Analyze sales, refunds, and duplicate charges using billing evidence, then inspect code to check team billing and access rights. Separate customer impact from product behavior and summarize operator decisions, pricing comparisons, and gaps to address.
Evidence-first revenue, pricing, refunds, team-billing, and billing-model truth workflow for ECC. Use when the user wants a sales snapshot, pricing comparison, duplicate-charge diagnosis, or code-backed billing reality instead of generic payments advice.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this when the user wants to understand money, pricing, refunds, team-seat logic, or whether the product actually behaves the way the website and sales copy imply.
This is broader than customer-billing-ops. That skill is for customer remediation. This skill is for operator truth: revenue state, pricing decisions, team billing, and code-backed billing behavior.
Pull these ECC-native skills into the workflow when relevant:
customer-billing-ops for customer-specific remediation and follow-upresearch-ops when competitor pricing or current market evidence mattersmarket-research when the answer should end in a pricing recommendationgithub-ops when the billing truth depends on code, backlog, or release state in sibling reposverification-loop when the answer depends on proving checkout, seat handling, or entitlement behaviorPrefer live billing data. If the data is not live, state the snapshot timestamp explicitly.
Normalize the picture:
If the question is customer-specific, classify first:
Then separate that from the broader product question:
If the answer depends on implementation truth, inspect the code path:
Report:
SNAPSHOT
- timestamp
- revenue / subscriptions / anomalies
CUSTOMER IMPACT
- who is affected
- what happened
PRODUCT TRUTH
- what the code actually does
- what the website or sales copy claims
DECISION
- refund / preserve / convert / no-op
PRODUCT GAP
- exact follow-up item to build or fix
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.
Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.
Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.
Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.
Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.
Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.