Review a diff that touches Polar's billing domain — subscriptions, cycles and crons, orders, billing entries, meters and usage, discounts, checkout, payments and dunning, refunds, disputes, payouts, wallets, tax and invoices. Use before opening a PR that changes money movement or subscription lifecycle, when the user asks for a billing review, or when a reviewer needs the domain rules the team enforces in review but that no linter catches.
Install
npx skillscat add polarsource/polar/billing-review Install via the SkillsCat registry.
Billing Review (Polar)
The handle is the diff. The evidence is where the change breaks a billing invariant the
team enforces in review.
Not a general code review. The other lenses know Polar's conventions, contract and deploy
shape. This one knows how the billing domain is supposed to behave.
Distilled from ~210 review comments François (frankie567) left on billing PRs between
February and August 2026, plus domain invariants raised by pieterbeulque, psincraian,joebon and Yopi on the same PRs. Each rule cites its PR.
Read .agents/skills/polar-billing.md first. That is the map of the domain — entities,
services, tasks, the cycle flow, proration, dunning, the ledger. This file is the checklist
that assumes it.
Scope
polar/{subscription,order,billing_entry,meter,event,discount,checkout,checkout_link}/
polar/{payment,payment_method,refund,dispute,payout,payout_account,wallet,transaction}/
polar/{invoice,receipt,tax,product,customer_seat,account}/ · polar/benefit/grant/
polar/models/{subscription,order,order_item,product,product_price,discount,checkout,
payment,billing_entry,refund,dispute,wallet,transaction}.py
migrations/ and server/scripts/ when they touch those tablesOwned elsewhere: schema and SDK impact → api-surface-review; migration and actor deploy
safety → ship-safety; lazy="raise" and repository conventions → conventions-check;ADR-0006 / ADR-0007 → adr-check; existing helpers → reuse-check.
For a domain question you cannot settle from the diff, ask it rather than assert a defect.
That is how this team reviews.
Checks
1. Money comes from billing entries, not derived state
BillingEntry is the ledger tying an invoice line back to the events that caused it. Anything
computing an amount from a summary or a recomputation loses that trace.
- Invoicing metered usage reads billing entries, never the customer meter's computed balance.
"Billing Entries are the source of truth… Otherwise, we lose the ability to track billing
down to the events." (#12510) - If consumption happened, the entries already exist. New code that recomputes usage instead
of picking up pending entries is a smell. (#12510) - Order creation is what consumes pending entries. The question for a new billing trigger is
"should this create an order", not "should this compute an amount".
2. Reuse the lifecycle, do not hand-roll the transition
The cycle already moves periods, writes events, and grants or revokes benefits.
- Changing plan during a trial: call
update_trialso periods and events are right, then let
it cycle naturally because the new period is already past — same as ending a trial
immediately. (#11898) - New periodic behaviour gets a scheduler modelled on
subscription/scheduler.py, not a
bespoke loop. (#12990) - One cycle, one invoice. Overages from a meter cycle that coincides with a billing cycle
belong on the renewal invoice, not a second order with a second payment. (#12510)
3. Dunning decisions live in the dunning entry point
- The retry decision belongs in
_handle_first_dunning_attempt, not the caller. Check the
latest payment's decline code, set a retry date if recoverable, leave itNoneotherwise.
Everything else (past due, benefit enqueue) is untouched. (#9744) - Never schedule a retry for a non-recoverable decline. (#9744)
- Decline-code knowledge lives on the
Paymentmodel as a@property
(UNRECOVERABLE_DECLINE_CODES), guarded byif self.processor == PaymentProcessor.stripe
so a second processor does not inherit Stripe's codes. (#9744) - Retry-exhaustion arithmetic is a classic off-by-one. Check the boundary. (#11905)
4. Payment locks release on one path
- The webhook handler for the payment outcome (
handle_payment_failure) releases the lock. A
caller that also releases it on its own error path is duplicated logic — delete it and its
test. (#10653) - Never release a payment lock on success.
release_on_successwas removed from the
codebase for this reason. A diff reintroducing it is a regression. (#10653) with_for_updatebelongs in the task that owns the unit of work, not insidetransfer_stripe. "This logic should be independent from Stripe behavior." (#12097)- A wedged lock breaks dunning silently. (#13272)
5. Keep processor state in sync, keep processor names out of the domain
- Domain statuses mirror the processor's vocabulary.
acceptedwas rejected as a dispute
status because Stripe useslosteither way, and diverging breaks the sync. (#12713) - A merchant action with a processor counterpart makes the processor call in the same flow.
