Generated banner for Connect Recommend
Generated logo for Connect Recommend

Connect Recommend

StripeOfficialPublished by Stripe

  • Skill
  • Tool integration
  • Business and productivity
  • MIT
  • No issues found

From the author

Use this skill when the user asks about Stripe Connect configuration, charge patterns, Dashboard access, or how to get started with Connect, is building a marketplace, platform, multi-vendor store, gig platform, or subscription platform, needs to pay out sellers, vendors, or providers, mentions split payments, revenue sharing, multi-party payments, or similar payment distribution concepts, provides a company URL or business description for a recommendation, builds SaaS that routes money between parties (for example, POS, booking, invoicing — not operational SaaS without payment routing), asks about onboarding or KYC for merchants, sellers, and vendors, mentions connected account Dashboard or responsibility configurations, or asks about payment flows, white-label payments, or embedded payments.
— the description by Stripe

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

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://mp-staging.autogineer.com/agent-skills/stripe/connect-recommend/download
  2. Unzip 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 plan

1f. 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 destination or separate (platform pays Stripe fees by default)

  • Charge pattern is direct AND fees_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 destination or direct (with fees_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_amount on 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_amount is NOT compatible. They need to calculate the net transfer amount to preserve margin instead of using application_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.

  1. Existing Connect config: Check for connect-recommend-plan.md or 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.

  2. 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_amount usage

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 plan
Step 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_amount calculation

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, and merchant or recipient by 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:

  1. Confirm fee type and fee amount

  2. Confirm how application_fee_amount is calculated

  3. Confirm whether a margin warning is required

  4. 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.

  1. 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_transfer defaults to false on both refunds and disputes, so recovery isn’t automatic. With losses_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_collector to "application" or switching to direct charges) Then re-run the recommendation with the corrected configuration.

  2. 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\"”).

  3. 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 is destination or separate, 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 with losses_collector: "stripe" remains BLOCKED for non-direct charge patterns.

  4. 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.

  5. 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_onboarding

  • notification_banner (required; keeps connected accounts healthy and enabled as requirements evolve)

  • account_management

Common additions:

  • Transaction history → payments (use payment_details if building a custom payments list)

  • Disputes → included with payments but can use disputes_list if also building a standalone disputes page

  • Payout operations and earnings → payouts

  • Reporting 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 plan
Step 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 plan
Step 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_amount math, transfer and reversal handling, and webhook handlers

  • In 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.md and build” — write the plan to a markdown file and handoff to a coding agent

Files

references/compatibility-matrix.md

Connect integration compatibility reference

This document encodes known Connect integration incompatibilities — combinations of account controller properties and charge types that cause serious issues for platforms. Use this as a validation checklist when recommending or reviewing any Connect configuration.

1. Controller Property + Charge Type Compatibility Matrix

Significant compatibility issues arise when account controller properties (dashboard, fees_collector, losses_collector) are paired with incompatible charge types. Each combination below is rated:

  • BLOCKED — Incompatible combination. Never recommend. Can cause liability-model mismatch, fee-model mismatch, or inability to manage key payment operations.

  • CAUTION — Technically functional but has significant drawbacks. Present with explicit warnings.

  • ALLOWED — Supported combination. Proceed normally.

  • OUT OF SCOPE — Not supported by this guide. Redirect to Stripe docs or sales.

  • Reasoning depth vs output brevity — This reference is intentionally detailed so the assistant can reason about liability and transfer mechanics. User-facing warnings should stay concise and action-oriented.

  • Output guardrail — Keep recommendation warnings concise (typically one to two sentences). Use the mechanism details in this document to choose the right warning and alternative path, not to dump every detail verbatim.

Core Rule

For GA configurations with losses_collector: "stripe", ONLY direct charges are safe.

For destination charges and separate charges and transfers, use losses_collector: "application" so responsibility aligns with dispute and transfer-reversal flows. In this guide, combinations that pair these charge patterns with losses_collector: "stripe" are marked BLOCKED.

