本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

ad-campaign-analyzer

Use this skill when the user shares ad campaign performance data and asks what to cut, scale, or test. Trigger for prompts like "analyze my ad campaigns", "where am I wasting ad spend", "reallocate my ad budget", "which ads are actually working", or "ROAS analysis". Do not trigger for campaign planning or creative generation without performance data.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md13.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Ad Campaign Analyzer

Take raw campaign performance data and turn it into clear decisions. This skill doesn't just summarize metrics — it diagnoses problems, identifies winners, checks statistical significance, and tells you exactly what to cut, scale, and test next. Then it goes further: it compares channels on equal terms, finds where you're over-spending vs under-spending relative to results, and produces a concrete budget reallocation plan.

Core principle: Most startup founders check their ad dashboard, see a ROAS number, and either panic or celebrate. This skill gives you the nuanced analysis a paid media specialist would: what's actually significant, what's noise, and where your next dollar should go. It also solves the allocation problem — most startups either spread budget too thin across channels (no channel gets enough to learn) or dump everything into one channel (missing cheaper opportunities elsewhere).

When to Use

  • "Analyze my Google Ads performance"
  • "Which ads should I kill?"
  • "Is this campaign working?"
  • "Where am I wasting ad spend?"
  • "Optimize my Meta Ads"
  • "How should I split my ad budget?"
  • "Should I spend more on Google or Meta?"
  • "Reallocate my ad spend across channels"
  • "Where am I getting the best return?"
  • "I have $X/month for ads — how should I distribute it?"

Phase 0: Intake

  1. Campaign data — One of:
    • CSV export from Google Ads / Meta Ads Manager / LinkedIn Campaign Manager
    • Pasted performance table
    • Screenshots of dashboard (we'll extract the data)
  2. Platform(s) — Google / Meta / LinkedIn / All
  3. Time period — What date range does this cover?
  4. Monthly budget — Total ad spend in this period
  5. Primary goal — What conversion are you optimizing for? (Demos / Trials / Purchases / Leads)
  6. Target metrics — Do you have target CPA or ROAS? (If not, we'll benchmark)
  7. Any known changes? — Did you change creative, budget, or targeting during this period?
  8. Channels currently running — Google Ads, Meta Ads, LinkedIn Ads, Twitter/X Ads, TikTok Ads, other
  9. Funnel data (if available):
    • Lead → MQL rate
    • MQL → SQL rate
    • SQL → Close rate
    • Average deal size
  10. Channels you're considering but haven't tried — Want to test new channels?
  11. Constraints — Minimum spend on any channel? Platform you must stay on?

Phase 1: Data Ingestion & Normalization

Accepted Data Formats

SourceKey Columns Expected
Google AdsCampaign, Ad Group, Keyword, Impressions, Clicks, CTR, CPC, Conversions, Conv Rate, Cost, Conv Value
Meta AdsCampaign, Ad Set, Ad, Impressions, Reach, Clicks, CTR, CPC, Conversions, Cost Per Result, Amount Spent, ROAS
LinkedIn AdsCampaign, Impressions, Clicks, CTR, CPC, Conversions, Cost, Leads

Normalize all data into a standard analysis format:

DimensionImpressionsClicksCTRCPCConversionsConv RateCPASpendRevenue/Value

Multi-Channel Normalization

When data spans multiple channels, also produce a channel-level rollup:

ChannelMonthly SpendImpressionsClicksCTRCPCConversionsConv RateCPAROASCAC*
Google Search$[X][N][N][X%]$[X][N][X%]$[X][X]$[X]
Google Display...
Meta (FB/IG)...
LinkedIn...
[Other]...
Total$[X][N]$[X] avg[X] avg$[X] avg

*CAC = Full customer acquisition cost if funnel data provided (CPA × close-rate adjustment)

Funnel-Adjusted CAC (If Funnel Data Available)

Channel CAC = CPA ÷ (MQL rate × SQL rate × Close rate)

This reveals which channels produce leads that actually close, not just convert.

Phase 2: Performance Diagnostics

2A: Campaign-Level Health Check

For each campaign:

MetricValueBenchmarkStatus
CTR[X%][Industry avg][Good/Okay/Poor]
CPC$[X][Category avg][Good/Okay/Poor]
Conv Rate[X%][Benchmark][Good/Okay/Poor]
CPA$[X][Target or benchmark][Good/Okay/Poor]
ROAS[X][Target or benchmark][Good/Okay/Poor]
Impression Share[X%][>60% ideal][Good/Okay/Poor]

2B: Budget Waste Detection

Identify spend that produced no or negative return:

