raise-vs-jump
GitHub对比留任加薪与跳槽的收益轨迹，计算累计收入、盈亏平衡点及最终差距。分析股权重置、晋升机会、搜索风险等隐性成本，提供决策检查清单，辅助职业薪酬规划。
Trigger Scenarios
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill raise-vs-jump -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "raise-vs-jump",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/raise-vs-jump.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "🧮"
}
},
"description": "Model staying for annual raises vs job-hopping for bigger bumps — cumulative earnings trajectories, the crossover year, and the costs the salary math hides (vesting resets, promotion paths, search risk). Use when asked should I switch jobs for more money, is job hopping worth it, model my salary if I stay vs leave, or raise versus new offer. Produces the year-by-year salary and cumulative-earnings table, the crossover year, and the not-in-the-model checklist that usually decides it."
}
Raise vs Jump Skill
"Job hoppers earn more" is true on salary and incomplete on everything else: equity that vests on a cliff you keep resetting, the promotion you were two quarters from, the months of search time, the reputation cost of a short-stint résumé. This skill runs the salary math properly — trajectories, not single offers — and then insists on the checklist of what the salary math can't see, because that checklist decides more of these choices than the compounding does.
What This Skill Produces
- The trajectory table — year-by-year salary and cumulative earnings for both paths
- The crossover year — when cumulative jump-earnings pass cumulative stay-earnings
- The gap at horizon — final salary gap and cumulative gap, on stated assumptions
- The not-in-the-model checklist — scored for this user's actual situation
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- Current salary and realistic stay-raise % — their employer's actual recent raises, not the poster in the break room (default 3%, labeled)
- Jump assumptions — bump per jump (default 15%), years between jumps (default 3), raises between jumps (default 2% — jumpers often land at the top of a band and stall)
- The invisible items — unvested equity and its schedule, pension/tenure benefits, promotion proximity, how they'd handle a search
Programmatic Helper
python3 scripts/raise_vs_jump.py --salary 120000
python3 scripts/raise_vs_jump.py --salary 120000 --stay-raise 3.5 --jump-bump 18 --jump-every 3 --json
Deterministic. Models salary only — the script prints its own not-modeled list, and the skill's job is to make that list concrete for the user.
Framework: What the Salary Math Hides
- Vesting resets are the jump tax — walking away from unvested equity and restarting a cliff is often worth more than the bump; compute it in dollars, not vibes
- The stay path has step functions too — a promotion is a 10–20% event; if one is genuinely close (named role, named timeline — not a vague "soon"), model it as a stay-side jump
- Raises between jumps sag — new hires land high in the band and then stall; that's the
--jump-year-raise 2default, and it's why the crossover is later than the first bump suggests - Search risk is asymmetric — a jump that takes 4 months of search or ends in a bad fit erases years of edge; weight it by how in-demand the user actually is
- Three jumps is a pattern — recruiters read tenure; the strategy that maximizes 5-year earnings can shrink 15-year options
Output Format
Raise vs Jump: [scenario]
The Trajectories
[Script output: year-by-year table, crossover year, gaps at horizon]
What the Table Says
[Two sentences: the size of the pure-salary edge and how sensitive it is to the bump/raise assumptions.]
The Checklist the Table Can't See
| Item | This user | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Unvested equity walked away from | [$ and schedule] | [often decisive] |
| Promotion proximity on the stay path | [named role/timeline or "vague"] | |
| Search risk | [in-demand? runway?] | |
| Résumé pattern | [tenure history] |
The Honest Read
[One paragraph: what the numbers plus the checklist actually suggest — a recommendation with its reasoning, not a dodge.]
Educational model, not financial or career advice — the checklist items are prompts for the user's judgment, not scores from the model.
Quality Checks
- Trajectories and crossover shown — never just "the offer is 15% more"
- Unvested equity is computed in dollars if it exists
- A genuinely-close promotion is modeled, a vague one is named as vague
- The honest read takes a position with reasoning
- The disclaimer line appears in the artifact
Anti-Patterns
- Do not compare a single offer number to a single current salary — trajectories or nothing
- Do not ignore equity because it's "complicated" — the complication is the money
- Do not treat "my manager hinted at promotion" as a modeled event — named role and timeline, or it's noise
- Do not assume the jump cadence repeats forever without naming the résumé-pattern cost
- Do not hide behind "it depends" — deliver the honest read with its reasoning
Version History
- 54fad50 Current 2026-07-19 12:29
