pricing-tribunal
Evaluate High-Stakes Pricing Changes
Material pricing changes can affect revenue and customer retention without clear evidence or approval criteria. This workflow structures hypotheses, controlled tests, decision reviews, and post-rollout audits.
Install with my Agent
Copy this request to your Agent. It includes the canonical Skill page and manifest.
Review the Skillstore skill "pricing-tribunal" from https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal/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-tribunal". We propose usage-based pricing instead of a flat subscription. Revenue impact is estimated at 12%; reversal would take 90 days.
Expected outcome:
- Risk tier: Strategic because the proposal changes the value metric and exceeds 10% estimated ARR impact.
- Test window: 8-12 weeks, with executive review and grandfathering for existing customers.
- Missing inputs: predicted lift, downside concentration, falsification condition, cohort size, and kill-switch threshold.
Using "pricing-tribunal". We predicted a 20% ACV increase. The statistically significant result was 19%; side effects matched predictions and all owners approved in writing.
Expected outcome:
- Direction: Pass. Magnitude: Pass because 19% is within the stated tolerance around the 20% prediction.
- Side effects: Pass. Written approvals: Pass.
- Downside concentration: Not supplied. Complete this check before declaring all criteria passed or recommending rollout.
Using "pricing-tribunal". At the 30-day audit, churn exceeded our predicted downside after the pricing rollout.
Expected outcome:
- Audit finding: Actual downside diverged from the test prediction.
- Document the divergence reason in the failed-test registry.
- Reassess side effects and customer concentration at the 60- and 90-day reviews.
Security Audit
SafeAll 15 static findings are false positives involving Markdown formatting, documentation references, or business experiment questions. No evidence found of command execution, malicious filesystem access, data exfiltration, or prompt injection in the reviewed file. Referenced documents were not included in the audited file set.
Risk Factors
⚙️ External commands (9)
📁 Filesystem access (3)
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-tribunal/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_reportMarkdown badge
[](https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal?utm_source=security_passport_badge)HTML badge
<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>Embed card
<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal.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-tribunal security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal/audits/1BibTeX citation
@techreport{cmj-hub-cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal-2026,
author = {cmj-hub},
title = {pricing-tribunal security audit report (audit version 1)},
institution = {Skillstore},
year = {2026},
number = {1},
url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal/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-tribunal 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-tribunal/audits/1"
identifiers:
- type: other
value: "skillstore:cmj-hub-pricing-tribunal:audit:1"
description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"
Skillstore Score
Why this score Evidence Confidence: MediumWhat You Can Build
Review a Value-Metric Change
Assess a move from flat subscription pricing to usage pricing, including customer downside and strategic approval requirements.
Design a Sales Pricing Pilot
Prepare a limited prospect pilot with predicted revenue changes, cohort criteria, and a documented stop condition.
Audit a Pricing Rollout
Compare post-launch results against predictions and document unexpected effects at 30-, 60-, and 90-day reviews.
Try These Prompts
Review this pricing change: [change]. Estimated ARR impact: [percentage]; affected customers: [percentage]; reversal time: [days]. Identify the risk tier and missing information.
Develop a hypothesis for [change]. Use these assumptions: [expected outcome, mechanism, and customer downside]. Include predicted magnitude, direction, and a falsification condition.
Create a tribunal test plan for [hypothesis] using [risk tier and available data]. Specify cohort, duration, kill-switch threshold, and approval owners. Mark unsupported assumptions.
Compare [test results] with [predictions] using the verdict matrix. Consider [side effects, downside concentration, and written approvals]. Recommend a verdict and post-rollout audit criteria. Identify inconclusive evidence.
Best Practices
- State expected magnitude, direction, mechanism, downside concentration, and falsification conditions before collecting results.
- Record every changed input and document inconclusive tests instead of treating them as successful evidence.
- Name approval owners, define stop thresholds, and confirm review dates with the operator.
Avoid
- Treating a full pricing cutover as a controlled experiment.
- Changing multiple inputs without documenting attribution limits.
- Approving rollout without complete evidence, written sign-offs, or post-rollout review dates.