customer-billing-ops
Skill8 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Operate customer billing workflows such as subscriptions, refunds, churn triage, billing-portal recovery, and plan analysis using connected billing tools like Stripe. Use when the user needs to help a customer, inspect subscription state, or manage revenue-impacting billing operations.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. 14 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
14
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
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
- Common: line 10
Use this skill for real customer operations, not generic payment API design.
- Common: line 24
Use connected billing tools such as Stripe first
- Common: line 25
Use email, GitHub, or issue trackers only as supporting evidence
- Common: line 26
Prefer hosted billing/customer portals over custom account-management code when the platform already provides the needed controls
- Common: line 30
Never expose secret keys, full card details, or unnecessary customer PII in the response
- Common: line 31
Do not refund blindly; first classify the issue
- Common: line 44
Start from the strongest identifier available:
- Common: line 62
Put the case into one bucket before acting:
- Common: line 82
If the fix requires product work, separate:
- Common: line 89
If the customer pain comes from a missing operator surface, call it out explicitly.
- Common: line 92
no usage/rate-limit visibility
- Common: line 93
no plan/seat explanation
- Common: line 97
Treat those as ECC or website follow-up items, not just support incidents.
- Common: line 106
follow-up text to send
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Customer Billing Ops
Use this skill for real customer operations, not generic payment API design.
The goal is to help the operator answer: who is this customer, what happened, what is the safest fix, and what follow-up should we send?
When to Use
- Customer says billing is broken, they want a refund, or they cannot cancel
- Investigating duplicate subscriptions, accidental charges, failed renewals, or churn risk
- Reviewing plan mix, active subscriptions, yearly vs monthly conversion, or team-seat confusion
- Creating or validating a billing portal flow
- Auditing support complaints that touch subscriptions, invoices, refunds, or payment methods
Preferred Tool Surface
- Use connected billing tools such as Stripe first
- Use email, GitHub, or issue trackers only as supporting evidence
- Prefer hosted billing/customer portals over custom account-management code when the platform already provides the needed controls
Guardrails
- Never expose secret keys, full card details, or unnecessary customer PII in the response
- Do not refund blindly; first classify the issue
- Distinguish among:
- accidental duplicate purchase
- deliberate multi-seat or team purchase
- broken product / unmet value
- failed or incomplete checkout
- cancellation due to missing self-serve controls
- For annual plans, team plans, and prorated states, verify the contract shape before taking action
Workflow
1. Identify the customer cleanly
Start from the strongest identifier available:
- customer email
- Stripe customer ID
- subscription ID
- invoice ID
- GitHub username or support email if it is known to map back to billing
Return a concise identity summary:
- customer
- active subscriptions
- canceled subscriptions
- invoices
- obvious anomalies such as duplicate active subscriptions
2. Classify the issue
Put the case into one bucket before acting:
| Case | Typical action |
| Duplicate personal subscription | cancel extras, consider refund |
| Real multi-seat/team intent | preserve seats, clarify billing model |
| Failed payment / incomplete checkout | recover via portal or update payment method |
| Missing self-serve controls | provide portal, cancellation path, or invoice access |
| Product failure or trust break | refund, apologize, log product issue |
3. Take the safest reversible action first
Preferred order:
- restore self-serve management
- fix duplicate or broken billing state
- refund only the affected charge or duplicate
- document the reason
- send a short customer follow-up
If the fix requires product work, separate:
- customer remediation now
- product bug / workflow gap for backlog
4. Check operator-side product gaps
If the customer pain comes from a missing operator surface, call it out explicitly. Common examples:
- no billing portal
- no usage/rate-limit visibility
- no plan/seat explanation
- no cancellation flow
- no duplicate-subscription guard
Treat those as ECC or website follow-up items, not just support incidents.
5. Produce the operator handoff
End with:
- customer state summary
- action taken
- revenue impact
- follow-up text to send
- product or backlog issue to create
Output Format
Use this structure:
CUSTOMER
- name / email
- relevant account identifiers
BILLING STATE
- active subscriptions
- invoice or renewal state
- anomalies
DECISION
- issue classification
- why this action is correct
ACTION TAKEN
- refund / cancel / portal / no-op
FOLLOW-UP
- short customer message
PRODUCT GAP
- what should be fixed in the product or websiteExamples of Good Recommendations
- "The right fix is a billing portal, not a custom dashboard yet"
- "This looks like duplicate personal checkout, not a real team-seat purchase"
- "Refund one duplicate charge, keep the remaining active subscription, then convert the customer to org billing later if needed"
Other versions6 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- renepf/claude-skills★ 0100% same
Edited · 4
- Fmarzochi/EGC★ 6198% same
- SamuelNDCE/claude-super-skill-library★ 199% same
- davidanthonyn/claude-skills★ 099% same
- gesh75/claude-skills★ 099% same
Wrote their own version · 1
- agenticluke/billing-rescue-plus★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository273 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibilitySkill
- agent-architecture-auditSkill
- agent-evalSkill
- agent-harness-constructionSkill
- agentic-engineeringSkill
- agentic-osSkill
- agent-introspection-debuggingSkill
- agent-payment-x402Skill
- agent-self-evaluationSkill
- agent-sortSkill
- ai-first-engineeringSkill
- ai-regression-testingSkill
- android-clean-architectureSkill
- angular-developerSkill
- api-connector-builderSkill
- api-designSkill
- architecture-decision-recordsSkill
- article-writingSkill
- automation-audit-opsSkill
- autonomous-agent-harnessSkill
- autonomous-loopsSkill
- backend-patternsSkill
- benchmark-methodologySkill
- benchmark-optimization-loopSkill
- benchmarkSkill
- blender-motion-state-inspectionSkill
- blueprintSkill
- brand-discoverySkill
- brand-voiceSkill
- browser-qaSkill
- bun-runtimeSkill
- canary-watchSkill
- carrier-relationship-managementSkill
- cisco-ios-patternsSkill
- ckSkill
- claude-devfleetSkill
- clickhouse-ioSkill
- click-path-auditSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- codehealth-mcpSkill
- code-tourSkill
- coding-standardsSkill
- competitive-platform-analysisSkill
- competitive-report-structureSkill
- compose-multiplatform-patternsSkill
- config-gcSkill
- configure-eccSkill
- connections-optimizerSkill
- content-engineSkill
- content-hash-cache-patternSkill
- context-budgetSkill
- continuous-agent-loopSkill
- contract-firstSkill
- cost-aware-llm-pipelineSkill
- cost-trackingSkill
- council-multi-modelSkill
- councilSkill
- cpp-coding-standardsSkill
- cpp-testingSkill
- crosspostSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