Public-preview exception: As of the June 24 public-preview release, Express dashboard with losses_collector: "stripe" + direct charges is a supported path for self-serve SaaS platforms, in two variants: fees_collector: "stripe" (Stripe-managed pricing) and fees_collector: "application" (platform-managed pricing). Always disclose that these direct-charge Express + Stripe-managed-negative-balance-liability paths are in public preview. Express dashboard with losses_collector: "stripe" for destination charges or separate charges and transfers remains BLOCKED — the liability model still doesn’t align with those charge flows.

Note: on_behalf_of configurations aren’t supported by this guide. on_behalf_of columns are retained in the matrix for compatibility detection only — if the assistant encounters on_behalf_of requirements, it needs to redirect to Stripe docs or sales.

Full Matrix (v2 field names)
DashboardFees CollectorLosses CollectorDirectDestinationDestination on_behalf_ofSeparate charges and transfersSeparate charges and transfers on_behalf_of
fullstripestripeALLOWEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
fullstripeapplicationBLOCKEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
fullapplicationapplicationSALES-GATEDSALES-GATEDOUT OF SCOPESALES-GATEDOUT OF SCOPE
fullapplicationstripeSALES-GATEDSALES-GATEDOUT OF SCOPESALES-GATEDOUT OF SCOPE
expressapplicationapplicationALLOWEDCAUTIONOUT OF SCOPECAUTIONOUT OF SCOPE
expressstripestripeALLOWED (PUBLIC PREVIEW)*BLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
expressstripeapplicationBLOCKEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
expressapplicationstripeALLOWED (PUBLIC PREVIEW)*BLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
nonestripestripeBLOCKEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
nonestripeapplicationBLOCKEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
noneapplicationstripeBLOCKEDBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPEBLOCKEDOUT OF SCOPE
noneapplicationapplicationALLOWEDALLOWEDOUT OF SCOPEALLOWEDOUT OF SCOPE

*express/stripe/stripe + direct (Stripe-managed pricing) and express/application/stripe + direct (platform-managed pricing) are public-preview paths made available for self-serve SaaS platforms in the June 24 release. Always disclose public-preview status when recommending them. Destination charges and separate charges and transfers still require platform-run dispute or refund recovery (including transfer reversals), which aligns with losses_collector: "application" instead — these non-direct combinations remain BLOCKED regardless of the public-preview release.

CAUTION Details

express + application + application + destination charges (without on_behalf_of) and separate charges and transfers:

  • Connected accounts can’t manage refunds, disputes, or Radar rules from their Express dashboard for these charge types (see Express dashboard payments docs)

  • Stripe debits disputes to the platform first for these charge patterns; recovery depends on reversing prior transfers back from connected accounts

  • This pattern is only viable when the platform owns losses (losses_collector: "application") and runs webhook-driven refund or dispute recovery workflows

  • Platform must handle failure modes (for example, insufficient connected-account balance) and negative-balance remediation

  • on_behalf_of is out of scope for this guide. Redirect to Stripe docs or sales instead of recommending it.

Blessed Paths (Safe Defaults)
Business ModelDashboardFeesLossesCharge TypeRatingNotes
MarketplaceexpressapplicationapplicationDestinationCAUTIONRecommended path — CAUTION applies: connected accounts have limited dispute or refund visibility from their Express dashboard; platform must run webhook-driven recovery workflows. Always include the Express dispute-visibility warning.
Self-serve SaaS, Stripe-managed pricingexpressstripestripeDirectALLOWED (PUBLIC PREVIEW)Low-operations default for self-serve SaaS platforms — Stripe-managed pricing and negative balance liability. Disclose public-preview status.
Self-serve SaaS, platform-managed pricingexpressapplicationstripeDirectALLOWED (PUBLIC PREVIEW)For self-serve SaaS platforms that want pricing control while keeping Stripe-managed negative balance liability. Pair with the Platform Pricing Tool. Disclose public-preview status.
SaaSfullstripestripeDirectALLOWEDStripe-managed fee and loss defaults; connected accounts are independent merchants that need full, independent Stripe operations
Enterprise or White-labelnoneapplicationapplicationDestination or DirectALLOWEDFull platform control
2. Why Blocked Combos Fail

When losses_collector: "stripe" is combined with non-direct charges (destination or separate charges and transfers), this guide marks the combination as BLOCKED for three documented reasons:

  1. Liability settings should align with where disputes are debited. For destination charges and separate charges and transfers, disputes are debited from the platform balance. Use losses_collector: "application" so the liability model matches this funds flow.

