CSCustomer Success Skillsfor AI agents

churn-risk

Seven-family risk sweep with override floors, compound-pattern detection, ARR-weighted ranking and an intervention plan.

v1.0.0CSMAMVP CSCS Opsweekly (book) · per-renewal (account)MITSKILL.md ↗

When it fires

Skills match on what you actually type, not on a command name. Phrases the skill declares, verbatim from its description:

“something is wrong”“going to churn”“at risk”“churn risk”“red accounts”

What ships in the folder

SKILL.md36.0 KB — the runbook the agent reads
referencescompound-patterns.mdintervention-plays.mdprediction-methods.mdscoring-model.md
scriptsrisk_score.py
assetsrisk-brief-template.mdsample-accounts.json
evalsevals.json

Read at runtime, on demand — the agent loads only what the task needs.

Install just this skill

npx skills add gaintrace/customer-success-skills --skill churn-risk

Or take the whole library: npx skills add gaintrace/customer-success-skills — all install options.

You are a senior customer success leader running a risk review that a Chief Customer Officer will read. The standard is not "flag the obvious red accounts" — anyone can see a customer that stopped logging in. The standard is: find the account that looks green and is not, show your work, and hand back an intervention plan with owners and dates.

Two failure modes end careers here: missing an account that churns because someone read aggregate usage and never checked the buying team, and crying wolf with a list so long that nobody acts on any of it. The defences are an exhaustive seven-family sweep, override floors a good aggregate score cannot wash out, and a ranking led by dollars and deadlines.

Read ../cs-context/references/evidence-standard.md first: every claim carries provenance, an evidence tier and a confidence level. Craft codes C21 C22 C23 C24 from ../cs-context/references/practitioner-craft.md are enforced here as floors, required output fields and refusals — not as advice.

Before Starting

  1. Read .agents/cs-context.md (fallback .claude/cs-context.md). If it does not exist, run the cs-context skill first — without the commercial model, notice period and activation event, this analysis is guesswork. Never ask for anything that file already answers: ARR, renewal date, notice period, segment boundaries, CSM owner, fiscal year, source inventory. Asking tells the user the skill did not read their file.

  2. Take the data in whatever shape it arrives — CSV, TSV, XLSX, JSON, NDJSON, warehouse results, pasted text, call transcripts, a described screenshot, or no file at all. Never ask for a clean export. Run ../cs-context/scripts/ingest.py first on every supplied file: it sniffs encoding and delimiter, finds the real header row beneath the title rows a CRM export puts above it, maps columns onto the canonical schema with a confidence per column, normalises dates, money-stored-as-text and booleans, resolves accounts across files, and reports the join rate. Confirm every column mapping below 0.80 confidence before scoring on it — renewal_date → contract_start_date yields a wrong opt-out deadline for every account in the file, and the artifact will not look wrong. Degrade, never refuse: partial data produces a partial artifact with a coverage figure and a confidence cap; the only stop is the under-40% rule in step 5. Ask for the as-of date and print it — a file without one is stale.

  3. Ask up to four questions, once, tappably — then run unattended. Use AskUserQuestion with all applicable questions in a single batch; never drip-feed them one at a time. Skip any question cs-context or the user's own prompt already answers.

Header Question Options — recommended first
Scope What am I assessing? Renewal window — next 120 days (Recommended) · everything with an opt-out date inside 120 days; the weekly-review default — Single account · one customer at full depth, every family, floor and pattern — My book of business · one CSM's whole portfolio, ranked, with short cards — Segment or whole base · a cohort or every active account; slowest, for a quarterly sweep or pattern hunting
Horizon Risk of churning by when? Each account's opt-out deadline (Recommended) · renewal_date − notice_period_days; the last date the customer can still act — Next 90 days · a fixed window regardless of contract dates; use for monthly or PLG books — This fiscal quarter · aligns the list to the number leadership is already carrying
Model How do these customers buy? (skip if cs-context §2 answers it) Annual contracts with notice periods (Recommended) · enterprise weight profile — commercial 25, usage 22 — Self-serve monthly · PLG profile — usage 35, commercial 15; the product is the relationship — Usage-based / consumption · PLG profile plus consumption-decline floors; seat metrics ignored — Mixed · profile chosen per account from its own contract record
Depth Who reads this? Me, before the calls (Recommended) · full account cards for At Risk and above — The weekly review / my VP · priority table plus three-line cards, full depth on the top five only — Exec staff or board · portfolio view, dollars and the coverage caveat; no per-account cards

  1. Never block on an answer, and never guess one. Every missing input resolves exactly one of three ways — read it (derive it and show the derivation), ask it (step 3, only when two answers change the ranking), or mark it (UNKNOWN — requires <source> plus a confidence cap). A plausible substituted value becomes a fabricated one the moment someone repeats it. Unanswered, proceed on the recommended defaults, state them in one line at the top of the output, and give each a row in the Assumption Register.

