pricing-strategy-check
Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when designing, reviewing, or defending pricing for a product, service, project, or offer. Use when applying the Pricing Strategy Check consulting method and when a user asks for Pricing Strategy Check, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.
In this repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- 5w1h-analysisSkill
- abductive-reasoningSkill
- account-planSkill
- affinity-diagramSkill
- assumption-inventorySkill
- balanced-scorecardSkill
- break-even-analysisSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- change-event-timelineSkill
- change-impact-analysisSkill
- communications-planSkill
- competitive-positioningSkill
- constraint-analysisSkill
- cost-benefit-analysisSkill
- critical-uncertaintiesSkill
- customer-segmentationSkill
- customer-success-health-scoreSkill
- deal-strategy-mapSkill
- decision-matrixSkill
- deductive-reasoningSkill
- effort-impact-matrixSkill
- empathy-mapSkill
- evidence-mapSkill
- fifteen-percent-solutionsSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- fishbone-diagramSkill
- five-whys-root-causeSkill
- force-field-analysisSkill
- go-to-market-diagnosisSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- inductive-reasoningSkill
- issue-treeSkill
- jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- kano-modelSkill
- mece-frameworkSkill
- metrics-treeSkill
- mind-map-analysisSkill
- min-specsSkill
- north-star-metricSkill
- pestel-analysisSkill
- porter-five-forcesSkill
- power-interest-gridSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- raci-matrixSkill
- rice-scoringSkill
- risk-matrixSkill
- scenario-planningSkill
- service-blueprintSkill
- signal-vs-noise-filterSkill
- stakeholder-power-mapSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- user-journey-mappingSkill
- validation-planSkill
- weighted-scorecardSkill
- win-loss-reviewSkill
- wsjf-prioritizationSkill
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
- Very specific: line 9
Use this skill to run Pricing Strategy Check as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
- Distinctive: line 13
Check value metric, package boundary, discount pressure, and proof strength.
- Very specific: line 26
If an input is missing, do not block automatically.
- Distinctive: line 89
Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
≈ “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 Strategy Check
Use this skill to run Pricing Strategy Check as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
Method Notes
- Check value metric, package boundary, discount pressure, and proof strength.
- Pricing recommendations must tie to customer value and willingness to pay.
Required Inputs
Collect or infer these inputs before execution:
- offer description
- target segment
- current or proposed price
- value evidence
- competitors
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
Define the offer and customer segment before analysis. Choose scope: diagnostic / test-design / price recommendation. Missing willingness-to-pay or unit-economic evidence permits a labeled diagnostic and validation plan; it does not establish a validated price or launch endorsement. A price recommendation requires evidence on buyer willingness to pay, value alternatives and relevant economics, with remaining limits stated. A target margin or competitor price is not proof of willingness to pay. A pricing check cannot replace customer research or a legal review.
Adjacent Methods
break-even-analysis: calculate the economic threshold under a stated price.cost-benefit-analysis: compare total economic value and downside across options.
Step-by-Step Execution
| Step | Required input | How to execute | Output |
| Clarify value and buyer | Segment, buying trigger, outcome value. | State what customer value the price is meant to capture. | Value/buyer frame. |
| Check price metric | Usage, seats, volume, outcome, project scope. | Assess whether the pricing unit matches how value is realized. | Price metric diagnosis. |
| Benchmark alternatives | Competitors, substitutes, status quo cost, switching costs. | Compare price level and packaging against alternatives. | Alternative price view. |
| Assess discount and margin risk | Sales motion, negotiation pattern, cost-to-serve. | Identify where price will leak or create delivery risk. | Pricing risk list. |
| Recommend test or change | Diagnosis, evidence, constraints. | In diagnostic/test-design scope, propose evidence collection and test thresholds. Make an evidence-bounded price/package recommendation only when willingness-to-pay and economics support it; label unresolved assumptions. | Pricing action plan. |
Output Template
### 1. Buyer Value And Price Metric
Analysis scope: diagnostic / test-design / price recommendation
Buyer / segment:
Outcome valued:
Price metric:
Current price structure:
### 2. Alternatives And Willingness
| Alternative | Total buyer cost | Value / gap | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### 3. Economics And Risk
| Variable | Value / range | Margin effect | Discount risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### 4. Pricing Action
Recommendation:
Guardrail:
Test:
Success / stop threshold:
### 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 Buyer Value And Price Metric, Alternatives And Willingness, Economics And Risk; 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.
- Match conclusions to the selected scope: missing buyer or economic evidence yields a diagnostic/test plan, not a validated price or launch endorsement; keep target margin, competitor benchmarks and demonstrated willingness to pay distinct.
- Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
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.

