raise-prices
Skill5 starsChanged 36 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when someone wants to charge more without losing sales — "raise prices", "charge more", "customers say we look cheap", "move upmarket", "will a higher price hold", "justify a higher price", "competitors charge more than us" — for any product or plan sold online.
In this repository18 other files it gives its agents.
- checkout-uxSkill
- digital-product-pricingSkill
- discountsSkill
- event-pricingSkill
- increase-aovSkill
- increase-conversionSkill
- increase-repeat-purchasesSkill
- post-purchaseSkill
- price-researchSkill
- pricingSkill
- product-copySkill
- product-pageSkill
- product-visualsSkill
- promotionsSkill
- referralsSkill
- reviewsSkill
- store-auditSkill
- subscription-pricingSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈0
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 40
Simple components, same ending: Add-ons and plans rounded like the main price.
- Very specific: line 42
Announcing the increase: If you pre-announce it, compute the percentage against the old price so the honest number is the larger one.
≈ “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
Raise prices
Turn "we're at $9.99 and want $14" into a ranked backlog of what must change on the product and the page for the higher price to hold. Willingness to pay is moved by how the price is written, the unit, what the buyer sees, and which quality signals are present — not by the number alone. Leave the how-to and the papers in the Depth skills. Do not forecast the user's sales at the new price.
When to use
- The user wants a higher price and asks how to make it stick
- Customers or the founder call the product "cheap-looking"
- A price above the category norm needs justification
When not to use
- Working out what the price should be →
price-research - Wording a markdown →
discounts; more buyers at the current price →increase-conversion
Inputs
Collect, or state your assumption:
- Product, current price, target price, competitor range, currency
- Company size; whether the product is high-tech
- Branded ingredient or component; real sustainability practice
- How quantity is expressed now, and what one "use" is
- Current media, copy, price position, add-on and plan prices
Classify the product first. Hedonic = bought for enjoyment, pleasure, or the experience (chocolate, fashion, decor, travel, spa, perfume). Utilitarian = bought to do a job, judged on function and value (detergent, appliances, insect repellent, tools, accounting software). If it's mixed, decide by what the buyer is optimizing for at the moment of purchase.
Procedure
Walk each check; include applicable levers the user didn't mention; list the rest as considered.
The number
- Rounded list price. Just-below only for a promotion price. One move vs stages isn't tested; a single move is the practitioner default. † Depth:
pricing. - Simple components, same ending. Add-ons and plans rounded like the main price. Depth:
pricing. - Flat rate above pay-per-use where usage varies. Depth:
pricing,subscription-pricing. - Announcing the increase. If you pre-announce it, compute the percentage against the old price so the honest number is the larger one. Existing subscribers usually need advance notice. Depth:
discounts. - Validate the level with
price-researchif the target is a guess.
The unit and the words
- Concrete units (applications, washes, days), smaller unit for precision. Depth:
product-copy. - Branded ingredient in the headline. † Depth:
product-copy. - Register by product type. Science/effectiveness language only if utilitarian. † Depth:
product-copy. - Three best claims, plain words. Depth:
product-copy.
What the buyer sees
- Media by type. Hedonic → video; utilitarian → stills. Hand, shine, multiples of a single-function product. Depth:
product-visuals. - Price below the image. Depth:
product-page. - Horizontal layout among alternatives when quality should win. Depth:
store-audit. - Sold-out signal at 10–30% of variants. Depth:
product-page.
Quality signals
- Cost breakdown; say you're small (low-tech); extraordinary guarantee if unknown; real sustainability stated if true. Depth:
store-audit. - Rank by measured effect and distance from the rule; free same-day changes (digits, units, copy, price position) ahead of a shoot or a guarantee program.
Output
| # | Finding | Change | Measured effect (study context) | Depth |
| 1 | $9.99, quality-led product | $14 list; just-below for promos only | 99-ending signals low price | pricing |
| … |
Then: what already complies. Each effect was measured on its own; don't add them up. Ship the top two or three, measure, then take the next.
Common mistakes
- A 99-ending on the new price "to soften the jump" — that signals low price, the thing being fixed.
- Keeping fiddly add-on prices as "the real margin numbers" — complex components read as expensive.
- "More photos" — the measured levers are a hand, a shine, and multiples.
- Hiding that the company is small — for a low-tech product it raises perceived quality.
- Inventing a lift for the new price.
Quick reference
| Lever | Depth |
| Rounded list; simple add-ons; flat rate | pricing |
| Units, branded ingredient, three claims, register | product-copy |
| Video / hand / shine / multiples | product-visuals |
| Price below image; sold-out share | product-page |
| Cost breakdown, size, guarantee, sustainability | store-audit |
| Validate the level | price-research |
† No primary citation on file for this rule — a practitioner tip, not a measured finding.
Evidence and effect sizes: see reference.md.
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.