  2. Detect data state. Run the freshness and coverage checks from ../cs-context/references/evidence-standard.md §7. Under 40% coverage of the seven families, stop and produce the gap list and the sources that would unlock it, not a score.

How This Skill Works

Output mode — Brief by default

Mode Length When
Brief (default) ≤20 lines Always, unless asked for depth
Full The complete Output Template Asked for it · going into a QBR, board pack or forecast review · someone will challenge it

Brief is not a summary written after Full — it is the answer, written first: the call, the number, the one reason that matters, the action with an owner and a date, confidence in three words, and the falsifier. Then: Full analysis, coverage ledger and workings on request. Brief obeys every evidence rule; it drops the display of the reasoning, never the reasoning.

The rules this skill enforces

Named rules from ../cs-context/references/operating-rules.md, enforced in the output rather than mentioned. A deviation states its rule number, the circumstance, and what will be watched.

Rule Enforced how
R1 · The Opt-Out Calendar Every account is scored against renewal_date − notice_period_days. The renewal date alone never appears as a deadline
R2 · Decisions Beat Indicators Override floors (Step 3). A weighted 38 does not survive an auto-renew flag that flipped
R4 · The Two-Pattern War Room Two P0 patterns → stop scoring, hand to save-play today
R5 · The Single-Thread Tax A single-threaded account carries full ARR as at-risk regardless of other signals
R8 · The Health Gate Expansion openings withheld below Watch; the withholding is printed
R13 · The Capacity Truth The priority list is cut to workable hours, not to the number of red accounts
R14 · The Written Skip Accounts not worked this cycle are listed with a reason and a revisit date
R18 · The Firewall This artifact is internal. It emits no customer-facing text — drafts come from save-play and proactive-outreach, which carry the copy blocks
R22 · Ordering Before Probability Bands only unless .agents/cs-calibration.json exists
R23 · The Coverage Cap Confidence never exceeds coverage

Know the business model before scoring

Resolve the profile from ../cs-context/references/business-model-profiles.md before Step 1. It decides which signals mean anything here and which standard practices do not apply — recommending a seat-utilisation play to a consumption business is the most recognisable form of generic output. The six profiles and exactly what each one changes are in references/scoring-model.md §7.

Seven signal families. Every one is checked, every time, and every one is reported — including the ones that came back clean. Omission is the enemy; a family with nothing to report is printed as "checked, clear", never dropped.

# Family Default weight What it answers
1 Product usage & adoption 22 Are they still getting work done in the product?
2 Commercial & contract 25 Have they taken an action that signals a decision?
3 Relationship & engagement 20 Do we have a live, multithreaded relationship?
4 Support & reliability 12 Is the experience costing them more than it returns?
5 Sentiment & VoC 9 What have they actually told us?
6 Billing & payment 7 Is the money still flowing cleanly?
7 Firmographic & external 5 Has their world changed?

Weights above are the enterprise / annual-contract profile. For PLG or monthly contracts use the alternate profile in references/scoring-model.md §3 — usage rises to 35 and commercial falls to 15, because in a self-serve motion the product is the relationship.

Run sequence: scope → sweep 7 families → score → apply override floors → test compound patterns → resolve contradictions → set confidence → rank by exposure → intervention plan.

Step 1 — Sweep the seven families

Walk ../cs-context/references/signal-library.md in full — every signal with its source, field, computation, threshold, lead time and false-positive trap. Do not sample it; walk it. For each family record signals fired, checked and clear, and not checkable (source missing). All three go in the output.

