Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Evaluate feature investments using revenue impact, cost structure, ROI, and strategy. Use when deciding whether a feature deserves investment.
.claude/skills/getcrew44-feature-investment-advisor/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 260% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 332% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 630% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 209% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 282% | 0% |
Guide product managers through evaluating whether to build a feature based on financial impact analysis. Use this to make data-driven prioritization decisions by assessing revenue connection (direct or indirect), cost structure (dev + COGS + OpEx), ROI calculation, and strategic value—then deliver actionable build/don't build recommendations with supporting math.
This is not a generic prioritization framework—it's a financial lens for feature decisions that complements other prioritization methods (RICE, value vs. effort, user research). Use when financial impact is a key decision factor.
A systematic approach to evaluate features financially:
Use this when:
Don't use this when:
Use workshop-facilitation as the default interaction protocol for this skill.
It defines:
Other (specify) when useful)This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic.
This interactive skill asks up to 4 adaptive questions, offering 3-5 enumerated options at decision points.
Agent asks:
"Let's evaluate the financial impact of this feature investment. Please provide:
Feature description:
Current business context:
Constraints:
You can provide estimates if you don't have exact numbers."
Agent asks:
"How does this feature impact revenue? Choose the option that best describes the revenue connection:
Choose a number, or describe a custom revenue connection."
Based on selection, agent adapts:
If 1 (Direct monetization):
Potential Monthly Revenue = Customer Base × Adoption Rate × PriceIf 2 (Retention improvement):
LTV Impact = Increase in Customer Lifetime × Customer Base × ARPU × MarginIf 3 (Conversion improvement):
Additional MRR = Trial Users × Conversion Lift × ARPUIf 4 (Expansion enabler):
Expansion MRR = Customer Base × Expansion Rate × ARPU IncreaseIf 5 (No direct revenue impact):
Agent asks:
"What's the cost structure for this feature?
Development cost (one-time):
Ongoing costs (if any):
If no ongoing costs, enter $0."
Agent calculates:
(Revenue - COGS) / RevenueAgent flags:
Agent asks:
"What constraints or timing considerations apply?
Choose a number, or describe your constraints."
Based on selection:
If 1 (Competitive threat):
If 2 (Limited capacity):
If 3 (Dependencies):
If 4 (No constraints):
Agent synthesizes:
Agent offers 3-4 recommendations:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build now — Strong financial case
Revenue Impact:
Cost:
ROI:
Why this makes sense: Specific reasoning based on numbers]
Next steps:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build for strategic reasons (financial case is marginal)
Financial Reality:
Strategic Value:
Recommendation: Build, but monitor closely:
Risk: Opportunity cost—other features may have better ROI"
When:
Recommendation:
"Don't build — Financial case doesn't support investment
Why:
Alternative approaches:
What would need to change:
When:
Recommendation:
"Build later — Validate assumptions first
Current uncertainty:
What to validate:
Decision criteria:
Timeline:
Agent offers:
"Do you want to:
Or, ask any follow-up questions."
Agent can:
See examples/ folder for sample conversation flows. Mini examples below:
User: "We're considering building time tracking as a paid add-on."
Agent: Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
Agent recommends:
"Build now — Positive ROI with fast payback
Revenue Impact: $240K/year (conservative 20% adoption) ROI: 1.92:1 in year 1, 3.8:1 in year 2 Payback: 5 months
Why this works:
Next steps:
User: "We're losing customers because they can't export their data easily. Should we build a comprehensive export feature?"
Agent: Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent calculates:
If feature reduces this by 50%:
Agent calculates ROI:
Agent recommends:
"Build immediately — Exceptional ROI on retention
Impact:
Why this is a no-brainer:
Next steps:
User: "Users are requesting dark mode. Should we prioritize it?"
Agent: Gathers context]
User provides:
Agent asks: "What evidence do you have that dark mode will reduce churn?"
User: "Feature requests from 50 users. No data on churn impact."
Agent calculates:
ROI: $360K / $80K = 4.5:1 (looks okay, but based on weak assumptions)
Agent recommends:
"Build later — Weak evidence for ROI
Current case:
Problem:
Alternative approach:
Better features to consider:
Decision criteria to build:
Symptom: "This feature will generate $1M in revenue!" (ignoring $800K COGS)
Consequence: $1M revenue at 20% margin is worth $200K profit, not $1M. Feature looks great until you factor in costs.
