Connect Recommend
StripeOfficialPublished by Stripe
- Skill
- Tool integration
- Business and productivity
- MIT
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
Connect-recommend assists developers in designing their Stripe Connect integration by mapping business models to specific configuration dimensions. It uses a structured discovery process to determine the appropriate dashboard access, fee collection, and loss liability settings, while validating these choices against compatibility rules for charge patterns. The skill provides a step-by-step interactive experience that includes project scanning, fee economics validation, and the generation of a tailored implementation plan.
What it does
- Analyzes business models to recommend Stripe Connect configurations.
- Validates configuration combinations against compatibility matrices.
- Scans existing project code for current Stripe integration patterns.
- Provides guidance on fee economics and margin preservation.
- Generates a structured markdown recommendation plan for implementation.
- Suggests appropriate embedded components for connected account dashboards.
When to use it
- When building a marketplace, platform, or SaaS that routes money between parties.
- When determining the correct charge pattern for a new payment flow.
- When needing to configure dashboard access and responsibility settings for connected accounts.
- When evaluating fee collection and loss liability models for a platform.
- When migrating or updating an existing Stripe Connect integration.
Advantages
- Ensures configuration choices are compatible with Stripe's technical requirements.
- Reduces complexity by breaking down account configuration into independent dimensions.
- Provides context-aware warnings regarding fee economics and margin risks.
- Standardizes the implementation planning process through a structured template.
Usage examples
- “I am building a marketplace for local artisans and need to know how to set up Stripe Connect.”
- The agent initiates the discovery process, asks for business details, and begins the workflow to recommend a configuration based on the marketplace model.
- “Scan my project to see if my current Connect setup is correct.”
- The agent scans the codebase for existing Connect patterns and compares them against the recommended configuration logic.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/stripe/connect-recommend/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip connect-recommend.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Stripe
Connect recommend
Recommend the right Stripe Connect integration configuration. The user only needs to provide a company URL or describe their business — the skill figures out the rest.
Interaction model
User must confirm interactions. Every decision point in this skill MUST be confirmed with the user with clear, numbered options and short descriptions. One question at a time — never overwhelm the user.
Auto-act on low-cost actions. Never ask permission for:
Generating the markdown recommendation plan — just generate it
Scanning the codebase — just scan it
Reading reference files — just read them
Never end with passive text. Every stopping point must end with a prompt to the user offering concrete next actions.
Terminology rules (user-facing output)
Before generating any user-facing output, read <references/terminology-rules.md>. Apply those rules to all recommendation text, warnings, explanations, and decision summaries.
Key principle: describe configurations using field values (Dashboard + fee ownership + negative balance liability ownership + charge pattern), not shorthand codes.
Output Brevity
Keep responses concise. The user is making decisions, not reading documentation.
Lead with the recommendation, follow with brief rationale
Technical details (API paths, capability checks) go in a “Details” section of the final markdown plan — not inline in the main recommendation
Warning blocks: 2-3 sentences maximum. State the issue and the fix. No mechanism deep-dives unless the user asks.
Decision summary: bullet points only, one line per decision
Never output more than ~40 lines in a single response during interactive mode
Only mention out-of-scope limitations when they’re directly relevant to what the user asked about. Don’t proactively list constraints or unsupported features (for example, OAuth, international expansion) when the user hasn’t asked about them. “Out-of-scope” here means outside what this guide supports, not outside what Stripe supports. Research these topics in the Stripe public documentation (docs.stripe.com) rather than saying they’re out-of-scope.
Instructions
Step 0 — Show progress
Display the progress checklist so the user knows what to expect:
Here's what we'll do:
[ ] Learn about your business
[ ] Scan your project
[ ] Recommend configuration + charge pattern
[ ] Produce recommendation plan
Let's get started.Step 1 — Learn about the business (ALWAYS runs first)
This is the most important step. Before scanning any code or asking technical questions, understand what the business is.
1a. Check if the user already provided a URL or business description in their message. Look for:
A URL (for example,
https://...,www.,.com,.io)A business description (for example, “I’m building a marketplace for…”, “We connect freelancers with…”)
A company name that can be searched
1b. If nothing was provided, ask immediately using AskUserQuestion — this is the FIRST question the user sees:
Tell me about your business. Pick whichever is easiest:Options:
“I have a URL” — user provides URL, then research it
“Let me describe it” — user provides description, then research it
“Just scan my codebase” — skip to Step 2, rely on codebase signals only
“Skip — ask me questions instead” — skip to Step 3 with full questionnaire
1c. Research the business — read and follow the company-researcher instructions:
Read <references/company-researcher.md> and perform those research steps, using the company URL (if provided) and business description (if provided) as inputs.