"The risk is way too high to forget… and let the dispute expire." (#12713) - Name things after the domain: "Payout Account", not "Connect". (#12097)
6. Crons and batch jobs
- Catch-up loops hide missed runs. A
whilewalking forward through skipped cycles
computes credits wrong for the periods it skipped. Prefer an invariant alert that the cycle
did not run. (psincraian, #12510) - Use
repository.streamrather than a keyset loop over UUIDs. (#12749) - Loading every row in a script or sweep is a review stop. "Won't that blow up in memory?"
(#11728, #13687)
7. Discounts
- Redemption counting is the whole game. A failed payment should not count. A fully
refunded order is an open question the team has not settled. (pieterbeulque, #13328) - Concurrent redemption of the same code needs a customer lock, and the caller acquires it —
say so at the call site. (joebon, #13328) max_redemptionsandmax_redemptions_per_customerare separate limits; a guard checking
one usually needs both. (#13394)- Expiry is checked in
cyclebut has been missed elsewhere. New paths that apply a discount
check it too — prefer extracting the shared check. (psincraian, #12510) - Multi-line discounts apply as a waterfall, not proportionally. Questioned in review as
unusual for invoices; a change to allocation is a merchant-visible invoice change. (joebon,
#12172)
8. Amounts, currency and tax
- Fee values are basis points: 4% is
400. Check the unit before trusting arithmetic. - Per-jurisdiction tax comes straight from the Numeral API response. Recomputing it from rates
andpolar_roundintroduces fractional-cent drift. (#11211) - Tax sits on transactions of type
payment, which are on the Polar side and not linked
to the merchant's account. Transactions reach an organization throughaccount_id;payment_organization_idis a Pledge-era leftover that does not mean what it looks like.
(#12204) - On imports, tax-inclusive versus exclusive must mirror the source provider, or the merchant
loses money. (#12502) - Voiding or reversing an order credits back what was applied (
applied_balance_amount), not
the customer's current balance. (#11637)
9. Free and zero-amount paths
These keep breaking because new code assumes a payment exists.
- Keep
ProductPrice.is_free/Checkout.is_free_product_pricechecks when reworking price
handling. (#12225) - A new charge path supports a free price by skipping the payment step, not rejecting it.
(#12089) - Renewal emails, invoices and receipts all have free-subscription branches. (#9291)
10. Billing-specific additions to rules owned elsewhere
Short pointers only — the owning lens reports the general rule.
- Money tables are busy tables.
orders,subscriptions,payments,customers,events. Heavy backfills go in a script; indexes go in concurrently. →ship-safety - Order foreign keys get
ondelete="restrict". "ADELETEstatement is easy to spawn."
(#11206) →ship-safety - Lazy loads in money paths are stuck jobs, not just 500s.
assert order.customerdoes
not protect you — it raises the lazy-load error itself (#11900). When a denormalized column
lands, the matchingjoinedloadusually becomes dead; remove it (#12162). →conventions-check - Customers cannot choose proration behaviour, so it does not belong in the customer
portal API. (#13095) →api-surface-review
Output
## Billing
### 🔴 Blocking
- `file:line` — <invariant broken>. Fix: <fix>
### 🟠 Should fix
- `file:line` — <claim>. Fix: <fix>
### 🟡 Question
- `file:line` — <question>
### Notes
- domain context the author may not have: <one line, or omit>
### Verdict
✅ Clean | ❌ n blocking, n should-fix