The one Connect decision that can't be fixed with a parameter later

Direct, destination, and separate-charges-and-transfers each fix who is merchant of record, who eats disputes, and whether funds can ever be held -- picking wrong means re-onboarding every seller (D2).

This is one of the things Marketplace Payouts & Connected Accounts already handles. Take payment from buyers and pay out sellers, with the onboarding and identity checks Stripe requires.

Buy for $1993 of 3 clean-room builds passed · full refund if it fails on your machine

Is this you?

Picking destination charges because they're the simplest to wire up, then later discovering the product needs a fulfillment or escrow-style hold before paying the seller, isn't a parameter change -- destination charges transfer funds as part of the charge itself, so there is no way to hold them on the platform balance afterward without re-architecting the charge model and re-onboarding every seller under a different agreement.

Why this one is easy to get wrong

The three charge models share almost the same Stripe API surface on the surface -- create a PaymentIntent, maybe set transfer_data -- so the choice looks like a configuration detail rather than a structural, largely irreversible decision about who the merchant of record is, who Stripe debits first on a dispute, and whether holding money is even physically possible under the model chosen.

What you get instead

D2 picks separate charges and transfers specifically because it's the only one of the three where funds can be held on the platform balance at all -- the PaymentIntent is created on the platform's own account with a transfer_group, and a separate transfers.create call moves the seller's net later, once a fulfillment hold elapses. buildOrderPaymentParams() is asserted to never emit transfer_data, application_fee_amount, or on_behalf_of -- each one silently converts the payment into a different charge model with different liability.

Source: ARCHITECTURE.md D2 — checkable in the pack you receive

How you actually use this

You don’t install a library or wire up an SDK. Your own coding agent builds the code in your project, and you keep it — no runtime dependency on us.

Step 1
Download and unzip
You get a folder: the docs that tell an agent what to build, a starting skeleton, and the test suite that decides when it's done.
Step 2
Open it in Claude Code or Cursor
Point your coding agent at the folder. Nothing to install, no account with us, no API key.
Step 3
Paste one prompt
The pack contains the exact prompt. Paste it as your first message and leave it alone — it works through the build itself, choosing a cheaper or stronger model per task.
Step 4
Run ./verify.sh
One command. It prints a pass or fail for every check. Green means the build is done — the same script we ran to produce the receipt on this page.

Typical build: about 25 minutes of your agent working, mostly unattended. Then you integrate the working module into your app the way you would any code you’d written yourself.

Why you can believe this

3 of 3 runs passed

We ran this pack from an empty folder 3 times and published exactly what happened — every check, the model, the token cost, the wall time. Not a testimonial, and not our opinion: the same verify.sh you run yourself. Read the full receipt →

Buy for $199 14-day refund if verify.sh fails →