CC ads-performance-analytics
How to read paid media dashboards without fooling yourself. Attribution models, platform reporting quirks, multi-platform reconciliation, ROAS vs LTV horizon traps, statistical noise in performance metrics, incrementality testing, and the failure modes that produce expensive lessons. Triggers on read paid media dashboard, attribution analysis, ROAS vs LTV, multi-platform reconciliation, ad incrementality, geo holdout, conversion lift study, ghost bidding, paid media reporting, board-deck paid media metrics, blended CAC, MMM, MTA, last-click attribution. Also triggers when a marketer is about to scale, kill, or rebudget a campaign based on platform metrics, or when reconciling platform reports against warehouse revenue.
How to read paid media dashboards without fooling yourself.
As a process C 63/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- The SKILL.md body is over 5,000 tokens: move reference detail into references/ and load it when needed.
- 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 · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 8. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
body-longSKILL.md body ≈ 5925 tokens (recommended < 5000); move details to references/ - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "catalog_summary" - note
frontmatter-keyunknown frontmatter key "display_order" - note
edit-residuethe text marks something as outdated (lines 168): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions
Process rating: all ten parameters 63/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 10 mutating operations with no state check
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 70Execution cost. Instruction body is 5925 tokens
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 51 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- medium Safety rules and hard prohibitions inside a skill: they belong in the system prompt, here they protect nothing
- low 16 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
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)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 728: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 51 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (7 of 7)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 72.