chargeback-dispute-response
Win a chargeback dispute — read the reason code, assemble the evidence packet, and write the rebuttal that actually persuades the bank
Install / Use
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill chargeback-dispute-responseInstalls into whichever agent you are using.
SKILL.md
Installable skill definition
Quality Score
Category
Finance & AccountingSupported Platforms
Our assessment of chargeback-dispute-response
chargeback-dispute-response scores 82/100 on our quality scale, 76th of 116 Finance & Accounting skills we index.
Its SKILL.md is 4.5 KB long, well organised into 12 sections and no code examples: a solid amount of guidance for an agent.
With 1,396 GitHub stars, it is one of the more widely adopted skills in the catalogue.
Maintenance, license and trust
- The repository was last updated 8 days ago, so chargeback-dispute-response is actively maintained.
- It is released under the MIT license, a permissive license that allows use, modification and commercial use with attribution.
- Its trust signals score 100/100, with no cautions. These come from repository metadata, not a code audit — read the skill file before letting an agent act on it.
chargeback-dispute-response compared with similar skills
All 4 of these similar skills score higher than chargeback-dispute-response; compare them before choosing.
| Skill | Score | Stars | Updated | Format |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| chargeback-dispute-response (this skill)by mohitagw15856 | 82 | 1.4k | 8d ago | SKILL.md |
| algorithmic-artby anthropics | 100 | 177.9k | 10d ago | SKILL.md |
| pptxby anthropics | 100 | 177.9k | 10d ago | SKILL.md |
| designby nextlevelbuilder | 100 | 130.2k | 11d ago | SKILL.md |
| ui-ux-pro-maxby nextlevelbuilder | 100 | 130.2k | 11d ago | SKILL.md |
Frequently asked questions
- How do I install chargeback-dispute-response?
- Run
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill chargeback-dispute-response. The install tabs above show the steps for each supported agent. - Which AI agents does chargeback-dispute-response work with?
- It is written for Universal, as a SKILL.md file. Other agents that read the same format can often use it too.
- Is chargeback-dispute-response safe to use?
- It is MIT-licensed and scores 100/100 on trust signals. Skills are instructions an agent will follow, so read the file before installing it and do not approve commands you do not understand.
- Is chargeback-dispute-response still maintained?
- The repository was last updated 8 days ago, so chargeback-dispute-response is actively maintained.
Skill content
View source on GitHubname: chargeback-dispute-response description: "Win a chargeback dispute — read the reason code, assemble the evidence packet, and write the rebuttal that actually persuades the bank. Use when asked to fight a chargeback, respond to a payment dispute, write a chargeback rebuttal, or contest a customer chargeback. Produces the reason-code decode, the required-evidence checklist for that code, the structured rebuttal letter, and an honest read on whether this one is winnable — so you fight the right disputes and concede the rest. For merchants."
Chargeback Dispute Response
Chargebacks are won or lost on matching the specific reason code to the specific evidence the card networks accept — not on how unfair it feels. This decodes the code, tells you exactly which proof wins that category (delivery confirmation, an AVS match, the signed terms, prior usage), assembles the rebuttal in the structure banks expect, and — importantly — tells you when a dispute is unwinnable so you don't waste the representment.
Card-network rules and win rates vary by processor and code. This structures the strongest representment; it can't guarantee the issuer's decision.
What This Skill Produces
- The reason-code decode — what the customer/bank is actually claiming, in plain terms
- The evidence checklist — the specific proof that wins this code (not a generic pile)
- The rebuttal letter — a structured, factual representment matched to the claim
- The winnability read — fight, or concede and save the fee — an honest call
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The reason code — the code and category (fraud, product not received, not as described, subscription/cancelled, duplicate)
- The transaction — amount, date, product/service, and your records
- Your evidence — what you can actually document: delivery/tracking, AVS/CVV match, IP/device, communications, terms accepted, usage logs, refund policy
- History — prior chargebacks from this customer, and your processor
Framework: Match Evidence to the Code
- The code dictates the fight. "Product not received" is won with delivery proof; "fraud" with AVS/CVV/IP + usage; "not as described" with the listing + comms; "subscription cancelled" with the cancellation policy and usage after the claimed date.
- Compelling evidence, not a story. Card networks weigh specific artifacts; emotion and unfairness arguments lose.
- Facts, dated, and cross-referenced. Every claim in the rebuttal points to an attached artifact.
- Concede the unwinnable. True fraud with no AVS match, or no delivery proof, is a lost representment — take the loss, save the time, and address prevention.
- Prevent the next one. Note the pattern (friendly fraud, unclear billing descriptor, no delivery capture) so it stops recurring.
Output Format
Chargeback Response — [reason code] · [$amount]
Claim in plain terms: … · Winnability: Strong / Worth trying / Concede — why
Evidence checklist (for this code)
| Required proof | Have it? | Attached as | |---|---|---|
Rebuttal letter
- Opening: transaction facts (date, amount, what was sold)
- The claim, and the specific evidence that refutes it (each point → an attachment)
- Terms/policy the customer accepted
- Close: concise request to reverse the chargeback
Prevent recurrence
- [billing descriptor / delivery capture / cancellation clarity / friendly-fraud pattern]
Quality Checks
- [ ] The evidence checklist is specific to the actual reason code, not generic
- [ ] Every rebuttal claim references a concrete, attached artifact
- [ ] The letter argues facts, not fairness or emotion
- [ ] A winnability call is made — including honest "concede" when evidence is missing
- [ ] A prevention note addresses why this chargeback happened
- [ ] No evidence is described that the merchant doesn't actually have
Anti-Patterns
- A generic rebuttal ignoring what the specific code requires — the top reason merchants lose.
- Arguing unfairness instead of submitting the artifacts networks weigh.
- Fighting an unwinnable dispute and wasting the fee — know when to concede.
- Claiming evidence you don't have — fabricated proof loses and risks worse.
- No prevention step — the same chargeback returns next month.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Fight this chargeback — reason code is 'product not received'."
- "Write a rebuttal for a payment dispute on a $400 order."
- "Help me contest a customer chargeback and tell me if it's winnable."
- "Respond to this friendly-fraud chargeback with the right evidence."
Related Skills
algorithmic-art
177.9kCreating algorithmic art using p5.js with seeded randomness and interactive parameter exploration. Use this when users request creating art using code, generative art, algorithmic art, flow fields, or particle systems.
pptx
177.9kUse this skill any time a .pptx or .potx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx or .potx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an em…
design
130.2kComprehensive design skill: brand identity, design tokens, UI styling, logo generation (55 styles, Gemini, Atlas Cloud, or MuAPI AI), corporate identity program (50 deliverables, CIP mockups), HTML presentations (Chart.js), banner design (22 styles, social/ads/web/print), icon design (15 styles, SVG…
ui-ux-pro-max
130.2kUI/UX design intelligence for web, mobile, and desktop. This skill should be used when designing, building, reviewing, or fixing interfaces, including pages, components, design systems, accessibility, interaction, responsive layout, typography, color, charts, and stack-specific UI implementation.
Languages
Trust signals
From repository metadata: license, adoption, age and documentation. Not a code audit — see the Safety scan above for what the skill file itself contains.