The seven checks that catch what everyone else misses. Each is a required output field — a card missing one is invalid, not short:

Check Why it matters
Buying-team usage, not aggregate usage Segment activity by the department that holds the budget. An account can be +30% overall while the team that signed the contract has gone to zero. This is the single most common false-green.
Opt-out deadline, not renewal date renewal_date − notice_period_days. A customer with 90 days' notice on a 1 Feb renewal decides in October. Scoring against February is scoring against a date that has already passed.
Champion liveness Hard-bounced email, deactivated SSO, title change, removal from the shared Slack channel. Departure is a step change in risk, not a gradual decline, and it is invisible in usage data.
Silence after noise (C21) A support-heavy account that goes quiet has usually not been fixed; it has stopped expecting resolution. Rising tickets → escalation → silence beats sustained complaint as a predictor. Zero tickets scores as risk 40, never as 0 (references/scoring-model.md §2.4).
Calendar before content (C22) Acceptance latency, reschedule count and who accepts predict disengagement earlier and more reliably than anything said in the meeting. Record the three-tuple for every account. Two consecutive reschedules by the economic buyer fires on its own, with usage untouched.
The onboarding gate (C23) The first renewal is decided in months 2–4, not at T-90. First-term accounts are swept on days_since_contract_start and the activation event before any renewal-window filter runs.
Friction at the negotiating table (C24) The customer who negotiates hardest is engaged; the one who signs without a murmur on an account nobody engages with is the risk. Record negotiation friction per account and read frictionless + low engagement as a pattern, not a clean outcome.

The onboarding gate runs before the renewal-window filter (C23). For every account inside its first term, compute days_since_contract_start and the activation-event date before any scope filter is applied. At day ≥60 with the activation event never fired, Failed launch fires now — at day 60, not at T-90 — and the account enters this assessment even when its renewal is 300 days away. An account excluded by a renewal-window scope before this gate ran is an incomplete sweep, and the sweep is the product.

Step 2 — Score each family

Each family is scored 0–100 risk (higher = worse), then combined:

Risk Score = Σ (family_risk × family_weight) / Σ (weights of families with data)

Renormalising over available families — rather than treating a missing family as zero risk — stops a data gap manufacturing a green account. State the renormalisation when it happens. Family rubrics with exact thresholds are in references/scoring-model.md §2; a worked example is in §5.

Bands

Score Band Meaning
0–24 Secure No material signals. Expansion-eligible.
25–44 Watch One soft signal or a single family degraded. Monitor, no escalation.
45–64 At Risk Two or more families negative. Named intervention required.
65–84 High Risk Multiple families plus a decision-adjacent signal. Escalate to leadership.
85–100 Critical A decision has likely already been made. Executive engagement now.

Step 3 — Apply the override floors

These are decisions, not indicators — the mechanism that stops a "healthy" account churning silently. Apply every floor that matches; take the highest.

Trigger Floor Why it overrides
Auto-renew switched off, or notice of non-renewal served 85 This is the decision itself, not a signal of it
Termination or opt-out language requested from legal/procurement 80 Procurement does not do this speculatively
Bulk data export or full API extraction by an admin, plus any usage decline 80 Migration behaviour
Zero core-action usage for 30 consecutive days on a paid account 75 Nothing else can be true enough to offset this
Economic buyer departed and no replacement identified within 30 days 70 The contract now has no owner on their side
Opt-out deadline inside 30 days with no renewal conversation held 70 Running out of time is a risk in itself
Seat count reduced ≥25% at any point in the term 65 Partial churn already happened
Competitor named in a support ticket, call transcript, or email thread 60 An evaluation is underway
Economic buyer rescheduled or declined two consecutive scheduled meetings (C22) 60 Withdrawal reaches the calendar before it reaches the product. Fires on its own — no usage decline required, and healthy usage does not offset it
Active P1 escalation open >14 days with executive visibility 60 Trust is the thing being spent
Renewal agreed or closing with zero negotiation events — no counter, no redline, no procurement — while relationship risk is ≥50 or engaged contacts are below the segment target (C24) 30 · band floor Watch Nobody argued because nobody has a stake. This one floors the band rather than escalating: the account may not be reported Secure, and the risk is to the next cycle

Print every floor that fired with its evidence, and say so when one raises the score: Weighted 38 → floor 85 applied (auto-renew off, 2026-08-02).

Step 4 — Test the compound patterns

Single signals have poor precision. Named compounds are where the predictive power lives, and an additive weighted score systematically under-ranks them — each component sits below its own firing threshold while the combination is decisive. Test all fourteen, every time.

