Amazon Listing Audit Pro

ZooData — Amazon Listing Audit Pro

> 8-dimension health check. Benchmark against leaders. Fix what matters most. Respond in user's language.

Files

| File | Purpose | |------|---------| | {skill_base_dir}/scripts/zoodata.py | Execute for all API calls (run --help for params) | | {skill_base_dir}/references/reference.md | Load for exact field names or response structure |

Credential

Required: ZOODATA_API_KEY. Get free key at zoodata.ai/api-keys.

Input

Required: my_asin. Optional: keyword, category. Category is auto-detected from ASIN via realtime/product if not provided. If category_source is inferred_from_search, confirm with user before proceeding.

API Pitfalls (CRITICAL)

1. Category auto-detection: categoryPath is auto-detected from ASIN. If category_source in output is inferred_from_search, confirm with user
2. All keyword-based endpoints MUST include --category; ASIN-specific endpoints do NOT
3. Use API fields directly: revenue=sampleAvgMonthlyRevenue (NEVER price×sales), sales=monthlySalesFloor, opportunity=sampleOpportunityIndex
4. reviews/analysis: needs 50+ reviews; ASIN mode first, category fallback. Fallback chain when both fail:
5. Lightweight: realtime/product ratingBreakdown — only star distribution, no themes
6. Full 11-dim insights — bypass /reviews/analysis entirely:

a. zoodata.py reviews-raw --asin X → fetch up to 100 raw reviews (10 credits, ~60s) b. For each review: render Map prompt via zoodata.py review-tag-prompt --review '' and have your own LLM produce JSON tags (sentiment + 11 dimensions) c. Collect candidate phrases per dimension; for each dimension render Reduce prompt via zoodata.py review-reduce-prompt --label-type X --candidates '[...]' and have your LLM produce semantic clusters d. zoodata.py review-aggregate --reviews R --tagged T --clusters C → consumerInsights output compatible with /reviews/analysis

1. Fallback caveats (apply to the 4-step chain above — lessons from end-to-end validation):

• Working dir: WORK=/tmp/review__$(date +%s) && mkdir -p $WORK
• Step b CLI behavior: review-tag-prompt RENDERS the prompt only; YOUR LLM produces the JSON. Render once to learn the schema, then produce tags for all N reviews in one in-context pass (don't call the CLI N times).
• Step c candidate extraction (Python one-liner):

candidates = {d: sorted({el.strip().lower() for t in tagged for el in (t.get(d) or [])}) for d in DIMS}

• **Small-sample rule (reviewCount25% | Hottest band | Outside top bands | Overpriced/ Data is based on ZooData API sampling as of [date]. Monthly sales (monthlySalesFloor) are lower-bound estimates. This analysis is for reference only and should not be the sole basis for business decisions. Validate with additional sources before acting.

Confidence Labels (required, tag EVERY conclusion)

• 📊 Data-backed — direct API data (e.g. "CR10 = 54.8% 📊")
• 🔍 Inferred — logical reasoning from data (e.g. "brand concentration is moderate 🔍")
• 💡 Directional — suggestions, predictions, strategy (e.g. "consider entering $10-15 band 💡")

Rules: Strategy recommendations are NEVER 📊. User criteria override AI judgment.

Aggregate-label rule (applies to ALL report output, not just fallback): NEVER attach 📊 to ANY element that aggregates or groups underlying content when ANY piece of that content is 🔍 or 💡. "Aggregate/grouping elements" include:

• Section headers at EVERY level (#, ##, ###, ####) — including top-level summary sections like "Overall Score", "Verdict", "Executive Summary"
• Summary/score lines anywhere in the report (e.g. ## Overall Score — 27/100 · Grade F 📊 is WRONG if any Basis row inside is 🔍)
• Table column headers in comparison tables (e.g. **Target ASIN** 📊 as a column label is WRONG if any cell in that column contains 🔍)
• Table row headers or row-aggregation labels (when the row aggregates multiple cells of mixed confidence)
• Any other visual grouping label — bullet-list group titles, callout box titles, etc.

A group-level 📊 implies the whole block/column/row is data-backed, which smuggles inferred/directional content into the 📊 tier via visual grouping. Either (a) omit the group-level label entirely (preferred when content mixes tiers), or (b) use the LOWEST confidence present inside (🔍 if any underlying content is 🔍; 💡 if any is 💡). This is a universal output-quality rule — it applies regardless of which fallback path (if any) was triggered.

Emoji reservation rule (closely related): The three confidence symbols 📊 🔍 💡 are RESERVED for confidence labeling. NEVER use them as decorative prefixes on section headers, table headers, or any aggregate element — even when you also include a correct confidence suffix on the same line. Example:

• ❌ WRONG: ## 📊 Overall Score — 27/100 · Grade F 🔍 (the leading 📊 reads as a data-backed claim even though the trailing 🔍 is correct)
• ✅ RIGHT: ## Overall Score — 27/100 · Grade F 🔍 (no decorative emoji, just the proper confidence suffix)
• ✅ RIGHT: ## 🎯 Overall Score — 27/100 · Grade F 🔍 (use non-reserved decorative icons like 🎯 🧭 📋 📝 📂 🏁 🚨 🏆 🔔 when a visual prefix is desired)

Decorative emoji ≠ confidence label — but from a reader's perspective, a leading 📊/🔍/💡 is indistinguishable from a confidence claim. Reserve these three symbols EXCLUSIVELY for confidence annotation to avoid ambiguity.

Bulk audit: share market data across ASINs, run audit per ASIN.

Data Provenance (required)

Include a table at the end of every report:

| Data | Endpoint | Key Params | Notes | |------|----------|------------|-------| | (e.g. Market Overview) | markets/search | categoryPath, topN=10 | 📊 Top N sampling, sales are lower-bound | | ... | ... | ... | ... |

Extract endpoint and params from _query in JSON output. Add notes: sampling method, T+1 delay, realtime vs DB, minimum review threshold, etc.

API Usage (required)

| Endpoint | Calls | Credits | |----------|-------|---------| | (each endpoint used) | N | N | | Total | N | N |

Extract from meta.creditsConsumed per response. End with Credits remaining: N.

API Budget: ~20-25 credits

Audit target(1) + Categories/Products/Competitors(3) + Realtime×5(5) + Market/Brand(3) + Price(2) + Reviews(2) + History(1) + Buffer(3-8).

Source & license

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

• Author: SerendipityOneInc
• Source: SerendipityOneInc/ZooData-Skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://apiclaw.io/

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