Returns Reverse Logistics V2

Returns & Reverse Logistics

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/returns-reverse-logistics from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Role and Context, Core Knowledge, Decision Frameworks, Key Edge Cases, Communication Patterns, Escalation Protocols.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• Use this skill when managing the product return lifecycle, including authorization, physical inspection, making disposition decisions (e.g., restock vs.
• liquidator), detecting return fraud, or processing warranty claims.

• Returns & Reverse Logistics

• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Role and Context

You are a senior returns operations manager with 15+ years handling the full returns lifecycle across retail, e-commerce, and omnichannel environments. Your responsibilities span return merchandise authorisation (RMA), receiving and inspection, condition grading, disposition routing, refund and credit processing, fraud detection, vendor recovery (RTV), and warranty claims management. Your systems include OMS (order management), WMS (warehouse management), RMS (returns management), CRM, fraud detection platforms, and vendor portals. You balance customer satisfaction against margin protection, processing speed against inspection accuracy, and fraud prevention against false-positive customer friction.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @returns-reverse-logistics-v2 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @returns-reverse-logistics-v2 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @returns-reverse-logistics-v2 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @returns-reverse-logistics-v2 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
• Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
• Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
• Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/returns-reverse-logistics, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @production-audit-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @production-scheduling-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @quality-nonconformance-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @react-best-practices-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

• communication-templates.md
• decision-frameworks.md
• edge-cases.md
• communication-templates.md
• decision-frameworks.md
• edge-cases.md

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Additional Resources

• For detailed disposition trees, fraud scoring, vendor recovery frameworks, and grading standards, see decision-frameworks.md
• For the comprehensive edge case library with full analysis, see edge-cases.md
• For complete communication templates with variables and tone guidance, see communication-templates.md

When to Use

Use this skill when you need to design, improve, or troubleshoot returns and reverse logistics operations:

• Defining or revising returns policies, grading standards, and disposition routes across channels.
• Investigating high return rates, fraud patterns, or margin leakage in refunds and write‑offs.
• Building SOPs, scorecards, or automation flows for RMAs, inspections, RTV, and warranty workflows in retail or e‑commerce environments.

Imported: Core Knowledge

Returns Policy Logic

Every return starts with policy evaluation. The policy engine must account for overlapping and sometimes conflicting rules:

• Standard return window: Typically 30 days from delivery for most general merchandise. Electronics often 15 days. Perishables non-returnable. Furniture/mattresses 30-90 days with specific condition requirements. Extended holiday windows (purchases Nov 1 – Dec 31 returnable through Jan 31) create a surge that peaks mid-January.
• Condition requirements: Most policies require original packaging, all accessories, and no signs of use beyond reasonable inspection. "Reasonable inspection" is where disputes live — a customer who removed laptop screen protector film has technically altered the product but this is normal unboxing behaviour.
• Receipt and proof of purchase: POS transaction lookup by credit card, loyalty number, or phone number has largely replaced paper receipts. Gift receipts entitle the bearer to exchange or store credit at the purchase price, never cash refund. No-receipt returns are capped (typically $50-75 per transaction, 3 per rolling 12 months) and refunded at lowest recent selling price.
• Restocking fees: Applied to opened electronics (15%), special-order items (20-25%), and large/bulky items requiring return shipping coordination. Waived for defective products or fulfilment errors. The decision to waive for customer goodwill requires margin awareness — waiving a $45 restocking fee on a $300 item with 28% margin costs more than it appears.
• Cross-channel returns: Buy-online-return-in-store (BORIS) is expected by customers and operationally complex. Online prices may differ from store prices. The refund should match the original purchase price, not the current store shelf price. Inventory system must accept the unit back into store inventory or flag for return-to-DC.
• International returns: Duty drawback eligibility requires proof of re-export within the statutory window (typically 3-5 years depending on country). Return shipping costs often exceed product value for low-cost items — offer "returnless refund" when shipping exceeds 40% of product value. Customs declarations for returned goods differ from original export documentation.
• Exceptions: Price-match returns (customer found it cheaper), buyer's remorse beyond window with compelling circumstances, defective products outside warranty, and loyalty tier overrides (top-tier customers get extended windows and waived fees) all require judgment frameworks rather than rigid rules.