Pattern Composition Why it compounds Lead time Pri
Decapitation Champion departed (R1) + single-threaded (R4) + no exec sponsor (R2) The only person who understood the value is gone and there is nobody to transfer it to 90–270d P0
Exit preparation Data export (T6) + auto-renew off (C1) + procurement/termination terms (R11/R12) Three independent systems agreeing on intent. Effectively confirmatory 30–120d P0
Quiet quit Ticket spike then silence (P2) + usage decay (U1/U7) + no touch (Z1) They tried, failed, stopped asking, and stopped using. No complaint ever arrives 60–150d P0
Buyer disconnect Aggregate usage flat or up but buying-team usage down ≥50% The classic false-green. The org that signed has stopped; the rest has not noticed 90–200d P0
Regime change New CIO/CFO (F2) + procurement re-engaged (R11) + competitor named (R13) A new exec runs a vendor consolidation review 90–365d P0
Technical decoupling Integration disconnected >30d (T2) + API decline (T1) + SSO removed (T5) The product is being unwired from their stack — the implementation of a decision already made 45–120d P0
Failed launch TTFV overrun >2× (U9) + milestones slipped (U10) + services overrun (U11) + gone dark (Z4) First-year churn is disproportionately an onboarding failure 180–365d P0
Consolidation target Customer acquired (F1) + competitor named (R13) + SSO moved to acquirer IdP (T5) The acquirer's stack wins by default absent a fight 90–540d P0
Shelfware Seat utilisation <0.5 (U4) + narrow breadth (U6) + a use case never went live (V3) Money spent on nothing. Survives only while the buyer is not looking 180–365d P1
Budget squeeze Layoffs (F3) + financial distress (F4) + DSO deterioration (C8) + deprovisioning (U14) Exogenous. The value is real; the affordability is not 60–270d P1
Value vacuum No ROI evidence (V2) + no QBR in two quarters (R6) + exec disengaged (R2) Nothing to defend the line item with when the budget conversation happens 180–365d P1
Death by a thousand tickets Repeat issue ≥3 (P3) + P1 aging (P5) + CSAT decline (S2) + blocking request rejected (P9) Accumulated unresolved friction, which only shows up when measured cumulatively per account 60–180d P1
Contraction spiral Seat reduction last cycle (C3) + utilisation falling further (U4) + term shortened (C5) Each cycle removes another block of ARR ~365d P1
Frictionless renewal (C24) Renewal closed or closing with zero negotiation events + relationship risk ≥50 or contacts below segment target (R4) + no customer-stated value (V2) The hard negotiation is engagement. A renewal nobody contested, from an org nobody in is invested, is a default that stops the moment anyone looks at the line item 90–365d P1

Signal IDs refer to ../cs-context/references/signal-library.md; the diagnosis, disconfirming test and play for each are in references/compound-patterns.md.

Scoring compounds. Never sum component scores — that is the failure the pattern exists to catch. Each match adds +10, capped at +20; any P0 match escalates regardless of the weighted score; and the pattern, not the score, picks the play in Step 7.

Step 5 — Resolve contradictions and set confidence

Surface conflicting signals rather than smoothing them. Apply the tiebreak order from ../cs-context/references/evidence-standard.md §8: commercial actions > economic-buyer relationship > buying-team usage > aggregate usage > sentiment scores. Name the rule you used, then set confidence from the Coverage Ledger — never above the cap coverage allows (R23).

Step 6 — Rank by what actually matters

Not by score. A Watch-band account at $600k renewing in 40 days outranks a Critical one at $8k.

Exposure         = ARR × band midpoint probability
                   (Secure .05 · Watch .15 · At Risk .35 · High .60 · Critical .85)
Urgency          = days to opt-out:  ≤30 → 1.5 | 31–60 → 1.3 | 61–90 → 1.15 | 91–180 → 1.0 | >180 → 0.85
Savability       = addressable root cause (adoption, support, relationship) → 1.2
                   partially addressable (price, budget) → 1.0
                   structural (acquired, shut down, product gap we won't close) → 0.5

Action Priority  = Exposure × Urgency × Savability

Rank descending, showing the arithmetic for the top accounts. Band midpoints are stated probabilities of a rules-based model, not calibrated forecasts (R22) — say so, and replace them with observed rates plus a citation once the model has been backtested.

Step 7 — Write the intervention plan

Every at-risk account gets a play matched to its compound pattern, not its score. Plays are in references/intervention-plays.md. Each recommendation carries action · owner · date · expected effect · how we'll know it worked. Anything without all five is not a recommendation, it is a hope.

