SkillVaultskills Browse all 500 skills

Customer Success · Version 1.1.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Renewal Risk Assessor

Improve usage signals and champion risk with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 6 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Assesses renewal risk from usage, relationship, and outcome evidence rather than sentiment.

₹99 one-time

Get this skill archive

What this skill helps you do

  • Usage signals
  • Champion risk
  • Outcome evidence

How Renewal Risk Assessor works

You provide

Flow diagram, token config, and authorization code

It inspects

Claim validation and enforcement point for usage signals

It decides

A champion risk design that fails closed

You verify

Cross-tenant request with a valid token is rejected

What it checks first

Renewal Risk Assessor assesses renewal risk from usage, relationship, and outcome evidence rather than sentiment. Use it when the work involves Usage signals, Champion risk, Outcome evidence.

  1. Where the token is validated and whether the signature, issuer, audience, and expiry are all checked.
  2. Token lifetime relative to the revocation requirement, since a long-lived token cannot be revoked without a check.
  3. Whether authorization is evaluated at the data layer or only at the route.
  4. Token storage location, which determines exposure to XSS versus CSRF.
  5. Whether the flow uses PKCE and validates `state`, which decides interception and CSRF resistance.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Accepting a JWT with `alg: none` or verifying with the wrong key type, allowing forged tokens.
  • Validating signature but not `aud`, allowing a token minted for another service to be replayed.
  • Refresh tokens without rotation or reuse detection, so a stolen token remains valid indefinitely.
  • Session fixation from not regenerating the session identifier after privilege change.
  • Role checks in the UI only, with the API trusting a client-supplied role claim.
  • Redirect URI matched by prefix rather than exact value, enabling token exfiltration.

Answers it will reject

  • Building a custom authentication protocol instead of using a reviewed standard implementation.
  • Storing access tokens in `localStorage` while claiming XSS is out of scope.
  • Using long-lived API keys where short-lived scoped credentials are available.
  • Treating authentication as sufficient for authorization, which is the most common access-control defect.

Decision rules it applies

  • Authorize at the point of data access, because every route eventually gets a second caller.
  • Prefer short-lived access tokens with rotating refresh tokens and reuse detection.
  • Match redirect URIs exactly and require PKCE for every public client.
  • Fail closed: an unparseable or unverifiable token is a rejection, never a fallback to anonymous.

Evidence it asks for

  • Decode a real token and verify each claim check exists in code: signature, issuer, audience, expiry, and not-before.
  • Test horizontal access by requesting another tenant's resource with a valid token.
  • Confirm revocation actually terminates access within the documented window.

The method inside

  1. Reconstruct the customer journey and promised outcomes
  2. Separate activity volume from outcome and risk signals
  3. Identify the blocked dependency and accountable owner
  4. Create a jointly verifiable recovery or expansion plan

Deliverables

  • Usage signals account brief
  • Champion risk risk and dependency map
  • Outcome evidence action plan

Evidence requirements

  • Success plan, adoption data, support history, and meeting notes
  • Renewal date, stakeholders, expected outcomes, and risks
  • Verified customer commitments and unresolved dependencies

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

This account renews in 90 days. Usage is flat, our champion left, and the new stakeholder has not engaged.

Expected output

Champion departure with an unengaged successor is the highest-weight signal here, above flat usage. The renewal now depends on someone who never experienced the original problem, so the work is re-establishing the value case with new evidence, not defending the old one...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Usage signals: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Champion risk: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Outcome evidence: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Inferring customer sentiment without evidence
  • Hiding unresolved product or service failures

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot custom agents
  • Claude Agent Skills / SKILL.md
  • Any instruction-following chat model

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.