commercial/skills/channel-economics/SKILL.md
Use when reviewing or rebalancing direct vs. partner-led channel economics — computing fully-loaded cost-to-serve per channel, channel ROI with cash / LTV / marginal lenses, and optimal channel mix subject to constraints. For Head of Commercial, RevOps, and VP Sales doing quarterly channel review when pipeline is mixed (e.g., 60% direct + 40% partner-led) and nobody actually knows which channel makes money after CAC, support load, partner discount, deal-velocity differences, retention differential, and overhead allocation are all loaded in. Outputs cost to serve, channel ROI verdicts (DOUBLE-DOWN / MAINTAIN / DEFUND / EXIT), a sensitivity-tested channel-mix recommendation, and the diminishing-returns inflection. Not channel structure (that's partnerships-architect — tiers, joint GTM, revshare). Not RevOps process (that's business-growth/revenue-operations — lead routing, SDR motion). Not strategic CRO judgment (that's c-level-advisor/cro-advisor — comp plans, when-to-hire-a-VP-Sales). Not historical close-and-report (that's finance/financial-analysis). This skill answers: direct vs partner profitability, channel profitability, channel mix, channel economics.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills channel-economicsInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Help Head of Commercial / RevOps / VP Sales answer three questions at the quarterly channel review:
The skill emits per-channel verdicts (DOUBLE-DOWN / MAINTAIN / DEFUND / EXIT), a sensitivity-tested mix recommendation, and the diminishing-returns inflection point. It does not pick the strategy — humans do, with the numbers loaded honestly for the first time.
Do not use for:
partnerships-architectbusiness-growth/revenue-operationsc-level-advisor/cro-advisorfinance/financial-analysisdeal-deskpricing-strategistFill assets/channel_data_template.md (≈ 20 min). Capture per channel: deal count TTM, ARR TTM, avg deal size, gross margin %, CAC, sales-cycle days, retention rate, expansion rate, partner discount %, all attributable costs (SDR / AE / SE / channel manager / CS / support / marketing / partner MDF / tooling / overhead allocation %).
The template surfaces the costs teams most often forget: partner enablement time, certification investment, channel-conflict resolution overhead, channel-manager headcount cost.
Run scripts/cost_to_serve_calculator.py --input channel.json --output markdown.
Output: fully-loaded cost-to-serve per deal AND per dollar of ARR, with direct costs broken out from allocated overhead, and a "true gross margin" line after channel-specific load. Flags double-counting and surfaces hidden costs.
Run once per channel. The "true gross margin" line is the input the next two scripts care about.
Run scripts/channel_roi_analyzer.py --input roi.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output: per channel, three ROI numbers (Cash year-1, LTV-adjusted, Marginal), the diminishing-returns inflection point, and a verdict: DOUBLE-DOWN / MAINTAIN / DEFUND / EXIT.
Verdict logic is deterministic and surfaced in the report. Humans can override; the skill won't.
Run scripts/channel_mix_optimizer.py --input mix.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output: recommended mix that maximizes effective ARR subject to constraints (min direct %, max partner concentration), plus a sensitivity table (what if direct CAC rises 20%? what if partner discount widens 5 points?).
Take the three reports into the quarterly channel review. The skill recommends; the human commits.
scripts/cost_to_serve_calculator.py — fully-loaded cost-to-serve per deal AND per $ ARR, with hidden-cost surfacingscripts/channel_roi_analyzer.py — 3-lens ROI (Cash / LTV / Marginal) with verdicts and diminishing-returns inflectionscripts/channel_mix_optimizer.py — constrained mix optimizer with sensitivity scenariosAll scripts: stdlib only. --help, --sample, --input, --output work on all three. Industry tuning via --profile {saas,api,enterprise-software,marketplace,hardware} on the two analyzers.
references/channel_economics_canon.md — Skok, Bessemer State of the Cloud, Tunguz, Pacific Crest / KeyBanc SaaS Survey, Ramanujam, Jay McBain (Canalys)references/cost_to_serve_canon.md — Kaplan & Cooper (ABC), Horngren, Jeremy Hope, IBM CTS case studies, McKinsey, Gartner, BCGreferences/channel_anti_patterns.md — Forrester, Tunguz, Hessling, HBR, SiriusDecisions, MIT Sloan, Gartner--profile) tune defaults for benchmarks (e.g., SaaS direct CAC payback target ~12mo, enterprise ~18mo) — they don't override your numbers.Walked one at a time by /cs:grill-commercial or the orchestrator. Recommended answer + canon citation per question. Never bundled.
"What's your fully-loaded cost-to-serve per channel — including channel-manager headcount, MDF, partner enablement time, and overhead allocation?" Recommended: load all four. Most teams load partner discount but forget the channel-manager headcount and the enablement time, inflating partner margin by 8-15 points. Canon: Kaplan & Cooper (HBR 1988) — Measure Costs Right: Make the Right Decisions. Activity-Based Costing was invented precisely because channel costs hide in overhead and distort margin comparisons.
"What is the retention differential between direct-sourced and partner-sourced customers?" Recommended: instrument per-channel retention BEFORE running channel ROI. A 5-point retention gap moves LTV by 30-50%. Canon: David Skok (For Entrepreneurs — SaaS Metrics 2.0). LTV = (ARPA × Gross Margin) / Churn. Channel-blind churn is the most common source of false channel ROI.
"What share of 'channel-sourced' pipeline did your team actually originate?" Recommended: if your AE already had the account, it's not channel-sourced — it's channel-influenced. Influence and source are different economic lines. Canon: SiriusDecisions / Forrester channel attribution research — confused source vs. influence is the #1 reason partner ROI is overstated industry-wide.
"What is the marginal ROI of the next dollar invested in partner program vs. direct sales?" Recommended: compute the diminishing-returns curve on both. Average ROI hides the fact that the next dollar might earn 0.3x while the average earns 2.1x. Canon: Tomasz Tunguz (Tomasz Tunguz blog — channel CAC analyses). Average ROI is a vanity metric; marginal ROI drives investment decisions.
"What's your MDF-to-attributable-pipeline ratio in the last 4 quarters?" Recommended: < 5:1 (every $1 of MDF should generate ≥ $5 of attributable pipeline within 2 quarters). Anything looser is partner-discount theatre. Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — State of the Channel research. MDF without attribution discipline is the most expensive form of channel subsidy.
"Is your channel-mix dogma blocking a profitable segment?" Recommended: surface the dogma ("we're partner-first", "we don't sell direct in SMB") explicitly. Mix should follow the segment math. Canon: MIT Sloan Management Review — When Channel Conflict Means Growth. Dogmatic single-channel strategies forfeit 15-25% of TAM in mid-market specifically.
"What overhead-allocation methodology are you applying — and is it consistent across direct and partner?" Recommended: same methodology, same denominator, both channels. Inconsistent allocation is the silent killer of channel-economics analysis. Canon: Charles Horngren (Cost Accounting: A Managerial Emphasis) — allocation consistency is the precondition for cross-segment margin comparison. Without it, every conclusion is contaminated.
Walk depth-first. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-7. After all 7 are answered, invoke cost_to_serve_calculator.py → channel_roi_analyzer.py → channel_mix_optimizer.py in sequence.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.