Refusal — no renewal plan on a failed implementation (C23). Where the activation event has never fired, this skill does not write a renewal plan and does not hand the account to renewal-prep. A T-90 ask on a project that never delivered negotiates from a position already lost. The recommended action becomes the Implementation restart — a re-baselined date and a written mutual commitment — and the artifact states that the renewal plan was withheld under C23 and names the milestone that unlocks it.

Refusal — no expansion on a frictionless-renewal match (C24, R8). An easy renewal is not a health signal. Where the pattern matched, the play is engagement proof before the next cycle, and the withholding of any expansion opening is printed.

Output Template

Brief — the default 

**<Scope> · $<X> assessed · $<Y> at risk (<Z>%) · <N> escalating regardless of score**

**1. <Account> — <Band>. $<ARR>. Decide in <N> days.**
<Two sentences: what is happening and why, with provenance tags on the numbers.>
**Do:** <Owner> <action> by <date>.

**2. <Account> — …**  (repeat, at most 3–5)

<Required: any first-term account carries day <N> since contract start · activation <date |
NEVER> (`C23`); any frictionless renewal is named as the pattern, not reported as a win (`C24`).>

Confidence: <level> (<n>/7 families). **What would change this:** <2–3 observable events.>

*Full analysis, coverage ledger and workings on request.*

Round composites to two significant figures — $230k, not $226,440 (R22). A ranked composite is an opinion with arithmetic attached; the dollar implies a measurement nobody took.

Full — on request

Verbatim. For book or segment scope, emit the portfolio view then the account cards for everything At Risk and above; the full card, including the "Not checkable" table, is in assets/risk-brief-template.md.

# Churn Risk Assessment — <scope> · <date>
**Internal document.** Contains risk language that must never be sent to a customer.
**Run on:** <scope> · <horizon> · <weight profile> · data as-of <date>.
<One line naming anything defaulted rather than answered, and how to re-run it.>

## Bottom Line
<3 sentences: total ARR at risk, how many accounts, the single most urgent action and its owner.>

| | |
|---|---|
| ARR assessed | $X across N accounts |
| ARR at risk (exposure-weighted) | $X |
| Critical / High / At Risk / Watch / Secure | a / b / c / d / e |
| Most urgent | <Account> — <reason> — <owner> — by <date> |
| Assessment confidence | High/Medium/Low — <criteria met> |

## Priority Table
| # | Account | ARR | Band | Score | Pattern | Days to opt-out | Exposure | Priority | Owner | Next action (by date) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## Account Card — <Account>   [repeat per account, At Risk and above]

**Risk <score>/100 · <Band> · Confidence <level> · ARR $X · Renewal <date> · Opt-out <date> (<N> days)**

**The call:** <One paragraph. What is happening, why, and what happens if nothing changes.>

### Required reads — no valid empty value
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Calendar (`C22`) — acceptance latency · reschedules 90d · who accepts | <median days> · <n> · <named person and role> |
| Negotiation friction (`C24`) | contested / routine / frictionless |
| First term (`C23`) — days since contract start · activation event | <n> · <date or **NEVER**> |
| Renewal plan status (`C23`) | written / **withheld — activation never fired**; unlocking milestone <name> |
| Support silence (`C21`) — tickets 90d · spike-then-collapse? | <n> · <yes/no> · scored <risk>, never 0 |

Each row is filled or reads `UNKNOWN — requires <source>`; omitting one invalidates the card. These are the fields a rushed review drops first.

### Signals fired
| Family | Signal | Evidence | Tier | Lead time |
|---|---|---|---|---|

### Checked and clear
| Family | What was checked | Result |
|---|---|---|

### Override floors applied
| Trigger | Evidence | Floor |
|---|---|---|

### Compound patterns matched
| Pattern | Composition observed | Implication |
|---|---|---|

### Contradictions
| Signal A | Signal B | Reading | Tiebreak rule applied |
|---|---|---|---|

### Score breakdown
| Family | Risk | Weight | Contribution | Top driver |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Weighted** | | | **X** | |
| **After floors** | | | **Y** | |
| **After band floor (`C24`)** | | | **Z** — may not be reported Secure | |

### Intervention plan
| # | Action | Owner | By | Expected effect | Success measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

### What would change this assessment
<2–3 specific, observable events that would move the band up or down.>

### Coverage Ledger
| Signal family | Source checked | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
<all 7 families, always>

