Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From commercial-skills
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 claudepluginhub alexbramall/claude-code-skills --plugin commercial-skillsHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/commercial-skills:channel-economicsThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Help Head of Commercial / RevOps / VP Sales answer three questions at the quarterly channel review:
Guides technical evaluation of code review feedback: read fully, restate for understanding, verify against codebase, respond with reasoning or pushback before implementing.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
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.