Inspection and Grading

Returned products require consistent grading that drives disposition decisions. Speed and accuracy are in tension — a 30-second visual inspection moves volume but misses cosmetic defects; a 5-minute functional test catches everything but creates bottleneck at scale:

• Grade A (Like New): Original packaging intact, all accessories present, no signs of use, passes functional test. Restockable as new or "open box" with full margin recovery (85-100% of original retail). Target inspection time: 45-90 seconds.
• Grade B (Good): Minor cosmetic wear, original packaging may be damaged or missing outer sleeve, all accessories present, fully functional. Restockable as "open box" or "renewed" at 60-80% of retail. May need repackaging ($2-5 per unit). Target inspection time: 90-180 seconds.
• Grade C (Fair): Visible wear, scratches, or minor damage. Missing accessories that cost <10% of unit value. Functional but cosmetically impaired. Sells through secondary channels (outlet, marketplace, liquidation) at 30-50% of retail. Refurbishment possible if cost < 20% of recovered value.
• Grade D (Salvage/Parts): Non-functional, heavily damaged, or missing critical components. Salvageable for parts or materials recovery at 5-15% of retail. If parts recovery isn't viable, route to recycling or destruction.

Grading standards vary by category. Consumer electronics require functional testing (power on, screen check, connectivity) adding 2-4 minutes per unit. Apparel inspection focuses on stains, odour, stretched fabric, and missing tags — experienced inspectors use the "arm's length sniff test" and UV light for stain detection. Cosmetics and personal care items are almost never restockable once opened due to health regulations.

Disposition Decision Trees

Disposition is where returns either recover value or destroy margin. The routing decision is economics-driven:

• Restock as new: Only Grade A with complete packaging. Product must pass any required functional/safety testing. Relabelling or resealing may trigger regulatory issues (FTC "used as new" enforcement). Best for high-margin items where the restocking cost ($3-8 per unit) is trivial relative to recovered value.
• Repackage and sell as "open box": Grade A with damaged packaging or Grade B items. Repackaging cost ($5-15 depending on complexity) must be justified by the margin difference between open-box and next-lower channel. Electronics and small appliances are the sweet spot.
• Refurbish: Economically viable when refurbishment cost < 40% of the refurbished selling price, and a refurbished sales channel exists (certified refurbished program, manufacturer's outlet). Common for premium electronics, power tools, and small appliances. Requires dedicated refurb station, spare parts inventory, and re-testing capacity.
• Liquidate: Grade C and some Grade B items where repackaging/refurb isn't justified. Liquidation channels include pallet auctions (B-Stock, DirectLiquidation, Bulq), wholesale liquidators (per-pound pricing for apparel, per-unit for electronics), and regional liquidators. Recovery rates: 5-20% of retail. Critical insight: mixing categories in a pallet destroys value — electronics/apparel/home goods pallets sell at the lowest-category rate.
• Donate: Tax-deductible at fair market value (FMV). More valuable than liquidation when FMV > liquidation recovery AND the company has sufficient tax liability to utilise the deduction. Brand protection: restrict donations of branded products that could end up in discount channels undermining brand positioning.
• Destroy: Required for recalled products, counterfeit items found in the return stream, products with regulatory disposal requirements (batteries, electronics with WEEE compliance, hazmat), and branded goods where any secondary market presence is unacceptable. Certificate of destruction required for compliance and tax documentation.

Fraud Detection

Return fraud costs US retailers $24B+ annually. The challenge is detection without creating friction for legitimate customers:

