agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/cost-benefit-analysis/SKILL.md

cost-benefit-analysis

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when deciding whether an action is worth the resources, attention, or tradeoffs required. Use when applying the Cost Benefit Analysis consulting method and when a user asks for Cost Benefit Analysis, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are 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.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Cost Benefit Analysis as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not use when material costs and benefits cannot be compared over a common time horizon.

    line 30
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 87

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Cost Benefit Analysis

Use this skill to run Cost Benefit Analysis as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Compare against a clear baseline.
  • Include timing, confidence, opportunity cost, and downside case.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • option or investment
  • benefit estimates
  • cost estimates
  • time horizon
  • risk assumptions

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when material costs and benefits cannot be compared over a common time horizon. Treat non-negotiable legal, safety, or policy constraints as gates rather than averaging them into a financial total.

Adjacent Methods

  • break-even-analysis: calculate the threshold volume, price, or time.
  • decision-matrix: compare options across non-financial criteria as well as economics.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Define baselineCurrent state, proposed option, time horizon.State what the option is compared against.Baseline and option definition.
Estimate benefitsRevenue, savings, risk reduction, learning, strategic value.List benefits by type, owner, timing, and confidence.Benefit estimate table.
Estimate costsFixed cost, variable cost, time, coordination, opportunity cost.List costs and timing, including hidden effort.Cost estimate table.
Compare scenariosBenefits, costs, assumptions.Calculate or reason through base, upside, and downside cases.Scenario comparison.
Recommend thresholdScenario comparison and constraints.Recommend go/no-go/test-first and assumptions to validate.Cost-benefit recommendation.

Output Template

### 1. Decision Baseline
Decision:
Baseline / do-nothing case:
Time horizon:
Discount / timing assumption:

### 2. Benefits And Costs
| Item | Type | Amount / range | Timing | Evidence | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Scenarios
| Scenario | Net value | Key assumption | Downside |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 4. Recommendation And Threshold
Recommendation:
Break condition:
Owner:
Validation action:

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Decision Baseline, Benefits And Costs, Scenarios; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.