Audit whether the organisation's AI spend actually paid — measured against baselines, not vendor math or vibes.
SkillScore95Maintained
Automatic
◆Finance & Accounting pack
Last verified 8/14/2026
What it changes
Passed 21 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 11 of 22 without it.
Without skill50%
With skill95%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response classifies the evidence as Tier 2 before/after with baseline.
The response classifies Tabnine's evidence method as Tier 1 Natural Experiment.
The response flags the promised outcome as retrofitted in the evaluation table.
and 10 more in the full report
10 fixed11 passed either way1 still failing0 broke
Pass-rate lift
+45 pp
Tokens
+25%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-11%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/14/2026v121 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 10 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 10
Prompt
Provide the final executive CFO summary block for an AI audit covering 5 tools ($150,000 total spend) where 2 are kept, 1 consolidated, 1 renegotiated, and 1 unknown.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response provides a single-paragraph summary detailing net financial position, two decisions to make, and future measurability.
Missed
Passed
case-19 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/14/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md65 linessingle file
AI ROI Audit Skill
Every org now spends real money on AI tools, and most justify it with adoption counts ("80% weekly active!") — which measure enthusiasm, not return. This skill audits what the spend returned, using methods that survive a sceptical CFO: baselines, counterfactuals, and quality deltas, with "we can't know yet" said out loud where it's true.
What This Skill Produces
A per-tool verdict table: keep / consolidate / renegotiate / cut, each with its evidence
The measurement behind each number — method, baseline, confidence — so the audit is checkable
A hidden-cost ledger (the part vendor ROI decks omit)
A baseline plan for every "unknown", so next year's audit has data
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
The AI tool inventory with costs: subscriptions, API spend, seats — and utilisation if known
What each tool was bought to do (the promised outcome, from the original business case if it exists)
Available evidence: usage data, before/after metrics, time studies, quality data, anecdotes (labelled as anecdotes)
The decision at stake: renewal? consolidation? budget defence? (calibrates depth)
Audit Method
Reconstruct the promise. Per tool: what outcome justified the purchase — time saved, quality improved, headcount avoided, revenue created? A tool without a stated outcome gets audited against the best-fit guess, flagged as retrofitted.
Score with the strongest method the evidence allows, in descending order of credibility:
Natural experiment — teams/periods with vs without the tool, same work (best available in most orgs)
Before/after with baseline — the metric before adoption vs after, seasonality noted
Task-level time study — 10-20 real tasks timed with/without (cheap to run during the audit — do it rather than skip to tier 4)
Structured self-report — users estimating time saved, discounted (self-reported AI savings run ~2× actuals; say so)
Never present a tier-4 number with tier-1 confidence. Every figure carries its method and a confidence label.
Count the hidden costs. Verification time (humans checking AI output), rework from AI errors that shipped, licence sprawl (seats bought > seats active), integration/prompt-maintenance time, and training time. These come off the gross benefit — an ROI audit that skips them is a vendor deck.
Convert honestly. Time saved → money only via a stated loaded rate and a stated assumption about what the time became (more output? earlier finishes? — different values). "Saved 400 hours" that nobody redeployed is capacity, not cash; label which one you're claiming.
Verdict per tool. Keep (positive with tier ≤2 evidence) · Consolidate (positive but duplicative — name the overlap) · Renegotiate (positive but mispriced vs utilisation) · Cut (negative or unmeasurable after a fair baseline attempt). Ties break toward the tool with a measurement plan.
Leave the audit better than you found it. Every "unknown" verdict gets a baseline plan: the metric, how it's instrumented, and the review date. The first audit is mostly this; that's a finding, not a failure.
Output Format
AI ROI Audit: [org/team] — [period]
Total AI spend: [sum] · Verdict summary: [n keep / n consolidate / n renegotiate / n cut / n unknown]