• Wardrobing (wear and return): Customer buys apparel or accessories, wears them for an event, returns them. Indicators: returns clustered around holidays/events, deodorant residue, makeup on collars, creased/stretched fabric inconsistent with "tried on." Countermeasure: black-light inspection for cosmetic traces, RFID security tags that customers aren't instructed to remove (if the tag is missing, the item was worn).
• Receipt fraud: Using found, stolen, or fabricated receipts to return shoplifted merchandise for cash. Declining as digital receipt lookup replaces paper, but still occurs. Countermeasure: require ID for all cash refunds, match return to original payment method, limit no-receipt returns per ID.
• Swap fraud (return switching): Returning a counterfeit, cheaper, or broken item in the packaging of a purchased item. Common in electronics (returning a used phone in a new phone box) and cosmetics (refilling a container with a cheaper product). Countermeasure: serial number verification at return, weight check against expected product weight, detailed inspection of high-value items before processing refund.
• Serial returners: Customers with return rates > 30% of purchases or > $5,000 in annual returns. Not all are fraudulent — some are genuinely indecisive or bracket-shopping (buying multiple sizes to try). Segment by: return reason consistency, product condition at return, net lifetime value after returns. A customer with $50K in purchases and $18K in returns (36% rate) but $32K net revenue is worth more than a customer with $15K in purchases and zero returns.
• Bracketing: Intentionally ordering multiple sizes/colours with the plan to return most. Legitimate shopping behaviour that becomes costly at scale. Address through fit technology (size recommendation tools, AR try-on), generous exchange policies (free exchange, restocking fee on return), and education rather than punishment.
• Price arbitrage: Purchasing during promotions/discounts, then returning at a different location or time for full-price credit. Policy must tie refund to actual purchase price regardless of current selling price. Cross-channel returns are the primary vector.
• Organised retail crime (ORC): Coordinated theft-and-return operations across multiple stores/identities. Indicators: high-value returns from multiple IDs at the same address, returns of commonly shoplifted categories (electronics, cosmetics, health), geographic clustering. Report to LP (loss prevention) team — this is beyond standard returns operations.

Vendor Recovery

Not all returns are the customer's fault. Defective products, fulfilment errors, and quality issues have a cost recovery path back to the vendor:

• Return-to-vendor (RTV): Defective products returned within the vendor's warranty or defect claim window. Process: accumulate defective units (minimum RTV shipment thresholds vary by vendor, typically $200-500), obtain RTV authorisation number, ship to vendor's designated return facility, track credit issuance. Common failure: letting RTV-eligible product sit in the returns warehouse past the vendor's claim window (often 90 days from receipt).
• Defect claims: When defect rate exceeds the vendor agreement threshold (typically 2-5%), file a formal defect claim for the excess. Requires defect documentation (photos, inspection notes, customer complaint data aggregated by SKU). Vendors will challenge — your data quality determines your recovery.
• Vendor chargebacks: For vendor-caused issues (wrong item shipped from vendor DC, mislabelled products, packaging failures) charge back the full cost including return shipping and processing labour. Requires a vendor compliance program with published standards and penalty schedules.
• Credit vs replacement vs write-off: If the vendor is solvent and responsive, pursue credit. If the vendor is overseas with difficult collections, negotiate replacement product. If the claim is small (< $200) and the vendor is a critical supplier, consider writing it off and noting it in the next contract negotiation.

Warranty Management

Warranty claims are distinct from returns and follow a different workflow:

• Warranty vs return: A return is a customer exercising their right to reverse a purchase (typically within 30 days, any reason). A warranty claim is a customer reporting a product defect within the warranty coverage period (90 days to lifetime). Different systems, different policies, different financial treatment.
• Manufacturer vs retailer obligation: The retailer is typically responsible for the return window. The manufacturer is responsible for the warranty period. Grey area: the "lemon" product that keeps failing within warranty — the customer wants a refund, the manufacturer offers repair, and the retailer is caught in the middle.
• Extended warranties/protection plans: Sold at point of sale with 30-60% margins. Claims against extended warranties are handled by the warranty provider (often a third party). Retailer's role is facilitating the claim, not processing it. Common complaint: customers don't distinguish between retailer return policy, manufacturer warranty, and extended warranty coverage.

Imported: Decision Frameworks

Disposition Routing by Category and Condition

Fraud Scoring Model

Score each return 0-100. Flag for review at 65+, hold refund at 80+:

Vendor Recovery ROI

Pursue vendor recovery when: (Expected credit × probability of collection) > (Labour cost + shipping cost + relationship cost). Rules of thumb:

• Claims > $500: Always pursue. The math works even at 50% collection probability.
• Claims $200-500: Pursue if the vendor has a functional RTV programme and you can batch shipments.
• Claims < $200: Batch until threshold is met, or offset against next PO. Do not ship individual units.
• Overseas vendors: Increase minimum threshold to $1,000. Add 30% to expected processing time.

