Ad Creative Audit

ad-creative-audit

Purpose

Audit existing paid media ad creative against RMBC direct response principles. Unlike the general /rmbc-copy-audit which evaluates any copy, this skill is specifically calibrated for paid media — where creative must earn attention in a feed, survive thumb-scroll speed, and convert within tight format constraints. Scores across 5 dimensions with per-element feedback, top 3 fixes, and competitive positioning notes.

Inputs

| Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | ad_copy | Yes | The full ad copy — primary text, headline, description, CTA | | ad_format | Yes | One of: single_image, carousel, video, story, ugc | | platform | Yes | One of: meta, youtube, tiktok, native, display | | target_audience | Yes | Who the ad targets — demographics, awareness level, pain points | | visual_description | No | Description of the visual creative (image, thumbnail, video opening) | | performance_data | No | If available: CTR, CPA, ROAS, frequency — grounds the audit in results |

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Paid media creative compresses the full RMBC arc into seconds. Every element must earn its space — there is no room for filler.

Step 2 — Score 5 Dimensions

Each dimension scored 0-20 (total 0-100):

A. Hook Strength (0-20)

• Does the first line stop the scroll? Could you identify the audience in 2 seconds?
• Is it specific to this product or generic enough for any competitor?
• Does it work in isolation (before "See more" or before video autoplay)?
• Platform calibration: Meta needs visual hook + text hook; YouTube needs first-5-second hook; Native needs headline curiosity

| Score | Meaning | |-------|---------| | 16-20 | Scroll-stopper — specific, emotional, impossible to ignore | | 11-15 | Solid — works but could be sharper or more specific | | 6-10 | Generic — could be any product in this category | | 0-5 | Invisible — would scroll past without registering |

B. Mechanism Clarity (0-20)

• Does the ad communicate WHY the product works, not just WHAT it is?
• Is the mechanism explained simply enough for a cold audience?
• Does it pass the "only we" test — could a competitor make the same claim?
• Is the mechanism introduced at the right point (after hook, before proof)?

C. Proof Density (0-20)

• How many proof types are present? (clinical, testimonial, demonstration, authority, statistical)
• Is proof specific ("73% in 12 weeks") or vague ("clinically proven")?
• Are proof elements stacked (multiple types reinforce each other)?
• Does proof appear before the CTA (the ask comes after the evidence)?

D. CTA Urgency (0-20)

• Is the action clear and specific ("Click Shop Now to claim your 3-bottle supply")?
• Is there a reason to act NOW (scarcity, deadline, bonus)?
• Does the CTA match the awareness level (cold traffic needs "Learn More" logic; warm needs "Buy Now")?
• Is risk reversal present (guarantee, free trial, money-back)?

E. Visual-Copy Alignment (0-20)

• Do the visual and copy tell the same story or contradict each other?
• Does the visual reinforce the mechanism (show it working, not just the product)?
• Is the visual native to the platform (UGC-style for Meta, editorial for Native)?
• Would the visual alone communicate the core message? Would the copy alone?

If visual_description is not provided, score this dimension on copy's visual direction cues and note the limitation.

Step 3 — Calculate Total and Grade

• Total = A + B + C + D + E (0-100)
• Grade: A (85+), B (70-84), C (55-69), D (40-54), F ( copyaccelerator.com/join

---

> Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. > Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

## Quality Criteria

- Every score is backed by a specific reference to the ad copy or visual — no score without evidence
- Fixes are executable: "Replace [this specific line] with [this specific approach]" not "improve your hook"
- Platform-specific standards applied — a YouTube pre-roll hook is judged differently than a Meta feed hook
- Visual-Copy Alignment scored honestly even when visual description is missing (note the limitation)
- Competitive positioning identifies the implicit claim, not just "be more differentiated"
- Performance data (when provided) grounds the audit — high CTR but low ROAS suggests hook works but mechanism/proof/CTA fails

- **Specificity gate:** Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "needs improvement" or "could be better"
- **Mechanism quantification:** When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- **Audience journey:** Each finding must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
- **Proof diversity:** Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

## Related Skills

- When Hook scores below 12/20, run `/hook-battery` for replacements
- When Mechanism scores below 12/20, run `/mechanism-ideation` to strengthen the mechanism
- When CTA scores below 12/20, reference CTA patterns in `/rmbc-context`
- Rewrite weak ads using `/fb-ad-copy` with audit insights as input
- Run `/rmbc-copy-audit` for a deeper copy-only analysis beyond the ad creative context

## Attribution

> Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi.
> Learn more: [copyaccelerator.com/join](https://copyaccelerator.com/join)

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [coleschaffer](https://github.com/coleschaffer)
- **Source:** [coleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc](https://github.com/coleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.