  2. Payment fees for these charge types are assessed on the platform. For destination charges or separate charges and transfers, Stripe collects payment fees from the platform account regardless of fees_collector. (Rates vary by region — see stripe.com/pricing.) Note: Legacy types behave differently, see Fee behavior.

  3. Recovery from connected accounts requires explicit transfer-reversal handling. For destination and separate disputes, Stripe debits the platform first; the platform then recovers funds by reversing transfers through the API or Dashboard. Refunds can auto-reverse transfers when reverse_transfer: true, but dispute recovery isn’t automatic and requires explicit logic.

3. Merchant of record enforcement gap

Whoever provides the good or service at the transaction level should be the merchant of record. The charge type dictates who the merchant of record is:

  • Direct charges → Connected account is merchant of record (their name on bank statements)

  • Destination charges and separate charges and transfers → Platform is merchant of record

  • on_behalf_of variants → Connected account is merchant of record (despite charge living on platform account)

CRITICAL: Platforms declare their intended merchant-of-record setup during platform onboarding, but can then create charges with any pattern regardless. Stripe will NOT enforce this selection at the API level. The recommendation must ensure the charge type matches the user’s actual business relationship (who provides the goods and services).

4. Additional compatibility risks
4a. OAuth or Connecting Existing Stripe Accounts

Risk level: OUT OF SCOPE

Connecting existing Stripe accounts through OAuth is a v1-only pattern primarily used in sales-assisted integrations. This guide doesn’t support OAuth-based onboarding.

Why OAuth is problematic:

  • Connected accounts can disconnect at any time, severing the platform’s ability to process payments

  • Platform loses visibility into the connected account’s state and requirements

  • Less platform control over onboarding flow and requirement collection

  • Not compatible with all embedded components

If the user mentions OAuth, “connect existing Stripe accounts,” or “link existing accounts”: Direct them to the Connect documentation and recommend contacting Stripe sales. This guidance only supports creating new connected accounts with embedded onboarding.

4b. Custom Onboarding Complexity

Risk level: CAUTION

Platforms that choose dashboard: "none" and build custom onboarding underestimate the ongoing burden:

  • KYC lifecycle ownership shifts fully to the platform: initial collection, ongoing requirement monitoring, and remediation when verification fails.

  • Country-specific legal entity requirements change frequently. What works for US entities doesn’t work for EU, and new countries add new requirements.

  • Ongoing requirement collection is required, not one-time. When regulatory and compliance requirements change (updated KYC rules, new regulatory requirements, and more), the platform must update collection flows and prompt existing accounts.

  • Invalid information from connected accounts leads to accounts stuck in restricted states. Without Stripe’s built-in validation, platforms end up manually remediating stuck accounts.

  • Higher remediation and maintenance burden compared to embedded or hosted onboarding, because API-based onboarding requires custom collection logic and ongoing updates as requirements evolve.

Recommendation: Use embedded onboarding components or Stripe-hosted onboarding unless the platform has dedicated compliance engineering resources AND a specific branding requirement that embedded components can’t meet. This reduces compliance and maintenance burden (see Onboard your connected account).

4c. Dashboard DIY (Missing Refund or Dispute Flows)

Risk level: CAUTION

Platforms that build their own connected-account dashboard (dashboard: "none") commonly build earnings and payout views but neglect refund and dispute management flows. Without these:

  • Connected accounts can’t initiate refunds, leading to customer complaints escalating to chargebacks

  • Connected accounts can’t respond to disputes, causing auto-losses

  • Connected accounts can’t easily identify or remediate KYC requirement failures, causing prolonged restrictions

Recommendation: If building a custom dashboard, day-one scope should include refund initiation, dispute response, and KYC requirement status and remediation with country-aware requirement handling. Strongly recommend using embedded components for these. If the platform can’t commit to this, use dashboard: "express" instead.

4d. Product compatibility by charge type

Risk level: INFORMATIONAL (long-term gap)

Not all Stripe products work with all Connect integration configurations.

