SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC churn-prevention

When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies. Also use when the user mentions 'churn,' 'cancel flow,' 'offboarding,' 'save offer,' 'dunning,' 'failed payment recovery,' 'win-back,' 'retention,' 'exit survey,' 'pause subscription,' 'involuntary churn,' 'people keep canceling,' 'churn rate is too high,' 'how do I keep users,' or 'customers are leaving.' Use this whenever someone is losing subscribers or wants to build systems to prevent it. For post-cancel win-back email sequences, see emails. For in-app upgrade paywalls, see paywalls.

coreyhaines31/marketingskills Agent Skills author: coreyhaines31 MIT 4 files body ≈ 4 659 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 5 d ago

When the user wants to reduce churn, build cancellation flows, set up save offers, recover failed payments, or implement retention strategies.

As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, running it twice

GeneratorStripeData and analyticstype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
95/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
88
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
56/100
Has gaps
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 9): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
    • 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Tools and files. Uses tools (web) that frontmatter does not declare
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 4659 tokens
    • 85Steps. 81 steps, 2 vague phrases
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • low No test case covers injection arriving through data

    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
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 636: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 33 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 81 items
    • +4Has examples (4 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.