Open finance skill
Revenue Leak Detective
Revenue leakage review
Where could completed work be missing from billing?
Compare invented completed-job and invoice records to find work that may be unbilled, underbilled or awaiting review.
A complete finance workflow
The spreadsheet has the numbers. The team needs the context behind them.
When completed work is compared with invoices by hand, the reviewer needs context from operations, spreadsheets, email and meetings.
- 1
Read completed-work and invoice records
- 2
Find completed jobs with no invoice or an unexplained amount difference
- 3
Draft the billing questions that operations and finance need to answer
- 4
Organize the evidence, explanation, owner, and next review step
- 5
Export resolved explanations into a review history that the finance team maintains
What a maintained review history makes easier to see
- ✓Which job types repeatedly miss billing
- ✓Where approval or handoff delays occur
- ✓Which customers require unusual billing treatment
- ✓Who owns each unresolved billing question
Records you need
- ✓Completed work
- ✓Invoice records
- ✓Job identifiers
What you get
- ✓Unbilled candidates
- ✓Amount differences
- ✓Review queue
Checks performed
- ✓Completed job without invoice
- ✓Job-to-invoice amount gap
- ✓Missing job identifier
From finding to decision
Completed work is not automatically an extra invoice.
The work may be covered by the contract, an accepted change order, progress billing or an existing combined invoice. Check what the customer owes before claiming extra revenue can be recovered.
- Connect completed work with the signed scope, change orders and billing terms.
- Search individual invoice lines and progress-billing applications, not just invoice headings.
- Return a review list with the job, supporting scope, existing billing, amount still in question and responsible owner.
Evidence ready for review
Each candidate explains why the work is or is not eligible for additional billing.
Who makes the next decision?
Operations and billing confirm the amount and timing; invoicing still does not prove profit or collected cash.
Collect the supporting records from your software
Level diagnostic method reviewed . Apply it to the selected records and accounting policy; the teaching example does not resolve a live account.
Guided synthetic example
See the check from input to decision
A completed service job has signed completion evidence but no matching invoice in the supplied extract.
How review effort might be shared
An illustrative allocation is 15% collecting records, 20% applying checks, 10% flagging results, 25% investigating reasons, 20% finance review and 10% choosing an action. These percentages were not measured across engagements. Actual effort varies with data quality, complexity and the issue found.
Start with the source records
| Job | Status | Completed | Quoted value | Invoice | Billed value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOB-1208 | Complete | Jul 19 | $6,400 | No match in extract | Unknown |
| JOB-1211 | Complete | Jul 20 | $3,250 | INV-804 | $3,250 |
Apply the documented check
For each completed job, require a matching invoice identifier and compare job value with billed value.
Surface the flagged result
Needs review
JOB-1208 has no matched invoice in the extract. Its $6,400 quoted value is a review candidate, not confirmed billable revenue.
Use recorded finance judgment to analyze possible reasons
At Level, we record the review logic, known explanations, and questions our finance professionals use in this situation. AI applies that documented human judgment to organize the most plausible reasons, without pretending it knows which reason is true.
Possible reasons to investigate
No matched invoice may indicate leakage, but warranty work, a bundled agreement, delayed billing, a missing job identifier, another system or the export cutoff could explain it. Quoted value can differ from the contractual billable amount.
Make the final human judgment
In a Level engagement, a Level finance professional validates the source evidence, challenges the AI-assisted analysis, and decides which explanation is supported.
Make the operating decision
Confirm the billing obligation and either issue the invoice or document why no invoice is required.
Each skill uses an independent synthetic scenario. Shared month labels do not mean the examples describe one company or a single financial period.
Use this system
Start with the example, then inspect the structure
The JSON download is a sample record file to inspect with an AI assistant or developer. It is not a file to upload into your accounting software.
- Download the invented input and expected output.
- Replace one field at a time with a safe test value.
- Compare the result with the expected structure.
- Have a finance professional review every exception before acting.
Website example JSON and registry: CC BY 4.0 (attribution required). Downloadable toolkit ZIP: MIT. Each version identifies its own frozen examples.
Developer preview: AI-assistant helper (MCP)
This tool call returns fixed, invented sample records only. It does not connect to your books. Read the setup instructions.
run_synthetic_example {"slug":"revenue-leakage-review"}Human review is part of the system
This check organizes evidence and surfaces exceptions. A person with finance domain expertise still needs to interpret the result, validate the source records, and discuss the operating decision.
Open source does not mean open client data. We publish reusable finance tools, checks, templates, and playbooks. Client records, workpapers, credentials, communications, and private configurations remain confidential.
Use it yourself, or bring us the messy part
Get a one-page plan for checking your records
Tell us where the path from completed work to invoice through cash collection stops making sense. We will reply with the first check to run, the records it needs, and the decision that still needs human finance judgment.
Install the free skills yourself