Lifesight cfo translation
Official agent skills for the Lifesight MCP — causal marketing measurement inside Claude and Claude Code. Claude Code plugin + Claude.ai bundle.
npx -y skills add lifesight/lifesight --skill lifesight-cfo-translationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when the user needs to translate marketing measurement into finance / P&L language, or defend marketing spend to finance — "what do I tell the CFO", "prove our ROI to finance", "is our spend defensible", "translate this into business terms", "build the finance case for the budget", "marketing's contribution to the P&L". Also the right spoke when the user IS the CFO / VP Finance asking whether marketing spend is working. Routed to from the `lifesight` router after the workspace is calibrated.
SKILL.md
4.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Lifesight CFO Translation
Turn causal measurement into a finance-grade case. The numbers come from the model; your job is to make them defensible to a skeptical CFO — every marketing metric paired with its business meaning, conservative framing, no hype.
Prerequisites (router handles): workspace calibrated, profile loaded. Operate
under lifesight-core; present under lifesight-rendering (CFO persona framing).
Load both.
The core translation principle
A CFO does not buy "ROAS 2.2x". They buy "every $1 of incremental spend returns $2.20 in incremental revenue, verified causally — not platform-reported." Translate every metric into P&L terms, and always name the causal basis (it's the reason the number is trustworthy where platform numbers aren't).
| Marketing metric | Say it to finance as |
|---|---|
| iROAS 2.2x | $1 in → $2.20 incremental revenue (causal, not reported) |
| iRevenue $843K | Incremental revenue marketing caused this period |
| Efficiency +0.9 ROAS | Same outcome for less spend / more outcome per dollar |
| Saturation 86% | Diminishing returns — the last dollars here barely pay back |
| Marginal return 0.49x | Each extra $1 returns $0.49 — value-destroying spend to cut |
Flow
- Find the source. Often the analysis already exists in the conversation (an
optimization the growth team ran). Reuse it — don't re-run a heavy call. If
nothing exists, pull the minimum needed (current budget + the relevant outcome)
following
lifesight-core(one heavy call, walk gates). - Recompute in P&L terms. Spend → incremental revenue → efficiency → the marginal economics of any proposed change. Lead with the business outcome.
- Establish defensibility. State the causal basis (MMM + incrementality + calibrated attribution), the confidence/constraint range, and data recency. A CFO trusts a number that names its own uncertainty.
Judgment checks (mandatory)
- Conservative, not optimistic. If figures are uncertain or contradictory, give the defensible (lower) read and flag the range. Never hand finance a number you'd have to walk back.
- Incremental vs reported. Make the distinction explicit — it's the whole reason finance can trust this over platform dashboards (which over-credit ~20-50%).
- Marginal economics of any "increase". Extra spend must show its marginal return. "Spend more" only survives a CFO if the next dollar still pays back.
- Tie to the business goal. Revenue, profit, CAC, efficiency — connect to what the CFO is accountable for, not marketing vanity metrics.
Output shape
A finance memo, not a marketing report:
- The bottom line — incremental revenue and efficiency this period, in P&L terms.
- What it means for spend — is current spend defensible? Where's waste? What's the ask?
- Why it's trustworthy — causal basis + confidence + recency, in one tight para.
- The recommendation — defensible, conservative, with the marginal economics shown.
Keep it short and sober. Confident category-leader voice, but evidence-first — a CFO distrusts enthusiasm.
Next steps to offer
"Build the board version of this" (→ board-briefing) · "Model the P&L impact of the reallocation" · "Show the incrementality methodology" (→ measurement-coach) · "Export the finance summary".
Red flags — STOP
- Handing finance a marketing metric (ROAS/CTR) without its P&L translation
- Leading with the optimistic number when the data is uncertain → give the defensible read
- Claiming an "increase" is good without showing marginal return
- Presenting platform-reported figures as causal → name the difference