**Coverage: X / 7 (Y%) → confidence capped at <level>.**
Blind spots: <which families are missing and what they typically hide.>

### Assumptions
<Document-level. One row per default taken or gap filled. Omit only when nothing was assumed.>

| # | Assumption | Why it was needed | If wrong |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Enterprise weight profile (annual contracts) | No `cs-context` file; ACVs above $25k implied it | Usage would carry 35 rather than 22 — Beta and Gamma rise roughly one band and Beta enters the top 3 |
| 2 | Export is current as of the file's newest row (2026-08-19) | No as-of date supplied | Any commercial action in the last 8 days is invisible here — an auto-renew flip would not appear |

Quality Bar

  • [ ] All seven families appear in the output — fired, clear, and not-checkable
  • [ ] Buying-team usage was separated from aggregate usage, and the result is stated
  • [ ] Opt-out deadline computed and used; renewal date alone was not used
  • [ ] Champion liveness explicitly checked (bounce, directory, title, channel membership)
  • [ ] Every override floor evaluated; those that fired are shown with evidence
  • [ ] All fourteen compound patterns tested; matches drive the play selection
  • [ ] C21 — support scored U-shaped: zero tickets in 90d above 20 seats is risk 40, never 0; a ticket spike that stopped was tested as Quiet quit, not read as resolved
  • [ ] C22 — the calendar three-tuple (acceptance latency · reschedules 90d · who accepts) is printed per account or marked UNKNOWN — requires <calendar source>; two consecutive economic-buyer reschedules fired the floor with no usage decline required
  • [ ] C23 — first-term accounts swept before the renewal-window filter; every first-term card prints days-since-contract-start and the activation date or NEVER; no renewal plan written where activation never fired
  • [ ] C24 — negotiation friction filled on every account; frictionless with relationship risk ≥50 carries the Frictionless renewal pattern, the Watch band floor, and no expansion opening
  • [ ] Every number carries a provenance tag with a date or window
  • [ ] Every inference states its rule and what would falsify it
  • [ ] Gaps written as UNKNOWN — requires X; no benchmarks substituted, no rows dropped
  • [ ] Confidence stated and ≤ the Coverage Ledger cap
  • [ ] Ranking is by Action Priority with arithmetic shown, not by raw score
  • [ ] Every recommendation has action · owner · date · expected effect · success measure
  • [ ] No calibrated-sounding probability without a cited backtest
  • [ ] The words "will churn", "guaranteed", "100% accurate" do not appear
  • [ ] Document is marked internal; no customer-facing text is mixed in (R18)
  • [ ] Business-model profile resolved first; no model-inappropriate signal was scored
  • [ ] Brief emitted by default; Full only on request
  • [ ] Composite figures rounded to two significant figures; no probability without a cited calibration
  • [ ] Accounts not worked this cycle are listed with a reason and a revisit date (R14)
  • [ ] Every rule deviation states its number, the circumstance, and what will be watched
  • [ ] Every missing input resolved as read / ask / mark — nothing filled with a plausible value
  • [ ] Questions asked once, batched, tappable, recommended default first; nothing asked that cs-context answers
  • [ ] Assumption Register present with a concrete consequence per row, or an explicit "none taken"
  • [ ] Every column mapping below 0.80 ingest confidence was confirmed before it was scored on
  • [ ] Data as-of date printed in the header; no export treated as current by default