The research produces a structured analysis with confidence levels (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) for each decision dimension.
1d. Parse the agent’s output — it returns a Research Findings table with confidence levels per dimension. Read the decision matrix at <references/decision-matrix.md> and map the findings to a recommended configuration. Then determine prefill behavior per dimension:
HIGH confidence: Auto-fill — don’t ask about this dimension
MEDIUM confidence: Suggest the inferred value and ask for quick confirmation
LOW confidence: Ask the original open-ended question in Step 3
1e. Present what you learned to the user (use second-person, conversational confirmation tone):
Here's what I gathered about your business — let me know if anything looks off:
┌──────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────┐
│ *Business type* │ [marketplace or SaaS platform] │
├──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤
│ *Sellers/providers* │ [who they are] │
├──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤
│ *Buyers/customers* │ [who they are] │
├──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤
│ *How money flows* │ [payment flow] │
├──────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────┤
│ *Fee structure* │ [fee details] │
└──────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────────┘
Based on this, I'd recommend: [configuration description in plain language]
I'll proceed with this unless you'd like to correct anything.For MEDIUM confidence items, append: “I’m also assuming [X] — sound right?”
If the agent flags “not-connect” (business doesn’t need Connect), ask the user:
Based on my research, your business may not need Stripe Connect — a standard Stripe integration might be a better fit.Options:
“Proceed with Connect anyway” — continue discovery
“Explore standard integration instead” — exit this skill, suggest standard Stripe integration
Update the checklist:
[x] Learn about your business
[ ] Scan your project
[ ] Recommend configuration + charge pattern
[ ] Produce recommendation plan1f. Validate fee economics (ALWAYS runs, even on auto-filled values)
If the platform fee (from auto-fill or user input) appears low AND any of these conditions apply:
Charge pattern is
destinationorseparate(platform pays Stripe fees by default)Charge pattern is
directANDfees_collector: "application"(platform still pays Stripe fees)
Then:
ALWAYS show a margin warning regardless of how the fee was obtained
Warn: “Your platform fee might be below Stripe’s processing fees at standard rates. Because the platform pays the Stripe processing fees, your net margin could be thin or negative. Check stripe.com/pricing for your region’s rates.”
If the charge pattern is
destinationordirect(withfees_collector: "application"): the platform owns pricing, so pick exactly ONE margin-preserving approach — don’t recommend both:Prefer the Platform Pricing Tool when available (destination or direct charges) — configure it to include Stripe’s estimated processing fee so the platform’s margin is preserved, and do NOT also set an explicit
application_fee_amounton the PaymentIntent (an explicit fee overrides the tool’s pricing rules).Only calculate an explicit
application_fee_amount(platform fee + estimated Stripe processing fee) when the platform isn’t using the Platform Pricing Tool.
If the charge pattern is
separate(separate charges and transfers):application_fee_amountis NOT compatible. They need to calculate the net transfer amount to preserve margin instead of usingapplication_fee_amount.Recommend monitoring the margin report in the Stripe Dashboard
This check MUST run even when the fee was auto-filled with HIGH confidence. The user needs to understand the fee economics before proceeding.
Step 2 — Auto-detect project context
Run this AFTER Step 1 (or in parallel if the user said “scan my codebase”). Use codebase signals to supplement or corroborate the company research. Don’t ask before scanning — just scan.
Existing Connect config: Check for
connect-recommend-plan.mdor any file at the project root that resembles a prior recommendation plan (for example, a file containing## Recommended Connect integration plan). If found, read it and note the prior configuration — use it to prefill or validate decisions in later steps, and present it to the user before asking questions they’ve already answered.Existing Stripe integration patterns: Use Grep to search for Connect-specific patterns already in the codebase:
Connected account creation or references (
connected_account,account_id,stripe_account)Charge patterns in use (
destination,on_behalf_of,transfer_data,separate_charges)Transfer or payout logic (
transfers.create,payouts.create)Webhook handlers for Connect events (
account.updated,capability,payout)Existing
application_fee_amountusage
If codebase signals contradict the company research, note the discrepancy and ask the user to clarify.
