profitability questions.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 32
Period mismatch: Every ratio must use aligned periods.
- Very specific: line 48
High burn multiple with healthy payback: Look outside go-to-market: G&A and R&D growth vs revenue growth, from get_financials.
- Distinctive: line 56
Never size "grow faster" as an opportunity on its own.
≈ “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
Purpose
Diagnose why growth efficiency is weak, not just that it is weak, and route each root cause to the right lever.
Rules
- Get every metric from
compute_saas_metrics(company_id, period). The definitions below are for interpreting and reviewing tool output. Never compute them yourself. - The tool reports which variant it used (for example, EBITDA vs FCF margin in Rule of 40). Quote the variant.
- Screening thresholds live in
project://policiesand are set by the fund. Use them. Don't substitute remembered "industry benchmarks". For peer context, callget_benchmarks(metric, peer_set)and cite the result.
Metric definitions (house standard)
| Metric | Definition |
| ARR bridge | Opening ARR + new + expansion − contraction − churn = closing ARR |
| GRR | (Opening ARR − contraction − churn) ÷ opening ARR, trailing 12 months, opening cohort only. Cannot exceed 100%. |
| NRR | (Opening ARR + expansion − contraction − churn) ÷ opening ARR, same cohort and window |
| CAC payback (months) | Prior-quarter S&M expense ÷ (net new ARR in quarter × subscription gross margin) × 12 |
| LTV / CAC | (ARPA × subscription gross margin ÷ annual dollar churn rate) ÷ CAC per new customer |
| Magic number | (Current-quarter revenue − prior-quarter revenue) × 4 ÷ prior-quarter S&M expense |
| Burn multiple | Net burn ÷ net new ARR, same period |
| Rule of 40 | Revenue growth % + profit margin % (variant reported by tool) |
| Subscription gross margin | Subscription revenue less hosting, third-party software, and support COGS, excluding services |
Data-quality checks (before interpreting)
- Bookings vs ARR. Multi-year prepaid contracts, one-time fees, or services revenue counted as ARR inflate every ratio. Check the ARR definition in the data inventory.
- Capitalized commissions. Under ASC 340-40, commissions may be capitalized. CAC must use commissions paid or expensed as incurred, not amortization. If you can't tell, flag it.
- S&M allocation. Confirm that customer success and account management are classified consistently. Moving them between S&M and COGS shifts both CAC and gross margin.
- Entity duplication. Logos with several legal entities distort customer counts and ARPA. Check with the entity-resolution notes in the data inventory.
- Period mismatch. Every ratio must use aligned periods. The tool enforces this, but check it when combining outputs.
Diagnostic trees
Weak CAC payback or magic number. Decompose in this order:
- Spend: S&M growth vs new ARR growth, and mix by channel and segment.
- Conversion: win rate and pipeline coverage trend (CRM).
- Deal size: ACV trend by segment. If ACV is falling, check discounting with
pricing-value-creation. - Capacity: ramped vs unramped reps, attainment distribution.
- Margin drag: if subscription gross margin is low, payback is weak even with healthy acquisition. Go to the Low gross margin tree.
Weak NRR. Split into GRR and expansion:
- GRR weak → hand off to
customer-retention. - GRR healthy but expansion weak → packaging and upsell path. Hand off to
pricing-value-creation.
Low gross margin. Hosting cost per customer or unit of usage, support cost per customer, and services mix. Automation candidates go to ai-opportunity-assessment.
High burn multiple with healthy payback. Look outside go-to-market: G&A and R&D growth vs revenue growth, from get_financials.
Opportunity framing
| Lever | Typical baseline metric | Notes |
sales_efficiency | s_and_m_expense | Savings at constant new ARR. Flow-through is set server-side. State the assumption that new ARR holds. |
gross_margin | subscription_cogs | Hosting or vendor renegotiation, support efficiency. Add a run cost if tooling is needed. |
Never size "grow faster" as an opportunity on its own. Growth levers belong to pricing, retention, or a specific GTM change with evidence.
Output contract
- Metric table: metric, value, period, variant, evidence id, and peer percentile if benchmarked.
- Findings, one per root cause, each with evidence ids, recorded with
record_finding. - Hand-offs to other lever skills, with the reason.
- Data-quality flags that change interpretation.
NEEDS_EVIDENCEitems.
Numeric claims and server validation
Before writing a numeric finding or proposal, call get_numeric_sources(company_id). Copy an exact catalog key and use {{quantity:KEY}} in prose; for example Legacy share is {{quantity:pricing.legacy.legacy_arr_share}} only when that key is returned. The server renders metric, value, unit, company, period and evidence together. Do not paste bare values into record_finding or propose_opportunity text, invent keys, or use identifiers as numeric sources. Qualitative wording is allowed. Structured scenario-rate/cost fields remain assumptions and must not be recast as measured facts.
Proposal, draft and submission calls enforce sufficiency, source freshness, policy eligibility, evidence and overlap checks. If rejected, record the named gap and resolve it; rewording the same unsupported or overlapping proposal does not make it eligible. Worked examples below were regenerated through a scripted MCP replay on the date shown in each file. They illustrate executable calls and returned outputs, not a human acceptance session.
References
references/worked-example.md: tool outputs and findings for the fictional Cedar fixture, generated from tool calls; see its scripted replay date.
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.