Waste TypeSignalAction
Zero-conversion keywords/adsSpend > $[X] with 0 conversionsPause or add negatives
High CPA outliersCPA > 3x targetPause or restructure
Low CTR adsCTR < 50% of campaign averageReplace creative
Broad match bleedSearch terms report showing irrelevant clicksAdd negative keywords
Audience overlapSame users hit by multiple campaignsExclude audiences
Dayparting wasteConversions cluster at certain hours; spend is 24/7Set ad schedule

2C: Winner Identification

Find what's actually working:

Winner TypeSignalAction
Top-performing keywordsLowest CPA, highest conv rateIncrease bid, add variants
Winning adsHighest CTR + conv rate comboScale spend, clone for other groups
Best audiencesLowest CPA segmentIncrease budget allocation
Best timesPeak conversion hours/daysConcentrate budget

2D: Statistical Significance Check

For any A/B test (ad variants, audiences, landing pages):

Test: [Variant A] vs [Variant B]
Metric: [Conv Rate / CTR / CPA]
Variant A: [X%] (n=[sample_size])
Variant B: [Y%] (n=[sample_size])
Confidence level: [X%]
Verdict: [Statistically significant / Not enough data / Too close to call]
Recommended action: [Pick winner / Continue test / Increase budget to reach significance]

Minimum sample: 100 clicks per variant for CTR tests, 30 conversions per variant for CPA tests.

Phase 3: Funnel Analysis

Click → Conversion Path

Impressions: [N] (100%)
     ↓ CTR: [X%]
Clicks: [N] ([X%] of impressions)
     ↓ Landing page → Conversion: [X%]
Conversions: [N] ([X%] of clicks)
     ↓ Conversion → Revenue: $[X] avg
Revenue: $[N]

Funnel Drop-Off Diagnosis

Drop-Off PointRateBenchmarkLikely CauseFix
Impression → Click[CTR%][Benchmark][Ad relevance / targeting][Copy/targeting change]
Click → Conversion[Conv%][Benchmark][Landing page / offer / audience mismatch][LP optimization]
Conversion → Revenue[Close%][Benchmark][Lead quality / sales process][Qualification criteria]

Phase 4: Budget Reallocation

When data spans multiple channels, perform cross-channel budget optimization.

4A: Channel Efficiency Ranking

RankChannelCPAFunnel-Adj CACShare of SpendShare of ConversionsEfficiency Index
1[Channel]$[X]$[X][X%][X%][Conv share ÷ Spend share]

Efficiency Index:

  • > 1.0 = Under-invested (getting more than its share of conversions)
  • = 1.0 = Proportional (fair share)
  • < 1.0 = Over-invested (getting less than its share)

4B: Marginal Return Analysis

For each channel, estimate if additional spend would yield proportional returns:

ChannelCurrent CPAImpression Share / Saturation SignalMarginal Return Estimate
Google Search$[X][X%] impression share — room to growLikely positive
Meta$[X]Frequency [X] — audience may be saturatedDiminishing
LinkedIn$[X]Low volume — limited targeting poolCeiling soon

4C: Funnel Stage Coverage

Funnel StageChannels Covering ItCurrent SpendGap?
Awareness (top)[Meta Display, YouTube]$[X][Yes/No]
Consideration (mid)[Google Search, Meta retargeting]$[X][Yes/No]
Decision (bottom)[Google Brand, Google Search]$[X][Yes/No]
Retargeting[Meta, Google Display]$[X][Yes/No]

4D: Budget Shift Recommendations

ChannelCurrent SpendRecommended SpendChangeReasoning
Google Search$[X]$[Y]+$[Z][Lowest CPA, room to scale]
Meta$[X]$[Y]-$[Z][Audience saturation, frequency too high]
LinkedIn$[X]$[Y]$0[Maintain — niche but valuable]
[New channel]$0$[Y]+$[Y][Test budget — competitors succeeding here]
Total$[X]$[X]$0Budget-neutral reallocation

4E: Scenario Modeling

Scenario 1: Conservative shift (+/- 20%)

  • Expected conversions: [N] (currently [N]) = [X%] improvement
  • Expected blended CPA: $[X] (currently $[X])
  • Risk: Low

Scenario 2: Aggressive shift (+/- 40%)

  • Expected conversions: [N] = [X%] improvement
  • Expected blended CPA: $[X]
  • Risk: Medium — less data on scaled channels

Scenario 3: Budget increase to $[Y]/mo

  • Recommended allocation: [table]
  • Expected conversions: [N]
  • New channels to test: [list]

Phase 5: Output Format

# Ad Campaign Analysis — [Product/Client] — [DATE]

Period: [Date range]
Total spend: $[X]
Platform(s): [Google / Meta / LinkedIn]
Primary goal: [Conversions / Revenue / Leads]

---

## Executive Summary

[3-5 sentences: Overall performance verdict, biggest win, biggest problem, top recommendation including any reallocation moves]

