pricing-teardown — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited pricing-teardown (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Pricing is the highest-leverage growth lever -- a 1% price increase typically delivers more profit than a 1% volume increase or 1% cost decrease (Marn & Rosiello, HBR 2003). But pricing is also the most under-instrumented decision in early-stage SaaS. This skill replaces gut with structured analysis.
icp-definer firstpositioning-canvas firstHit the vendor's own pricing page -- not aggregator sites or blog comparisons. Capture:
If a competitor hides pricing entirely, note it -- strategic signal (sales-led + custom pricing).
Build a comparison table where every competitor is normalized to the same value metric. If the market mostly prices per seat, convert your per-API-call pricing to "implied per seat" using customer averages. Pricing isn't comparable if units differ.
Columns: vendor, tier, price/[unit], what's included, upgrade gate, free-tier shape.
| Anti-pattern | Symptom | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Value metric does not equal value | Per-seat pricing for a product where value scales with usage | Switch metric to what scales with value |
| Too many tiers (>4) | Decision paralysis, low-tier defaulting | Collapse to 3 tiers (Good / Better / Best) |
| No anchor tier | Mid-tier feels expensive | Add a deliberately-overpriced top tier to anchor mid-tier as "the reasonable choice" |
| Feature gates on table-stakes | Frustration, support tickets, churn | Move table-stakes to the lowest paid tier |
| Free tier with no upgrade path | Free users never convert | Add usage-based gate (volume, seats, time) that forces decision |
| Round numbers ($99, $999) | Leaves money on the table | Test $97, $129 |
| Annual >= 20% off without commitment | High refund/churn risk | Cap annual discount at 15-20% OR require non-refundable commitment |
| No mid-market tier | Drop-off between SMB and enterprise | Add mid-tier with sales-assisted onboarding |
Ask: what does the customer get more of, the more they pay you? That should be the value metric. Common ones:
A misaligned value metric is the #1 fixable pricing error in SaaS.
If the user has access to customers, run this 4-question survey (n=50+ for signal):
Plot cumulative curves. Intersection of "too expensive" and "too cheap" = Optimal Price Point. Intersection of "expensive" and "bargain" = Indifference Price Point (median customer's expected price).
If running the survey isn't feasible, use proxies:
Output one of these decisions:
positioning-canvas first, then come backNever recommend "lower" without strong evidence -- lowering price almost always destroys margin without buying volume in B2B SaaS.
PRICING TEARDOWN: [Product]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
1. CURRENT STATE
- Plans: [list]
- Value metric: [current]
- ARPU: $[X]
- Plan mix: [%/plan]
2. COMPETITOR LANDSCAPE (normalized table)
| Vendor | Tier | Price/[unit] | Free tier | Notable gate |
3. ANTI-PATTERNS DETECTED
- [Pattern]: [evidence] -> [fix]
4. VALUE METRIC AUDIT
- Current: [X]
- Should be: [Y] (because [reason]) OR: current is correct
5. PRICE POINT ANALYSIS
- Estimated indifference price: $[X] (basis: [survey/proxy])
- Estimated optimal price: $[X]
- Gap vs current: [+/- %]
6. RECOMMENDATION
- Action: [Hold / Raise / Restructure / Reposition]
- Specifics: [exact change]
- Expected revenue impact: [+ X% on new MRR within Y months, basis: ...]
- Risks: [what could go wrong]
- Rollout: [grandfather existing? A/B test? sales script changes?]
7. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW
[Honest list of data gaps that would sharpen the recommendation]positioning-canvasicp-definergtm-motion-picker~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.