ai-economic-value-engine
Skill31 starsChanged 18 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when discovering, designing, prioritizing, or auditing AI-powered products for measurable business value. Applies to AI opportunity mapping, ROI cases, product strategy, client workshops, and deciding whether an AI feature should be built.
In this repository172 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- 00-meta-initializationSkill
- chwezi-dev-engineSkill
- ai-agent-commercial-operationsSkill
- ai-agent-compliance-controlsSkill
- ai-agent-governance-and-limitsSkill
- ai-agent-multi-agent-coordinationSkill
- ai-agent-observability-evaluationSkill
- ai-agent-runtime-architectureSkill
- ai-agent-safety-and-red-teamSkill
- ai-agent-tooling-and-hitlSkill
- ai-analyticsSkill
- ai-app-architectureSkill
- ai-cost-and-meteringSkill
- ai-evaluationSkill
- ai-feature-rollout-and-experimentationSkill
- ai-feature-specSkill
- ai-incident-responseSkill
- ai-llm-integrationSkill
- ai-model-gatewaySkill
- ai-observability-and-debuggingSkill
- ai-opportunity-canvasSkill
- ai-prompt-engineeringSkill
- ai-rag-patternsSkill
- ai-securitySkill
- ai-web-appsSkill
- coding-agent-optimizationSkill
- openai-agents-sdkSkill
- android-developmentSkill
- api-design-firstSkill
- distributed-systems-patternsSkill
- ecommerce-platform-audit-requirementsSkill
- graphql-patternsSkill
- microservices-architectureSkill
- system-architecture-designSkill
- validation-contractSkill
- database-design-engineeringSkill
- database-reliabilitySkill
- mysql-engineeringSkill
- postgresql-engineeringSkill
- cicd-pipelinesSkill
- cloud-architectureSkill
- deployment-release-engineeringSkill
- docker-developmentSkill
- infrastructure-as-codeSkill
- kubernetes-platformSkill
- observability-monitoringSkill
- reliability-engineeringSkill
- execution-plan-scriptsSkill
- accounting-engineSkill
- accounting-finance-controllerSkill
- electronic-fiscal-taxingSkill
- multicurrency-and-fxSkill
- avalonia-desktop-developmentSkill
- frontend-architectureSkill
- frontend-performanceSkill
- image-compressionSkill
- nextjs-app-routerSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 35
Default to read-only analysis.
- Distinctive: line 39
When required telemetry, evidence, execution, network access, or write authority is unavailable, return a partial result with each …
- Distinctive: line 90
Assess feasibility: Check data readiness, integration complexity, model reliability, evaluation difficulty, security, and maintenance …
- Distinctive: line 91
Choose architecture: Prefer deterministic workflow, RAG, analytics, or simple model call before agents or fine-tuning.
- Distinctive: line 124
Prefer no-build, deterministic workflow, analytics, or RAG recommendations when they create more value than agents.
- Distinctive: line 134
Never skip baseline measurement.
- Distinctive: line 135
Never promise perfect accuracy.
- Distinctive: line 136
Never build agents where deterministic automation or workflow design is safer.
- Distinctive: line 137
Never ignore post-launch ownership.
- Distinctive: line 140
Use companion AI implementation, evaluation, security, RAG, analytics, or agentic skills after the opportunity is economically justified.
≈ “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
AI Economic Value Engine
Operating contract
Inputs
| Input | Required | Purpose |
| Domain evidence | yes | business outcome, baseline process, demand volume, cost and benefit assumptions, risk constraints, and decision horizon |
Outputs
- Produce: prioritised opportunity register, value model, sensitivity cases, evidence gaps, and build/no-build recommendation.
Skill-specific outputs:
- AI opportunity map with value, feasibility, risk, and recommended sequence.
- Business case with assumptions, ROI model, cost drivers, and non-financial benefits.
- AI product brief or PRD with user stories, acceptance criteria, data needs, evaluation plan, and rollout stages.
- Architecture recommendation with model, RAG/tool/workflow choice, governance, and operating model.
- No-build recommendation when AI cannot be justified.
Capability and permission boundaries
Default to read-only analysis. Read only scoped records; redact secrets and regulated data. Writes, execution, network calls, production configuration, customer communication, billing changes, and delegation require explicit authority and an identified owner. Never widen tenant, time-window, or system scope implicitly.
Degraded mode
When required telemetry, evidence, execution, network access, or write authority is unavailable, return a partial result with each unassessed item labelled, preserve the safest existing state, and state the evidence or approval needed to continue. Never convert missing evidence into a pass.
Decision rules
| Condition | Action |
| Scope, owner, or threshold is missing | Stop the affected decision and request it |
| Evidence is incomplete but read-only analysis is safe | Produce a qualified partial result and gap list |
| A mutation exceeds authority or tenant boundary | Block it and route for approval |
| Evidence meets the stated threshold | Issue the output with provenance and owner |
Anti-Patterns
- Treating absent evidence as success. Fix: mark the check unassessed and name the missing source.