---

## Performance Dashboard

| Campaign | Spend | Impressions | Clicks | CTR | CPC | Conversions | CPA | ROAS | Verdict |
|----------|-------|------------|--------|-----|-----|-------------|-----|------|---------|
| [Name] | $[X] | [N] | [N] | [X%] | $[X] | [N] | $[X] | [X] | [Scale/Optimize/Pause] |

---

## Budget Waste Report

**Total estimated waste: $[X] ([X%] of total spend)**

### Wasted on zero-conversion items: $[X]
[List of keywords/ads/audiences with spend but no conversions]

### Wasted on high-CPA items: $[X]
[List of items with CPA > 3x target]

### Recommended saves: $[X]/month
[Specific items to pause]

---

## Winners to Scale

### Top Keywords/Audiences
| Item | CPA | Conv Rate | Current Spend | Recommended Spend |
|------|-----|----------|--------------|-------------------|

### Top Ads
| Ad | CTR | Conv Rate | Why It Works |
|----|-----|----------|-------------|

---

## A/B Test Results

### [Test Name]
- Variant A: [Metric] (n=[N])
- Variant B: [Metric] (n=[N])
- Confidence: [X%]
- **Verdict:** [Winner / Continue / Inconclusive]

---

## Budget Reallocation

### Current vs Recommended Allocation

| Channel | Current | Recommended | Change | Why |
|---------|---------|------------|--------|-----|
| [Channel] | $[X] | $[Y] | [+/-$Z] | [1-line reason] |

**Projected impact:**
- Conversions: [N] → [N] (+[X%])
- Blended CPA: $[X] → $[Y] (-[X%])

### Funnel Stage Coverage
[Coverage map with gaps identified]

### New Channel Recommendations

#### [Channel Name]
- **Why test:** [Reasoning]
- **Recommended test budget:** $[X]/mo for [X weeks]
- **Success criteria:** CPA < $[X]
- **Competitors using it:** [Yes/No — who]

---

## Action Plan

### Immediate (This Week)
- [ ] **Pause:** [Specific items — keywords, ads, audiences]
- [ ] **Scale:** [Specific items — increase budget/bids]
- [ ] **Add negatives:** [Specific keywords from search terms]
- [ ] **Reallocate:** [Specific dollar shifts between channels]

### This Month
- [ ] **Test:** [New ad angles / audiences / landing pages]
- [ ] **Restructure:** [Ad groups that need splitting or merging]
- [ ] **Optimize:** [Bid strategy changes]
- [ ] **Monitor reallocation:** Track CPA shifts on scaled channels, watch for diminishing returns

### Next Month
- [ ] **Expand:** [New campaigns / channels to test]
- [ ] **Re-evaluate:** [Run this analysis again with new data, adjust allocations based on actual results]

Save to campaign-analysis-[YYYY-MM-DD].md in the current working directory (or user-specified path).

Cost

ComponentCost
Data analysisFree (LLM reasoning)
Statistical calculationsFree
TotalFree

Tools Required

  • No external tools needed — pure reasoning skill
  • User provides campaign data as CSV, paste, or screenshot

Trigger Phrases

  • "Analyze my ad campaign performance"
  • "Which ads should I pause?"
  • "Where am I wasting ad budget?"
  • "Is my Google Ads campaign working?"
  • "Optimize my Meta Ads spend"
  • "How should I allocate my ad budget?"
  • "Should I spend more on Google or Meta?"
  • "Reallocate my ad spend"
  • "Where am I getting the best ROAS?"
  • "Optimize my multi-channel ad budget"

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Use this skill when the user explicitly asks to map, document, or onboard into an existing codebase. Trigger for prompts like "map this codebase", "document this architecture", "onboard me to this repo", or "create codebase docs". Do not trigger for routine feature implementation, bug fixes, or narrow code edits unless the user asks for repository-level discovery.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Run the AgentRC readiness assessment on the current repository and produce a static HTML dashboard at reports/index.html. Wraps `npx github:microsoft/agentrc readiness` and hands off rendering to the @ai-readiness-reporter custom agent. Supports policies (--policy) for org-specific scoring. Use when asked to assess, audit, or score the AI readiness of a repo.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Generate tailored AI agent instruction files via AgentRC instructions command. Produces .github/copilot-instructions.md (default, recommended for Copilot in VS Code) plus optional per-area .instructions.md files with applyTo globs for monorepos. Use after running /acreadiness-assess to close gaps in the AI Tooling pillar.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Help the user pick, write, or apply an AgentRC policy. Policies customise readiness scoring by disabling irrelevant checks, overriding impact/level, setting pass-rate thresholds, or chaining org baselines with team overrides. