本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

agent-era-pricing

Redesign seat-based pricing for the agent era — when one human runs ten agents, per-seat models collapse. Use when agents are eroding seat counts, when asked to migrate to usage- or outcome-based pricing, to price an agent/API tier, or to defend revenue as customers automate their own usage. Produces a pricing migration plan: the new value metric, fences, agent-tier design, cannibalisation math, and a phased migration for existing customers. For general pricing and packaging strategy use pricing-strategy.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md5.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Agent Era Pricing Skill

Seat pricing quietly assumed the user was a human who logs in. Agents break the assumption from both sides: your customers need fewer seats (one operator, ten agents), and your product gets more usage than ever. This skill redesigns the model around a value metric that survives non-human users — without torching existing revenue on the way.

What This Skill Produces

  • A value-metric decision: what you charge for when seats stop proxying value
  • Agent-tier design: how agent/API usage is packaged, fenced, and priced
  • Cannibalisation math: what happens to current revenue under the new model, computed on real cohorts
  • A phased migration plan for existing customers, with the grandfathering decision made explicitly

Required Inputs

Ask for (if not already provided):

  • Current model: plans, price points, seat definitions, current API/automation pricing if any
  • The evidence of pressure: seat contraction, API traffic growth, customer asks, competitor moves
  • Unit economics: cost to serve a seat vs an API call/agent action (rough is fine, labelled)
  • 3-5 representative customer profiles with seat counts and usage (the cannibalisation test set)

Method

  1. Find the value metric that survives agents. Test candidates against three questions: does it scale with the value the customer receives (not your costs)? · is it counted identically whether a human or agent drives it? · can the customer predict their bill? Strong candidates are usually outcomes or work-objects (invoices processed, tickets resolved, campaigns run, records enriched) — not raw API calls (unpredictable, punishes retries) and not seats (dying assumption).
  2. Price the human and the agent differently, deliberately. The durable pattern is a hybrid: a platform/human layer (flat or few-seats — access, admin, support) plus a work layer priced on the value metric, agnostic to who did the work. Decide where agents authenticate: agent traffic on a user's token counted as that user's work, not as a "seat".
  3. Design the fences. What separates tiers now that seats don't: volume bands on the value metric, rate/concurrency limits, SSO/audit/compliance (still human-org fences), model/automation quality tiers. Every fence must be measurable and hard to game — name the gaming vector for each and why it's acceptable.
  4. Run the cannibalisation math on real cohorts. For each customer profile: current annual price vs new-model price at current usage, at 2× automation, at 5×. Sum to a revenue bridge. If the new model loses money on your best cohort, the metric or the bands are wrong — fix the model, don't hide the row.
  5. Phase the migration. New customers first (cleanest signal) → opt-in for existing (with a calculator showing their number) → forced migration only with long notice and a cap ("no more than X% increase in year one"). Grandfathering is a decision with a cost, not a default: state what perpetual legacy plans cost in five years.
  6. Set the tripwires. Which metrics reprice this model: value-metric inflation/deflation, gaming detected, agent share of traffic crossing thresholds. Pricing in the agent era is a program, not a project.

Output Format

Agent-Era Pricing Plan: [product]

Diagnosis: [the seat-erosion evidence, quantified] Value metric: [chosen metric] — because [the three-question test, answered]. Rejected: [runner-up + why].

The model

LayerWhat's includedPriced onTiers/bands
Platform (humans)
Work (human or agent)

Fences: [fence → what it separates → gaming vector → why acceptable]

Cannibalisation bridge

CohortTodayNew @ current usageNew @ 2× automationΔ

Migration: [phase → who → when → the cap/grandfather decision, stated] Tripwires: [metric → threshold → action]

Quality Checks

  • The value metric passes all three tests (customer value · human/agent-agnostic · predictable)
  • Cannibalisation is computed on the provided cohorts, not asserted — assumptions labelled
  • Every fence names its gaming vector
  • The migration includes an explicit grandfathering decision with its long-run cost
  • Agent authentication/attribution is specified — whose usage is whose bill

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not price raw API calls as the value metric — unpredictable bills punish exactly the automation you want to encourage
  • Do not bolt an "agent seat" onto seat pricing — an agent is not a discount human; the assumption is what broke
  • Do not present only the happy cohort — the bridge shows the losers or it isn't math
  • Do not force-migrate loyal customers without a year-one cap — churn from pricing anger costs more than the uplift
  • Do not skip tripwires — a static price in a shifting usage regime is a slow leak in one direction or the other

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Migrate to usage-."
  • "Price an agent/API tier."
  • "Defend revenue as customers automate their own usage."

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Design a 360-degree feedback survey or write a structured 360 feedback report. Use when asked to build a 360 feedback process, write 360 feedback for a colleague, design a feedback survey, or produce a feedback report. Produces either a complete survey instrument with rating scales and open-ended questions, or a structured narrative feedback report with themes, strengths, and development areas.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Decode a 401k or workplace retirement plan — the real cost of its funds, the match's fine print, vesting math, and the plan features worth using or avoiding. Use when someone asks 'is my 401k any good', 'decode my 401k plan', 'which funds should I look at', or 'what fees am I paying'. Produces a fee decode in dollars-over-time, match and vesting math, a fund-lineup triage by cost, and the questions for HR or the plan administrator.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Design statistically rigorous A/B tests for product features, UI changes, onboarding flows, and pricing experiments. Use when asked to set up an experiment, design an A/B test, calculate sample size, or interpret test results. Produces a complete test plan with hypothesis, variant definitions, sample size, duration estimate, guardrail metrics, and a results interpretation guide.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Analyse a finished A/B test and write the readout — the result, whether it's statistically and practically significant, what it means, and the ship/no-ship call. Use when asked to analyse experiment results, write an A/B test readout, interpret test data, or decide whether to ship a variant. Produces a clear verdict with the lift and confidence, segment cuts, the risks (peeking, novelty, sample), and a recommendation. Distinct from planning a test — this reads results.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Build or tailor an academic CV for faculty, postdoc, research or fellowship applications: publications, grants, teaching, supervision and service in the order the field expects, with consistent citations. Use when asked to write my academic CV, update my CV for a lectureship, tenure-track or postdoc application, format my publications list, or adapt my academic CV for an industry research role. Produces the full academic CV, a field-appropriate section order, a clean publications list in one citation style, and a two-page summary version when asked.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills1,4412026年10月13日 更新

mohitagw15856 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する