Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Design retention and engagement loops that bring users back. Use when asked to improve retention, design an engagement/habit loop, fix a leaky retention curve, or build a re-engagement system. Produces a retention design — the retention curve diagnosis, the core habit loop (trigger→action→reward→investment), the activation→habit path, re-engagement triggers, and the metrics to watch.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-retention-loop-design/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | -10% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 14% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 30% | 0% |
| case-21 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 44% | 0% |
| case-23 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 96% | 0% |
Acquisition without retention is a leaky bucket — you pay to fill it and it drains. This skill diagnoses where and why users drop, then designs the loop that makes the product habitual: the trigger that brings them back, the value they get, and the investment that makes the next visit more likely. Retention is the truest measure of product-market fit.
Ask for these only if they aren't already provided:
1. Curve diagnosis — read the retention curve: does it flatten (a retained core exists — good) or decay to zero (no PMF for this segment)? Identify the drop-off point and the cohort that retains best (your beachhead).
2. Activation → habit — the early "setup moment" and the habit milestone (e.g. "3 sessions in week 1"); the shortest path to it, since activation is the strongest lever on long-term retention.
3. The core loop — design the engagement loop explicitly:
4. Natural frequency match — align the loop's cadence to how often the job actually recurs; don't manufacture engagement the product doesn't warrant.
5. Re-engagement — triggered winback for users sliding toward churn (behavioural signal → message → return path); pair with lifecycle-crm-plan.
6. Metrics — the retention metric and cohort view to watch, plus the leading indicator (habit-milestone rate) that predicts it.
The Hook Model (Nir Eyal) and cohort-retention analysis practice (flattening curve = PMF signal).
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-13 | pass→pass | 29,476 | 44,588 | +51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,316 | 3,642 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 34,627 | 26,019 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,164 | 4,713 | -9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 32,705 | 21,900 | -33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,147 | 3,737 | -10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 22,671 | 26,819 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,205 | 3,645 | +14% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 21,029 | 15,527 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,184 | 3,187 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 24,643 | 26,184 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,093 | 4,024 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 23,029 | 26,786 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,738 | 3,723 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 24,924 | 22,231 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,814 | 3,959 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 15,475 | 23,416 | +51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,256 | 3,630 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 23,455 | 24,455 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,812 | 3,618 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 17,964 | 19,545 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,126 | 2,753 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 23,863 | 25,408 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,519 | 3,850 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 24,805 | 23,143 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,589 | 3,236 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 22,304 | 23,301 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,429 | 3,305 | +36% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 22,989 | 23,949 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,626 | 4,043 | +54% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 20,398 | 17,019 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,543 | 3,535 | +39% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 21,995 | 16,081 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,218 | 3,355 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 19,434 | 18,950 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,080 | 2,783 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 17,793 | 23,604 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,867 | 3,846 | +106% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 14,844 | 19,726 | +33% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,148 | 3,027 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | 24,949 | 29,672 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,310 | 4,754 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 25,377 | 23,814 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,989 | 4,436 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→fail | 25,432 | 27,593 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,819 | 5,531 | +96% | 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. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +4 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
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.