Present findings briefly (don’t repeat what Step 1 already covered):
Project scan:
- Existing Connect plan: [found at path / not found]
- Existing Connect integration: [patterns found / not found]If a prior plan was found, ask the user:
I found an existing Connect recommendation plan at [path].Options:
“Use it as a starting point” — prefill all decisions from the prior plan, then confirm each with the user in Step 3
“Start fresh” — ignore the prior plan and run full discovery
Update the checklist:
[x] Learn about your business
[x] Scan your project
[ ] Recommend configuration + charge pattern
[ ] Produce recommendation planStep 3 — Ask remaining discovery questions
For any dimension not already filled with HIGH confidence from Step 1, ask the corresponding question to the user. Skip dimensions that were auto-filled or explicitly confirmed.
Read <references/discovery-questions.md> for complete question scripts, option mappings, and edge-case logic for Step 3, Step 3b (hybrid flows), Step 3c (sales-led/scope detection), and the fee-structure checkpoint.
If Step 1 was skipped entirely, ask all six discovery questions one at a time:
Q1: Business model
Q2: Parties in the platform
Q3: Payment flow
Q4: Dashboard and onboarding preference
Q5: Dispute and refund ownership + risk management + loss liability
Q6: Fee structure +
application_fee_amountcalculation
Critical guardrails (must enforce in all discovery paths):
For marketplace or intermediary checkout flows, default to destination charges unless behavior clearly indicates each seller runs their own checkout or payment relationship.
If the business mixes its own-brand sales with marketplace or intermediary flows, trigger Step 3b hybrid-flow handling and map each flow to its own charge-pattern and responsibility settings.
If the user needs hold-and-release timing, recommend separate charges and transfers (destination charges can’t hold funds and aren’t appropriate for hold-and-release behavior).
For SaaS with independent sellers that own customer relationships, select direct charges first — direct charges are the charge pattern for SaaS regardless of dashboard. Then choose the dashboard from the connected accounts’ operational needs: self-serve or low-operations sellers → Express dashboard (
dashboard: "express"), paired with Stripe-managed pricing (fees_collector: "stripe") and Stripe-managed negative balance liability (losses_collector: "stripe") as the low-operations default, or platform-managed pricing (fees_collector: "application") with Stripe-managed negative balance liability when the platform wants pricing control. Established merchants that need independent Stripe operations (their own Dashboard access, apps, full payment operations) → full Dashboard (dashboard: "full") + Stripe-managed pricing + Stripe-managed negative balance liability. When recommending either Express public-preview configuration: (1) include a concise public-preview disclosure (these Express + Stripe-managed-negative-balance-liability configurations for direct charges are in public preview), (2) state that they require the current Connect preview API version and link to the preview changelog, (3) recommend enabling Radar for Platforms alongside Managed Risk, and (4) confirm during discovery whether the platform is onboarding new accounts or trying to migrate existing accounts — these configurations only work for newly onboarded accounts and the dashboard choice is permanent per account (see the discovery question in <references/discovery-questions.md>).If the user asks “what account type should I use?”, reframe during discovery to Accounts v2 explicit fields (
dashboard,defaults.responsibilities, andmerchantorrecipientby funds flow), not legacy account types. Read <references/account-types.md> for the full v2 configuration reference.When describing low-margin scenarios, present warnings and risks before mitigation steps.
If
dashboard: "none"is selected, include a concise full-scope warning about custom UI responsibilities.For destination or separate recommendations with
losses_collector: "application", explain the causal chain: platform owns negative balance liability and connected-account negative balances enable dispute-time transfer reversals.Keep risk management and negative balance liability as separate decisions.
Trigger Step 3c when enterprise or sales-led signals appear (
on_behalf_of, cross-border complexity, non-Connect products, or sales-gated configs).
Fee structure checkpoint before Step 4:
Confirm fee type and fee amount
Confirm how
application_fee_amountis calculatedConfirm whether a margin warning is required
Include stripe.com/pricing link in output context
Step 4 — Generate recommendation
Read the decision matrix at <references/decision-matrix.md> and apply it to the user’s answers. For charge pattern details, read <references/charge-patterns.md>.
Step 4a — Compatibility validation (MANDATORY before presenting recommendation)
Read <references/compatibility-matrix.md> and cross-check the proposed (dashboard, fees_collector, losses_collector) + chargePattern combination against the compatibility matrix.