Recommendation: If the platform plans to use Billing, Invoicing, or Payment Links, recommend direct charges.

For other charge types, when encountering Billing (Subscriptions, Invoicing), Tax, Payment Links, or Checkout Sessions, proceed with caution and look things up in the Stripe docs or recommend contacting sales.

4e. Geo Expansion Limitations

Risk level: INFORMATIONAL (long-term gap)

Certain integration paths have geographic restrictions:

  • Cross-border payouts have currency and timing limitations that vary by connected account country.

  • Instant payouts are only available in select countries and may require specific account configurations.

Recommendation: If the user mentions international expansion plans, their charge pattern and account configuration may need adjustment for new countries. Recommend checking Stripe’s country availability documentation.

4f. Taking on Pricing Without Expertise

Risk level: CAUTION

Platforms that choose fees_collector: "application" (platform owns pricing) should model Stripe processing fees explicitly, because unmodeled fees can reduce margins.

Recommendation: This is already well-covered by the skill’s mandatory fee economics breakdowns. Reinforce during discovery: if the platform doesn’t have dedicated pricing expertise, recommend fees_collector: "stripe" and use application_fee_amount for platform revenue.

4g. Destination Charges + Disputes: Missing Transfer Reversals

Risk level: CAUTION

When a dispute occurs on a destination charge:

  1. The charge lives on the platform’s account (platform is merchant of record)

  2. Stripe debits the platform’s balance for the disputed amount

  3. However, the platform has already transferred funds to the connected account using transfer_data

The platform’s balance is reduced but the connected account still has the funds. A common implementation issue: platforms fail to initiate a transfer reversal to recover the disputed amount from the connected account.

What should happen:

  • Platform listens for charge.dispute.created webhook

  • Platform creates a transfer reversal to pull funds back from the connected account

  • If the connected account’s Stripe balance is insufficient, the reversal creates a negative balance on the connected account (requires losses_collector: "application")

What commonly goes wrong:

  • Platform doesn’t listen for dispute webhooks at all

  • Platform processes disputes manually but forgets the transfer reversal step

  • Platform assumes Stripe automatically reverses the transfer (it does NOT — reverse_transfer defaults to false on both refunds and disputes)

  • Connected account balance is zero, and without losses_collector: "application", there’s no mechanism to recover

Recommendation:

  • Always verify incoming webhook signatures before processing — see Verify webhook signatures. Optionally restrict requests to Stripe’s published IP addresses.

  • Always implement a charge.dispute.created webhook handler that automatically reverses the associated transfer

  • Use reverse_transfer: true on refunds to make transfer reversal automatic for voluntary refunds

  • For disputes, build explicit transfer reversal logic — automatic reversal only happens for refunds, not disputes

  • Ensure losses_collector: "application" is set so the connected account balance can go negative, enabling recovery

  • Consider alerting on unrecovered dispute amounts where transfer reversal failed (for example, connected account already withdrew funds)

5. Compatibility checks during discovery

When generating a recommendation in the discovery flow, validate the final configuration against this checklist:

  1. Compatibility matrix check: Look up (dashboard, fees_collector, losses_collector) + chargePattern in the matrix above. If BLOCKED, don’t present. Explain why and recommend the nearest allowed alternative.

  2. Merchant-of-record consistency check: Verify the recommended charge type matches who actually provides goods or services. Direct charges = connected account is merchant of record. Destination and separate charges and transfers = platform is merchant of record.

  3. OAuth check: If the user mentions OAuth for connecting accounts, warn about tradeoffs and recommend Account Links.

  4. Custom onboarding check: If dashboard: "none" and the user plans custom onboarding, warn about ongoing KYC collection and remediation burden and country-specific requirement drift.

  5. Dashboard scope check: If dashboard: "none", confirm the platform plans to build refund or dispute operations, not just earnings views.

  6. Fee expertise check: If fees_collector: "application", ensure the fee economics section includes explicit breakeven analysis.

  7. Warning brevity check: Keep user-facing warnings concise (typically one to two sentences), using this document as reasoning context.

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.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download connect-recommend.zip