AB subscription-app-revenue
Revenue playbook for taking a mobile or web subscription app from zero to early MRR (around $1K). Use when users ask how to make money from an app, reach first subscribers or $1K MRR, validate an app idea against app-store demand, plan ASO, TikTok/Reels/Shorts or Reddit acquisition, choose freemium vs trial vs rewarded unlock, place and word a paywall, price monthly/annual plans, read churn, or diagnose a weak install-to-paid funnel. Do not use for implementing in-app purchase code (capacitor-plugins, @capgo/native-purchases), store submission mechanics (capacitor-app-store), App Review rejections (capacitor-apple-review-preflight), or shipping OTA experiments (capgo-live-updates).
Revenue playbook for taking a mobile or web subscription app from zero to early MRR (around $1K).
As a process B 74/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
The same skill appears in 1 more place: capgo-skills
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 2
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 2
-
low Broad scope
meta-dynamic-shellSKILL.md:48Shell command executed automatically when the skill loads (Claude Code !`cmd` preamble)!`node -e "const fs=require('fs');if(!fs.existsSync('package.json'))process.exit(0);const pkg=JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync('package.json','utf8'));const needles=['@capacitor/core','@capacitor/ios','@cap -
low Broad scope
meta-dynamic-shellSKILL.md:51Shell command executed automatically when the skill loads (Claude Code !`cmd` preamble)!`find . -maxdepth 4 \( -name 'package.json' -o -name 'capacitor.config.*' -o -name 'app.json' -o -name 'app.config.*' -o -name 'Info.plist' -o -name 'AndroidManifest.xml' -o -path './metadata' -o -pa
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 74/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 30Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 30Running it twice. 3 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 94 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2687 tokens
- 100Progress reporting. Reports progress
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +4Description says when NOT to use the skill
- +3Description length 690: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 94 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.