AB tracking-competitor-social-media-growth
Tracks and compares competitor follower growth across social platforms using apidojo's scrapers on Apify. Triggers when the user asks to: compare competitor social media growth, track how fast a competitor is growing on Twitter, TikTok, or Instagram, benchmark social media performance against competitors, monitor competitor follower counts over time, analyze a competitor's social media strategy, build a competitive social media analysis report, or see which competitor is winning on social. Returns platform, handle, follower count, growth indicators, and engagement benchmarks per competitor. Ideal for competitive intelligence analysts, CMOs, and growth strategy teams.
Tracks and compares competitor follower growth across social platforms using apidojo's scrapers on Apify.
As a process B 78/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 3
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 3
-
low Exfiltration
exfil-secret-in-urlSKILL.md:99Credential passed in a URL query string (normal for some APIs — verify the host is the intended service) (placeholder value)"https://api.apify.com/v2/acts/apidojo~twitter-user-scraper/runs?token=…" \
placeholder -
low Exfiltration
exfil-secret-in-urlSKILL.md:121Credential passed in a URL query string (normal for some APIs — verify the host is the intended service) (placeholder value)"https://api.apify.com/v2/acts/apidojo~tiktok-profile-scraper/runs?token=…" \
placeholder -
low Exfiltration
exfil-secret-in-urlSKILL.md:144Credential passed in a URL query string (normal for some APIs — verify the host is the intended service) (placeholder value)"https://api.apify.com/v2/acts/apidojo~instagram-scraper/runs?token=…" \
placeholder
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 78/100
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 8 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1552 tokens
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 675: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 12 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 8 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (9 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 88.