Fix: Always calculate contribution margin. Use Revenue × Margin %, not just revenue.
Symptom: "ROI is 5:1, let's build!" (but payback is 36 months and customers churn at 24 months)
Consequence: You never recover the investment because customers leave before payback.
Fix: Check payback period. Must be shorter than average customer lifetime.
Symptom: "100% of customers will use this paid add-on!"
Consequence: Real adoption is 10-20%. Revenue projections are 5-10x too high.
Fix: Use conservative adoption estimates (10-20% for add-ons). Validate with willingness-to-pay research.
Symptom: "We think this will reduce churn" (no customer interviews)
Consequence: You build a feature that doesn't address real churn reasons. Churn stays flat.
Fix: Interview churned customers first. Validate that this feature addresses top 3 churn reasons.
Symptom: "This feature has 2:1 ROI, let's build!" (other features have 10:1 ROI)
Consequence: You build a mediocre feature while better options sit in the backlog.
Fix: Compare ROI across features. Build highest-ROI features first (unless strategic value overrides).
Symptom: "ROI is terrible but it's strategic!" (no clear strategy)
Consequence: "Strategic" becomes a catch-all for building low-value features.
Fix: Define what "strategic" means (competitive moat, platform enabler, compliance). If it doesn't fit, it's not strategic.
Symptom: "This feature adds $500K revenue!" (but COGS is $400K)
Consequence: Your gross margin drops from 80% to 60%. Feature destroys unit economics.
Fix: Calculate contribution margin. If margin is <50%, reconsider or charge a premium.
Symptom: "This feature will increase engagement!" (but not revenue or retention)
Consequence: You build features that feel good but don't impact business outcomes.
Fix: Tie features to revenue or retention. Engagement is a leading indicator, not an outcome.
Symptom: "This feature pays back in 5 years"
Consequence: $1 in 5 years is worth ~$0.65 today (at 9% discount rate). ROI is overstated.
Fix: For long payback periods (>24 months), use NPV (net present value) to discount future cash flows.
Symptom: "50 customers requested this!" (out of 10,000)
Consequence: You optimize for 0.5% of your base while ignoring the other 99.5%.
Fix: Weight feature requests by revenue impact or customer segment. 10 enterprise customers > 100 SMB customers if enterprise is your strategy.
saas-revenue-growth-metrics — Revenue, ARPU, churn, NRR metrics used in impact calculationssaas-economics-efficiency-metrics — ROI, payback, contribution margin calculationsfinance-metrics-quickref — Quick lookup for formulas and benchmarksacquisition-channel-advisor — Similar ROI framework for channel decisionsfinance-based-pricing-advisor — Pricing impact analysis for monetization featuresresearch/finance/Finance_For_PMs.Putting_It_Together_Synthesis.md (Decision Framework #1)research/finance/Finance for Product Managers.md| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-07 | fail→pass | 12,248 | 8,890 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,930 | 6,945 | +260% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 9,779 | 4,002 | -59% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,635 | 6,094 | +273% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 10,572 | 6,207 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,471 | 6,358 | +332% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 5,165 | 4,378 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 837 | 6,112 | +630% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 11,829 | 7,954 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,733 | 6,619 | +282% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 9,920 | 6,423 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,422 | 6,489 | +356% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 14,663 | 8,745 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,257 | 6,744 | +199% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 11,662 | 8,072 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,852 | 6,975 | +277% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 9,780 | 7,038 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,543 | 6,656 | +331% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 13,470 | 7,686 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,003 | 6,683 | +234% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 13,866 | 7,581 | -45% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,093 | 6,702 | +220% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 10,657 | 10,194 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,947 | 7,205 | +270% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 12,099 | 5,876 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,138 | 6,614 | +209% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 4,511 | 4,124 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 912 | 6,232 | +583% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 3,669 | 3,386 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 710 | 6,030 | +749% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 16,437 | 5,724 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,644 | 6,327 | +139% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 14,144 | 8,314 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,017 | 6,624 | +228% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 13,488 | 10,981 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,169 | 7,156 | +230% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 11,397 | 3,640 | -68% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,809 | 6,048 | +234% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 13,942 | 7,774 | -44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,185 | 6,742 | +209% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 9,551 | 7,671 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,867 | 6,941 | +272% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 13,806 | 8,547 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,010 | 6,744 | +236% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +18 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.