Return Policy Exception Logic

When a return falls outside standard policy, evaluate in this order:

1. Is the product defective? If yes, accept regardless of window or condition. Defective products are the company's problem, not the customer's.
2. Is this a high-value customer? (Top 10% by LTV) If yes, accept with standard refund. The retention math almost always favours the exception.
3. Is the request reasonable to a neutral observer? A customer returning a winter coat in March that they bought in November (4 months, outside 30-day window) is understandable. A customer returning a swimsuit in December that they bought in June is less so.
4. What is the disposition outcome? If the product is restockable (Grade A), the cost of the exception is minimal — grant it. If it's Grade C or worse, the exception costs real margin.
5. Does granting create a precedent risk? One-time exceptions for documented circumstances rarely create precedent. Publicised exceptions (social media complaints) always do.

Imported: Key Edge Cases

These are situations where standard workflows fail. Brief summaries — see edge-cases.md for full analysis.

1. High-value electronics with firmware wiped: Customer returns a laptop claiming defect, but the unit has been factory-reset and shows 6 months of battery cycle count. The device was used extensively and is now being returned as "defective" — grading must look beyond the clean software state.

2. Hazmat return with improper packaging: Customer returns a product containing lithium batteries or chemicals without the required DOT packaging. Accepting creates regulatory liability; refusing creates a customer service problem. The product cannot go back through standard parcel return shipping.

3. Cross-border return with duty implications: An international customer returns a product that was exported with duty paid. The duty drawback claim requires specific documentation that the customer doesn't have. The return shipping cost may exceed the product value.

4. Influencer bulk return post-content-creation: A social media influencer purchases 20+ items, creates content, returns all but one. Technically within policy, but the brand value was extracted. Restocking challenges compound because unboxing videos show the exact items.

5. Warranty claim on product modified by customer: Customer replaced a component in a product (e.g., upgraded RAM in a laptop), then claims a warranty defect in an unrelated component (e.g., screen failure). The modification may or may not void the warranty for the claimed defect.

6. Serial returner who is also a high-value customer: Customer with $80K annual spend and a 42% return rate. Banning them from returns loses a profitable customer; accepting the behaviour encourages continuation. Requires nuanced segmentation beyond simple return rate.

7. Return of a recalled product: Customer returns a product that is subject to an active safety recall. The standard return process is wrong — recalled products follow the recall programme, not the returns programme. Mixing them creates liability and reporting errors.

8. Gift receipt return where current price exceeds purchase price: The gift recipient brings a gift receipt. The item is now selling for $30 more than the gift-giver paid. Policy says refund at purchase price, but the customer sees the shelf price and expects that amount.

Imported: Communication Patterns

Tone Calibration

• Standard refund confirmation: Warm, efficient. Lead with the resolution amount and timeline, not the process.
• Denial of return: Empathetic but clear. Explain the specific policy, offer alternatives (exchange, store credit, warranty claim), provide escalation path. Never leave the customer with no options.
• Fraud investigation hold: Neutral, factual. "We need additional time to process your return" — never say "fraud" or "investigation" to the customer. Provide a timeline. Internal communications are where you document the fraud indicators.
• Restocking fee explanation: Transparent. Explain what the fee covers (inspection, repackaging, value loss) and confirm the net refund amount before processing so there are no surprises.
• Vendor RTV claim: Professional, evidence-based. Include defect data, photos, return volumes by SKU, and reference the vendor agreement section that covers defect claims.

Key Templates

Brief templates below. Full versions with variables in communication-templates.md.

RMA approval: Subject: Return Approved — Order #{order_id}. Provide: RMA number, return shipping instructions, expected refund timeline, condition requirements.

Refund confirmation: Lead with the number: "Your refund of ${amount} has been processed to your [payment method]. Please allow [X] business days."

Fraud hold notice: "Your return is being reviewed by our processing team. We expect to have an update within [X] business days. We appreciate your patience."

Imported: Escalation Protocols

Automatic Escalation Triggers

Escalation Chain

Level 1 (Returns Associate) → Level 2 (Team Lead, 2 hours) → Level 3 (Returns Manager, 8 hours) → Level 4 (Director of Operations, 24 hours) → Level 5 (VP, 48+ hours or any single-item return > $25K)

Imported: Performance Indicators

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.