Install
$ agentstack add skill-natan-mohart-24-finance-skills-for-claude-zero-based-budget-planner ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Zero-Based Budget Planner
When to use
Use whenever spend needs to be justified from a zero base rather than carried forward from last year, or when a budget cut is coming and the instinct is an across-the-board percentage reduction — a method that cuts high-value and low-value spend by the same amount, protecting waste exactly as much as it protects what actually matters.
What it does
Scores every discretionary spend item as a decision package with a cost and a value score, computes value per dollar via a bundled calculator, ranks all packages by that ratio, and shows precisely which packages a stated total budget actually funds versus cuts — separating mandatory spend (compliance, core operations) that gets funded regardless of ranking from discretionary spend that competes on value.
Method
- Separate mandatory from discretionary spend up front. Mandatory means the business cannot legally or operationally function without it (compliance, core infrastructure, contractual obligations) — these get funded first and are excluded from the ranking competition, since ranking them against a marketing campaign would be a category error.
- Break discretionary spend into decision packages — a specific initiative or program with a cost and a stated business value, not a department-level lump sum. A department budget line is too coarse to rank; the individual programs inside it are what actually compete for funding.
- Score each package's value (1-10) based on its actual business impact — revenue contribution, risk reduction, strategic importance — with the reasoning stated, not just a number pulled from department politics.
- Run the bundled calculator (
scripts/zbb_ranker.py) to compute value per dollar for every discretionary package, rank them, and show exactly which packages fall inside the available budget and which get cut. - Read the cut list as a set of explicit trade-offs, not a byproduct. If a cut package is politically important despite ranking low on value per dollar, that's now a visible, named decision to override the ranking, rather than an invisible casualty of a blanket percentage cut.
- Check for packages that are individually low-value but collectively necessary (a set of small tools that together support one critical workflow) — the value score should reflect the package's real function, not just its individual visibility.
- Publish the ranking, not just the final funded list. Showing why each package was funded or cut is what makes a zero-based budget defensible when someone asks "why did we cut X but keep Y."
Inputs
- Total budget available
- List of decision packages with cost, value score and rationale, and mandatory flag where applicable
- Config saved as JSON matching the format documented at the top of
scripts/zbb_ranker.py
Output format
Mandatory spend total and remaining discretionary budget; ranked table of discretionary packages by value per dollar with funded/cut status; explicit cut list with a note that political overrides of the ranking are visible trade-offs, not silent losses.
Example
A $3M budget with $1.2M in mandatory core platform spend leaves $1.8M discretionary. Ranking four discretionary packages by value per dollar funds customer success tooling, market expansion, and a marketing campaign, while an office renovation ranks last and gets cut. If leadership still wants the renovation funded, that's now an explicit override of a stated ranking, not a spending decision made by default because nobody compared it against the alternatives.
Common pitfalls
- Cutting every department by the same percentage instead of ranking individual spend items by actual value.
- Scoring value based on who's loudest in the budget meeting rather than a stated, defensible rationale.
- Treating mandatory and discretionary spend as if they compete on the same ranking, when they answer different questions.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: Natan-Mohart
- Source: Natan-Mohart/24-finance-skills-for-claude
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.