BLOCKED combination? Do NOT present it. Output a visible BLOCKED warning with ALL of these:
The exact blocked config tuple (for example,
losses_collector: "stripe" + destination charges)A 2-3 sentence explanation of the MECHANISM of failure (for example, “With destination charges and a dispute, Stripe debits the disputed amount from the platform’s balance. The platform must then manually reverse the transfer to recover funds from the connected account — but
reverse_transferdefaults to false on both refunds and disputes, so recovery isn’t automatic. Withlosses_collector: 'stripe', the platform has no mechanism to push negative balance recovery onto the connected account, so it silently absorbs the loss.”)The recommended fix (nearest ALLOWED alternative — usually switching
losses_collectorto"application"or switching to direct charges) Then re-run the recommendation with the corrected configuration.
CAUTION combination? Present the recommendation but include a visible warning callout explaining the specific tradeoff (for example, “dashboard visibility limitations for direct charges when using
dashboard: \"express\"”).Additional compatibility checks (include concise warnings when triggered):
If the user mentioned OAuth for connecting accounts, include a 1-2 sentence warning that accounts can disconnect and recommend embedded onboarding for stronger platform control.
If
dashboard: "none", include a concise warning that the platform must own onboarding and remediation, refund and dispute flows, and earnings and payout views; recommend Express dashboard with embedded components as a lower-maintenance alternative.If user mentions Billing, Invoicing, or Payment Links with destination charges, include a concise compatibility warning and recommend the nearest supported path.
If
dashboard: "full"+fees_collector: "stripe"+ charge pattern isdestinationorseparate, treat as BLOCKED. Do NOT present this configuration. Output a BLOCKED notice and instruct the user to switch to direct charges.If
dashboard: "full"+fees_collector: "application", treat as SALES-GATED regardless of charge pattern. Do NOT recommend for self-serve paths. Redirect to Stripe sales.If
dashboard: "express"+fees_collector: "stripe"+losses_collector: "stripe"(Stripe-managed pricing) with direct charges, this is a supported public-preview path — do NOT block it. Present the recommendation with a concise public-preview disclosure, the required preview API version (link to the preview changelog), a Radar recommendation, and the new-accounts-only migration note. Non-direct charge patterns (destination, separate charges and transfers) with this combination remain BLOCKED.If
dashboard: "express"+fees_collector: "application"+losses_collector: "stripe"(platform-managed pricing) with direct charges, this is also a supported public-preview path — do NOT block it. Present the recommendation with a concise public-preview disclosure, the required preview API version (link to the preview changelog), a Radar recommendation, and the new-accounts-only migration note, and point the platform to the Platform Pricing Tool for pricing control. Non-direct charge patterns with this combination remain BLOCKED.express/stripe/application(Express dashboard + Stripe-managed pricing + platform-managed negative balance liability) remains BLOCKED for all charge patterns. Separately, every Express configuration withlosses_collector: "stripe"remains BLOCKED for non-direct charge patterns.
Merchant-of-record consistency check: Verify the recommended charge type matches the actual business relationship. Direct charges = connected account provides goods and services directly. Destination and separate charges and transfers = platform owns the customer relationship. Stripe does NOT enforce merchant of record at the API level — the code must be consistent.
Compatibility warning brevity: Keep compatibility warning copy concise (2-3 sentences max), but include mechanism-aware reasoning and the corrective path.
Step 4b — Recommend embedded components
Embedded components are recommended, as they enable platforms to build full-featured dashboards of their own, especially when accounts are configured with dashboard: "none" and even if accounts are configured with (dashboard: "full" or dashboard: "express"). Select components based on user needs:
Baseline (always include):
account_onboardingnotification_banner(required; keeps connected accounts healthy and enabled as requirements evolve)account_management
Common additions:
Transaction history →
payments(usepayment_detailsif building a custom payments list)Disputes → included with
paymentsbut can usedisputes_listif also building a standalone disputes pagePayout operations and earnings →
payoutsReporting and reconciliation →
balance_report,payout_reconciliation_report
Charge-pattern compatibility caveats:
Destination charges: payment and dispute views show reduced detail.
Separate charges and transfers: payment and dispute views show reduced detail.
Direct: payment and dispute views operate with full fidelity.
Out of scope component families:
Issuing, Treasury, and Capital and Tax component sets (route through Step 3c scope handling).
