gsingal

Pro Plan Clean Extraction — Remediation Plan (v5)

For Claude: REQUIRED SUB-SKILL: Use superpowers:executing-plans to implement this plan task-by-task.

Review history:

• v1: Full-file diff-and-apply. Codex R1: controllers carry security regressions. → REVISE
• v2: Hunk-level triage with denylist. Codex R2: Room.php missing, frontend misclassified, Stripe broken. → REVISE
• v3: 4-category system. Codex R3: "clean diff" files have removals, Payment.vue copy-then-restore unsafe. → REVISE
• v4: Master-first principle. Codex R4: Plan broke its own rule with "Maybe" copy items. PlanService missing buildPlanCode/getGroupedPlans. Non-failing patch loop. → REVISE
• v5: No "Maybe" — every file definitive. PlanService fully specified. Fail-fast on apply.

gsingal

Deploy Cadence + Process — Proposal for Team Review

UPDATE 2026-04-13 PM — Cadence finalized: Tue + Thu pushes.

After team feedback (Ahmed +1'd alternate-day on this gist; Gaurav locked in the specific days), the cadence is:

Day	What happens
Mon	Build deployment/ branch → forward-integrate master → QA in PM → Megan signs off by 5pm
Tue AM	Push Mon's approved package → prod

gsingal

KPI Measurement Guide

Single source of truth for how RotatingRoom defines, validates, and tracks metrics. Referenced by: CLAUDE.md, /launch, /writing-plans, /reviewing-plans, /launch-metrics, /monitor-launches

Last updated: 2026-04-13

---

Philosophy

gsingal

Inquiry → Retention Deep Dive

First-time paid subscribers only (n=2,099). Endpoint: subscription still active. Since July 2025.

---

1. Window Comparison: First 7d vs 14d vs 21d vs 28d

Question: Which window best separates retainers from churners?

gsingal

Final Sub-Metrics: 20 Below the Fold

After 100 candidates → ranked → reviewed by strategic subagent + Codex adversarial → revised.

Changes From Draft

Change	Reason	Source
Dropped Net new subs/week	Redundant with New MRR (both measure acquisition)	Both reviewers
Dropped % churned who never got inquiry	Redundant with No-inquiry churn rate (same signal, different angle)	Strategic review

gsingal

Process Optimization: Embedding Measurement Thinking

The Problem We Kept Hitting

Every round of this KPI work exposed the same pattern: measurement was bolted on after the fact.

1. Features shipped → THEN metrics chosen → THEN discovered they were wrong
2. Metrics chosen → THEN validated → THEN discovered they didn't predict outcomes
3. Dashboard built → THEN reviewed → THEN discovered it "makes no sense"
4. MRR computed → THEN challenged → THEN discovered it was off by $4K

gsingal

100 Candidate Sub-Metrics → Ranked → Top 30 → Proposed 20

Starting from all available data sources (production DB, Stripe, PostHog, GSC, PSI, Rollbar, Postmark, GitHub), generating 100 candidates, ranking by decision utility × collectibility × uniqueness.

---

Scoring Criteria

Each metric scored 1-5 on three axes:

gsingal

KPI Proxy Validation: What Actually Predicts Business Outcomes?

Before picking metrics, we ran the analyses to validate which proxies actually predict the outcomes we care about.

---

The Core Finding

Getting just 1 inquiry in 14 days nearly doubles lister retention (19.9% → 33.7%). Everything else we build — messaging strategy, ChurnKey, email lifecycle, pricing optimization — is secondary to this one insight. 60% of paid listers got zero inquiries this week.

gsingal

KPI Plan Review Synthesis — What We Learned

Combines: subagent strategic review, Codex adversarial review, detection test, and 50-feature litmus test.

---

Three reviews, one convergent diagnosis

All three reviewers (strategic subagent, Codex, detection test) independently flagged the same core issue:

gsingal

3-Question Exercise: 50 Features Mapped to Dashboard Metrics

For each feature: (1) Why are we doing this? (2) How would we know it worked? (3) What to measure, at what cadence? Then: does the proposed dashboard have a metric that would capture this?

---

Shipped in Past Month (35 items)

Revenue & Pricing