cmj-hub Pricing Diagnostic — sub-skill
The core diagnostic engine. Before any pricing change, this sub-skill runs three surfaces in order and outputs a triage decision.
Activation
The main pricing skill routes here when the operator says:
- "Should I raise my prices?"
- "Where am I leaving money on the table?"
- "Diagnose my pricing"
- "Audit my pricing"
- "Run a pricing review"
Workflow
1. Load inputs
Required (from brand-config.json):
pricing.currentTiers— present prices + cadencepricing.valueMetric— current unitcustomer.psps— Pain Signal Profile(s)pricing.discountPolicy— documented thresholds or "discretion"
Optional but improves diagnosis:
pricing.wtpResearch— WTP discovery data if availablepricing.pocketWaterfall— discount waterfall if builtpricing.referenceAnchor— current reference frame
If pricing.* is empty, route to pricing-onboarding first.
2. Surface 1 — Willingness-to-pay (WTP) distribution
Diagnostic questions per PSP:
- Do you have structured WTP data? (Van Westendorp / Gabor-Granger / conjoint within last 18 months — Yes/No)
- If yes, what's the P10/P50/P90 of WTP per PSP?
- If no, what's the close-rate at current price per PSP?
- Are you discounting >15% on any PSP segment to close? (Indicates current price is above WTP P50 for that segment)
- Are you walking away from buyers who say "too expensive" without counter-offer? (Indicates current price is at or above WTP P90)
Score this surface 0-100:
| Score | State |
|---|---|
| 0-30 | No WTP data, high discount rate, no PSP differentiation. Highest-leverage area. |
| 31-60 | Some WTP signal, some discounting, partial PSP differentiation. Real leverage. |
| 61-85 | WTP data <18 months old per PSP, discounting within policy, PSP-aware pricing. Some room. |
| 86-100 | Recent structured WTP per PSP, quarterly refresh, tested by segment. Low-leverage. |
Output: WTP score + top 2 specific gaps + recommended action.
3. Surface 2 — Value-metric alignment
Diagnostic questions:
- What scales with your customer's success? (Volume of what they do = volume of value created)
- Does your current value metric (per-seat / per-call / etc.) scale with that? Y/N
- Are customers gaming the metric? (Sharing logins to avoid per-seat; routing through a single API key to avoid per-call; etc.)
- What's your top-decile customer paying — and does it reflect their value created?
- Are you charging customers who used to be small but are now huge at their old rate?
Score this surface 0-100:
| Score | State |
|---|---|
| 0-30 | Metric doesn't track customer growth. Gaming is happening. Top customers pay <2x median despite using >10x. |
| 31-60 | Metric tracks growth weakly. Some gaming. Top customers pay 3-5x median. |
| 61-85 | Metric tracks growth well. No documented gaming. Top customers pay 5-15x median. |
| 86-100 | Metric naturally scales with success. Customer expansion is automatic. Top customers pay >15x median. |
Output: Value-metric score + the alignment failure mode (if any) + recommended action.
4. Surface 3 — Packaging-vs-pricing diagnosis
Diagnostic questions:
- Can the buyer grok your tier differentiation in <30 seconds? (Test this — show the pricing page to someone who's never seen it.)
- Is your bottom tier so feature-poor it loses sales (vs being a real decoy that helps the target conversation)?
- Is your top tier so feature-rich it caps natural expansion?
- Are the WRONG features bundled together? (e.g., advanced reporting in the highest tier when most teams need it earlier)
- What % of buyers land on each tier? (Healthy: ~5-10% decoy / 70-80% target / 10-25% anchor)
Score this surface 0-100:
| Score | State |
|---|---|
| 0-30 | Pricing page is confusing. Bottom tier is broken. Tier landing % is skewed (e.g., 60% on decoy). |
| 31-60 | Page is OK, tier feature-set has obvious issues, landing distribution is off. |
| 61-85 | Clear page, reasonable tier diff, landing distribution close to healthy. |
| 86-100 | Tested page, clean differentiation, landing distribution within target. |
Output: Packaging score + the packaging issue (if any) + recommended action.
5. Triage decision
Cross-reference the three scores:
| WTP | Value-metric | Packaging | Triage decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Low | Low | Diagnostic discipline — pause new pricing work; do WTP discovery first. (~6 weeks) |
| Low | High | High | WTP discovery — your prices may be too low; investigate before raising. (~4 weeks) |
| High | Low | High | Metric shift — wrong unit is the issue; piloted with new logos first. (~8 weeks) |
| High | High | Low | Packaging rebuild — pricing page rebuild, NOT a price change. (~3 weeks) |
| Mixed | Mixed | Mixed | Audit + tribunal — escalate to pricing-audit then pricing-tribunal |
| All High | Hold + quarterly review — pricing is healthy; schedule the next review |
6. Output format
Pricing Diagnostic — {company}
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Surface 1 — Willingness-to-pay distribution: {score}/100
Top gaps:
- {gap 1}
- {gap 2}
Recommended: {action}
Surface 2 — Value-metric alignment: {score}/100
Failure mode: {none / per-seat misalignment / metric gaming / etc.}
Top customer paying: ${X}/mo vs median ${Y}/mo ({Z}x multiple)
Recommended: {action}
Surface 3 — Packaging-vs-pricing: {score}/100
Tier landing %: {bottom}% / {middle}% / {top}%
Packaging issue: {none / feature misbundle / decoy broken / etc.}
Recommended: {action}
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
TRIAGE: {triage decision}
NEXT SUB-SKILL: {sub-skill route}
TIMELINE: {duration}
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Self-check
Before delivering the report:
- All 3 surfaces scored with rationale
- Top 2-3 gaps named per surface (not just scores)
- Triage decision matches the surface-score matrix
- Next sub-skill named explicitly
- Timeline given (no "consult a pricing expert" hand-waving)
- No fabrication of WTP numbers or close-rate data the operator didn't provide
References
../../pricing/references/pricing-framework.md— the three surfaces deep../../pricing/references/value-metric-catalog.md— value-metric patterns../../pricing/references/decoy-effect-patterns.md— packaging diagnostics../pricing-audit/SKILL.md— the 30-point audit (next step for high-stakes diagnoses)../pricing-tribunal/SKILL.md— for material change decisions