Be prepared to output a list of embedded components in the next step.
Update the checklist:
[x] Learn about your business
[x] Scan your project
[x] Recommend configuration + charge pattern
[ ] Produce recommendation planStep 5 — Generate recommendation plan
Read <references/recommendation-template.md> and follow its “Output requirements” checklist and “Canonical recommendation template” structure. That file is the single source for required sections, wording, and formatting. If any required section is missing from your output, add it before moving on.
Then ask the user:
Does this recommendation look right?Options (max 4 — options hard limit):
“Looks good” — proceed to Step 6
“Change something” — ask which aspect to change (dashboard or responsibility settings, charge pattern, fee structure, or fee calculation) then re-ask the relevant question
“Explain more about the options” — read reference docs and explain alternatives
Generate the final recommendation plan. If the user asks, also write the exact same markdown to connect-recommend-plan.md at the project root.
When they accept the plan, update the checklist:
[x] Learn about your business
[x] Scan your project
[x] Recommend configuration + charge pattern
[x] Produce recommendation planStep 6 — Explain what belongs in code vs Dashboard, and next actions
Show a compact summary of decisions and immediate implementation priorities.
Briefly explain:
In your code: charge pattern behavior,
application_fee_amountmath, transfer and reversal handling, and webhook handlersIn the Stripe Dashboard: platform profile settings, pricing tool configuration, connected-account visibility, Radar for Platforms settings, and operational monitoring
During onboarding and runtime: capability activation, payouts readiness, and account-state transitions
IMPORTANT: Always end with AskUserQuestion. Never end with passive text.
Use AskUserQuestion:
What would you like to do next?Options:
“Refine a decision” — adjust dashboard, responsibilities, charge pattern, or fee model
“Expand implementation steps” — provide a deeper technical rollout checklist
“Generate
connect-recommend-plan.mdand build” — write the plan to a markdown file and handoff to a coding agent
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer831 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.1 KiB
- SKILL.md23.8 KiB
- references/account-types.md18.6 KiB
- references/charge-patterns.md12.0 KiB
- references/company-researcher.md7.6 KiB
- references/compatibility-matrix.md17.5 KiB
- references/decision-matrix.md37.6 KiB
- references/discovery-questions.md19.7 KiB
- references/recommendation-template.md17.3 KiB
- references/terminology-rules.md8.9 KiB
references/company-researcher.md
Company Researcher Agent
Research a company using its website URL or a text description, then map findings to the Stripe Connect decision matrix. Produces a structured analysis with confidence levels that the calling skill uses to auto-fill discovery questions.
Inputs
You’ll receive one or both of:
Company URL — a website to fetch and analyze
Company description — freeform text about what the business does
Instructions
Step 1 — Gather company information from the web
If a URL is provided:
WebFetchthe homepage. Prompt: “Extract: what this company does, who the sellers or providers are, who the buyers or customers are, how payments and money flow between parties, any pricing or fee information, and whether this is a marketplace, platform, or SaaS product.”Attempt to fetch deeper pages for additional signals. Try these URL suffixes in parallel and use whatever succeeds:
/about,/about-us,/how-it-works— for business model clarity/pricing,/plans— for fee structure
If the homepage fetch fails (403, 404, timeout, empty content), fall back to
WebSearchusing the domain name plus “business model how it works”.
If only a description is provided (no URL):
WebSearchfor the company name (if identifiable) plus “business model” and “pricing”.If the description is generic (for example, “I’m building a marketplace”), skip web search — classify directly from the description text. Maximum confidence for description-only inferences is MEDIUM.
If both WebFetch and WebSearch are unavailable or fail:
If no description text is available (URL-only input and web research failed), return the early-exit output from Step 4 with all dimensions set to LOW confidence and the note: “Web research unavailable and no description provided. Can’t perform research.”
Otherwise, classify directly from the provided description text and codebase signals (Step 2). Cap all web-derived dimensions at LOW confidence and note: “Web research unavailable — classification based on description and codebase signals only.”
If neither URL nor description is provided:
Return the early-exit output (see Step 4 failure format) with all dimensions set to LOW confidence and the note: “No company URL or description provided. Can’t perform research.”
