pricing-diagnostic
Diagnose Pricing Gaps Before Changing Prices
Pricing problems can come from weak demand evidence, misaligned billing units, or confusing tiers. This skill evaluates all three and recommends a focused next step.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "pricing-diagnostic" from https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.Your Agent should still show its plan and request any confirmation required by the security policy.
Agent-readable resources
Use these links when an AI agent, crawler, or script needs clean context instead of reading the full page.
Test it
Using "pricing-diagnostic". Illustrative case: research is absent, discounts exceed policy, billing aligns with value, and tested tiers are clear.
Expected outcome:
- Willingness to pay: low. Main gaps are missing research and discounts above policy.
- Value metric: high. The supplied billing evidence aligns charges with customer value.
- Packaging: high. Tested differentiation supports the existing tiers.
- Triage: willingness-to-pay discovery before raising prices. Suggested timeline: about four weeks.
Using "pricing-diagnostic". Illustrative case: recent segment research and billing alignment are strong, but 60% of buyers choose a confusing bottom tier.
Expected outcome:
- Willingness to pay: high. Recent segment evidence supports the review.
- Value metric: high. Charges scale with customer success.
- Packaging: low. Tier confusion and buyer concentration suggest a packaging problem.
- Triage: packaging rebuild rather than a price change. Suggested timeline: about three weeks.
Security Audit
SafeAll 23 static findings are false positives in the reviewed SKILL.md. Backticks format Markdown, parent-relative paths name documentation, and the reconnaissance match concerns customer billing behavior. No evidence found of executable commands, credential collection, data exfiltration, or prompt injection; referenced dependencies were not reviewed.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (17)
📁 Filesystem access (5)
Share & cite this report
Share the versioned assessment report, neutral badge, embed card, and citations. Skillstore reports evidence without deciding whether this Skill is safe.
Copy report link
https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>Academic citations (APA · BibTeX · CFF)
APA citation
cmj-hub. (2026). pricing-diagnostic security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/audits/1BibTeX citation
@techreport{cmj-hub-cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic-2026,
author = {cmj-hub},
title = {pricing-diagnostic security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/audits/1},
note = {Author version unspecified}
}CITATION.cff
cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "pricing-diagnostic security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
- name: "cmj-hub"
date-released: "2026-10-03"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:cmj-hub-pricing-diagnostic:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: MediumWhat You Can Build
Evaluate a Proposed Price Increase
Separate missing willingness-to-pay evidence from genuine pricing opportunities before deciding whether to raise prices.
Review Billing Metric Alignment
Investigate whether high-value customers pay proportionately and whether the current billing unit limits expansion.
Prioritize Tier Packaging Changes
Compare tier clarity, feature placement, and buyer distribution to determine whether packaging needs attention before price levels.
Try These Prompts
Diagnose my pricing using the attached tiers, billing metric, customer profiles, and discount policy. Identify missing evidence before scoring.
Review these segment close rates, discounts, and willingness-to-pay research. Score the three surfaces and explain whether more research should precede a price increase.
Use these usage ratios, customer payment ratios, tier features, and buyer distributions. Distinguish billing misalignment from packaging problems and prioritize the gaps.
Evaluate all supplied pricing evidence by customer profile. Explain each score, apply the triage matrix, name the next workflow, and estimate a timeline.
Best Practices
- Provide dated research and segment-level evidence alongside current tiers, billing units, customer profiles, and discount policy.
- Explain each score using supplied evidence and distinguish missing data from observed problems.
- Use the triage decision to prioritize investigation before implementing a material pricing change.
Avoid
- Inventing willingness-to-pay percentiles, close rates, or customer usage data to complete the report.
- Treating qualitative surface scores as precise forecasts of revenue or customer response.
- Raising prices when the evidence indicates a billing metric or packaging problem.