- Expanding one tenant or workflow to all tenants. Fix: enforce supplied scope at every query and action.
- Performing a production write during analysis. Fix: emit a reviewed change plan until authority is explicit.
- Reporting a metric without population, window, or source. Fix: attach all three.
- Hiding a failed threshold inside an average. Fix: report failure slices and the remediation owner.
Acknowledgement: Shared by Peter Bamuhigire, techguypeter.com, +256 784 464178.
<!-- dual-compat-start -->Use When
- A client or internal team wants AI features, AI transformation, agentic workflows, analytics, automation, or AI-powered apps.
- The work needs prioritization by business value, feasibility, data readiness, risk, and maintainability.
- You must turn AI capability into a proposal, PRD, roadmap, SRS, architecture, or implementation plan.
Do Not Use When
- The request is not materially about AI value, AI product selection, AI ROI, or AI investment prioritization.
- The user already has a committed AI feature and needs a narrower implementation, evaluation, security, RAG, or agent runtime skill.
Core Principle
AI must improve an economic system: revenue, margin, productivity, quality, speed, risk, compliance, retention, or decision accuracy. Do not recommend AI for novelty.
Required Inputs
- Target users and business process.
- Current pain, baseline metric, cost of the pain, and decision/action affected.
- Available data, data owner, freshness, quality, sensitivity, and access constraints.
- Risk tolerance, legal/compliance constraints, and human approval requirements.
- Budget, timeline, operating owner, and success metric.
Workflow
- Map the workflow: Trigger, actors, data, decisions, actions, handoffs, delays, and failure points.
- Find AI leverage: Classify opportunities as insight, prediction, generation, extraction, search, recommendation, decision support, or action automation.
- Estimate value: Quantify time saved, extra revenue, reduced leakage, fewer errors, faster turnaround, lower service cost, or reduced risk exposure.
- Assess feasibility: Check data readiness, integration complexity, model reliability, evaluation difficulty, security, and maintenance burden.
- Choose architecture: Prefer deterministic workflow, RAG, analytics, or simple model call before agents or fine-tuning.
- Define evaluation: Set quality, cost, latency, safety, business, and adoption thresholds.
- Plan operations: Assign owner, monitoring, feedback loop, incident response, model/prompt update cadence, and client reporting.
Opportunity Scorecard
Score each item 1-5.
| Dimension | Question |
| Business value | Does it move a financially or operationally important metric? |
| User pull | Will users adopt it inside their real workflow? |
| Data advantage | Do we have proprietary or hard-to-copy context/data? |
| Feasibility | Can current models and integrations meet the required quality? |
| Risk control | Can failures be detected, bounded, reversed, or escalated? |
| Evaluation clarity | Can we prove whether it works before and after launch? |
| Maintainability | Can the client or agency operate it for years? |
Prioritize high-value, high-feasibility, low-regret use cases first. Defer low-value or unmeasurable ideas even if they are technically impressive.
AI Product Patterns
- Decision cockpit: Aggregates data, explains options, and recommends next actions.
- Knowledge worker assistant: Drafts, checks, summarizes, and retrieves from trusted sources.
- Operational copilot: Guides staff through repeatable workflows with validation and approvals.
- Predictive engine: Forecasts demand, churn, risk, maintenance, fraud, or cash flow.
- Autonomous workflow: Executes bounded actions with tool contracts, audit logs, and human approval gates.
- AI analytics layer: Turns operational data into segmentation, anomaly detection, root-cause analysis, and dashboards.
Quality Standards
- Tie every recommendation to a measurable business, operational, risk, quality, or adoption outcome.
- Make assumptions, baselines, data readiness, operating owner, and failure modes explicit.
- Prefer no-build, deterministic workflow, analytics, or RAG recommendations when they create more value than agents.
Anti-Patterns
- Recommending AI because it is technically possible rather than economically justified.
- Treating model accuracy as the only success metric.
- Ignoring adoption, ownership, data readiness, cost, risk, and post-launch operations.
Hard Rules
- Never skip baseline measurement. If there is no baseline, propose how to collect it.
- Never promise perfect accuracy. State confidence, failure modes, human review, and fallback.
- Never build agents where deterministic automation or workflow design is safer.
- Never ignore post-launch ownership; AI products degrade without monitoring and feedback.
References
- Use companion AI implementation, evaluation, security, RAG, analytics, or agentic skills after the opportunity is economically justified.
Evidence Produced
| Category | Artifact | Format | Example |
| Correctness | AI value hypothesis and outcome ledger | Markdown table | baseline, intervention, attributable outcome, cost, counterfactual, uncertainty, and decision |
<!-- dual-compat-end -->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.