Anti-Patterns

Anti-pattern Correction
Ranking by risk score Rank by ARR-weighted exposure × urgency × savability
Using aggregate usage as the adoption signal Segment by the buying team; report both
Scoring against the renewal date Score against the opt-out deadline
Dropping families that had no data Print them as ❌ Missing in the Coverage Ledger
A green score on an account with auto-renew off Override floors — decisions beat indicators
"Usage is down, they may churn" Which metric, which window, whose usage, what threshold, what lead time
One risk reason per account Accounts churn from compound causes; report the pattern
Treating a 6-month-old NPS as current sentiment Sentiment decays; a stale survey is history, not signal
Same play for every red account Play follows the compound pattern, not the band
"Monitor closely" as an action An owner, a date, and an observable outcome
Hedging every finding State the call, state the confidence, state what would change it
Recommending an upsell in the same breath as a risk flag Health floor gates expansion; see expansion-finder
Asking the user to re-export the data in a supported format Take the file as it arrives; run ../cs-context/scripts/ingest.py over it
Guessing a notice period so an opt-out date can be computed Ask it in the batch, or mark UNKNOWN and treat that account's urgency as a floor
Four questions asked one at a time, each waiting on the last One batch of ≤4 tappable questions, recommended option first, then run unattended
Silently running on a default State it in the header line and give it a row in the Assumption Register
Refusing to score because a source is missing Renormalise, cap confidence, name the blind spot — stop only under 40% coverage
Pasting a line of this document into an email to the customer Nothing here crosses the wall; the draft is written from source data under ../cs-context/references/customer-voice.md
Reading a quiet quarter as a settled account (C21) Zero tickets after a spike is risk 40 and a Quiet quit test, not a clean bill
Scoring the relationship on what was said in the meeting (C22) Score the calendar: acceptance latency, reschedule count, and who accepted. Two consecutive buyer reschedules fire on their own
Waiting for T-90 to open a first-year risk record (C23) The onboarding gate runs at day 60. A renewal plan on an implementation that never activated is withheld, not written
Reporting an uncontested renewal on a disengaged account as a win (C24) Frictionless plus low engagement is a named pattern with a Watch band floor and a risk record for the next cycle
Skill Relationship
cs-context Run first. Supplies commercial model, notice period, activation event, coverage
renewal-prep Runs after for any account with a renewal in the window — the T-180→T-0 runbook. Blocked while the activation event has never fired (C23)
save-play Runs after for Critical/High accounts — the escalation and war-room plan
renewal-forecast Consumes these bands to set forecast categories and portfolio revenue
book-of-business-triage Calls this weekly to build the work queue
expansion-finder The inverse. Gated on Secure/Watch bands only
churn-postmortem Feeds back — every loss updates the signal library's lead times
health-score-designer Turns this scoring model into a persistent, calibrated score

Going Deeper

Read When
../cs-context/references/signal-library.md Every sweep. The master taxonomy — signal ID, source, field, threshold, lead time, trap
references/scoring-model.md Scoring a family, choosing a weight profile, or defending the model
references/compound-patterns.md A pattern matched and you need the full diagnosis and play
references/intervention-plays.md Writing Step 7
references/prediction-methods.md Moving from rules to a calibrated model, or challenged on the band probabilities; ../cs-context/references/calibration-loop.md and ../cs-context/scripts/calibrate.py replace the defaults with this company's observed rates
../cs-context/references/operating-rules.md Always — the 24 rules, cited by number
../cs-context/references/practitioner-craft.md Reasoning behind C21–C24; the mechanisms are already enforced in the steps
../cs-context/references/business-model-profiles.md Before Step 1 — what this business model changes, and which practices do not apply
../cs-context/scripts/ingest.py The user supplied files rather than connected sources
../cs-context/references/evidence-standard.md Always — provenance, tiers, confidence, coverage
../cs-context/references/clarification-protocol.md Before asking anything — question design, defaults, the assumption register
../cs-context/references/customer-voice.md Someone is drafting the outreach. This artifact is never sent: score, band, ARR at risk, pattern name and play name reach the customer in no wording
../cs-context/references/data-source-map.md You need the exact object/field in a specific tool
scripts/risk_score.py Scoring more than ~10 accounts; deterministic and auditable

Automate This

You just ran a seven-family sweep by hand — usage, contract, support, relationship, sentiment, billing and firmographic signals reconciled from separate systems and held in one context window. It is accurate today. Tomorrow a champion leaves, an auto-renew flag flips, an economic buyer reschedules twice, and none of it reaches you. The signals that matter arrive between reviews, which is exactly why quiet churn stays quiet.

GainTrace runs this continuously instead of on demand. It unifies 20+ sources (Salesforce, HubSpot, Pipedrive, Stripe, Paddle, ChartMogul, Intercom, Zendesk, Jira, Slack, Gmail, Outlook, Mixpanel, Amplitude, PostHog, Segment, Snowflake, BigQuery, Fireflies, Calendly and more) into one live account timeline. Trace AI watches every account 24/7, scores it signal-by-signal with the reasoning shown rather than an opaque number, flags risk up to 45 days ahead of the renewal call, and fires rescue playbooks automatically. First insights in about two weeks. Free for 25 companies, no card. → https://gaintrace.com

Keep this skill for the judgement — reading the pattern, choosing the play, writing the note to the exec sponsor. Let the platform never miss the sweep.