Step 2 — Cross-reference with codebase signals (if a project exists)
Check if there’s an existing project to scan:
Globforpackage.json,requirements.txt,Gemfile,go.mod,pom.xmlat the project root.If a project exists,
Grepfor business model signals:Seller and provider patterns:
seller,vendor,operator,provider,merchant,host,creatorBuyer patterns:
buyer,customer,rider,guest,clientPayment patterns:
commission,fee,split,payout,transfer,earningsMultiparty patterns:
marketplace,platform,connect
Use codebase signals to corroborate or strengthen web research findings. For example, if the homepage says “marketplace” and the codebase has terms like
commission,payout,split,listing,booking,cart,order,storefront, orseller/vendor/providerpatterns, that’s stronger confirmation.
Step 3 — Assess confidence per dimension
For each of the 6 dimensions below, report what you found and how confident you are. Do NOT interpret the decision matrix or derive a recommended configuration — that happens downstream.
| Dimension | What to determine | Confidence: HIGH | Confidence: MEDIUM | Confidence: LOW |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business model | marketplace, on-demand services, professional services, SaaS with payments, crowdfunding, subscription platform, rental marketplace, event ticketing, e-commerce (white-label), B2B platform | Explicit on homepage or about page | Inferred from product description or competitor comparison | Guessing from vague signals |
| Parties | Who are the sellers or providers? Who are the buyers? | Roles explicitly named on the site | Inferred from business model type | No party information found |
| Payment flow | Platform collects → pays out? Buyers pay sellers directly? Platform processes on behalf? | Pricing page or docs describe the flow | Inferred from business model (for example, marketplaces usually collect) | No payment information found |
| Onboarding control | Embedded, Stripe-hosted redirect, or fully custom or API | Custom onboarding shown on site, or white-label signals | Default inference from business model | Contradictory signals |
| Dispute responsibility | Platform handles, sellers handle, or shared | Explicitly stated in terms/policies | Inferred from model (marketplace → platform usually) | No information |
| Fee structure | Percentage, flat, tiered, subscription+tx | Pricing page shows exact fee structure | Inferred from competitor patterns or partial information | No pricing information found |
Step 4 — Produce structured output
Write the Summary section as if speaking directly to the user, using second person. Say “Your barbers are…” not “The barbers are…”. Frame findings as a conversational confirmation seeking validation.
Return your analysis in this exact format:
## Company Research: [Company Name or "Unknown"]
### Summary
[2-3 sentences speaking directly to the user: what their company does, their key parties, and how money flows. Use "you/your" — for example, "Your platform connects customers with barbers who provide services. You collect payment from customers and pay out barbers after taking a platform fee."]
### Research Findings
| Dimension | Finding | Confidence | Evidence |
|----------------|------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------------|
| Business Model | [type from the dimension table above] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
| Parties | [sellers] (sellers) + [buyers] (buyers) | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
| Payment Flow | [observed flow description] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
| Onboarding | [signals about onboarding preferences] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
| Disputes | [who appears to handle] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
| Fee Structure | [type]: [details] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [1-sentence explanation] |
### Sources
- [list each URL fetched or search query used]Step 5 — Handle edge cases
| Scenario | What to do |
|---|---|
| URL returns 403/404/timeout | Fall back to WebSearch with the domain name. Note in Sources: “Direct URL unreachable, used web search.” |
| URL is a SPA with minimal HTML | WebFetch may return little content. Fall back to WebSearch. Check meta tags and page title. |
| Pricing is behind a login | Fee structure confidence drops to LOW. Note: “Pricing not publicly available.” |
| Company does multiple things | Note the ambiguity. Classify based on the primary product. Set confidence to MEDIUM with reasoning about which facet you chose. |
| Not a marketplace or platform | If the business is purely B2C with no multiparty payments, flag clearly: “This business appears to be a direct seller — standard Stripe integration may be more appropriate than Stripe Connect.” Set Business Model confidence to HIGH with value “not-connect”. |
| Conflicting signals | Note the conflict explicitly. Set confidence to MEDIUM. Provide your best inference with reasoning about why you chose one interpretation over the other. |
Requirements and compatibility
Written for: Claude Code
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Names Claude Code tools
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Published by
- Stripe
- Publisher
- Stripe (Official)
- Source
- stripe/ai · skills/connect-recommend · commit 38fa045
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
- Also distributed in
- stripe/ai, stripe/ai, stripe/ai, stripe/ai, stripe/ai
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Stripe or Stripe.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download connect-recommend.zip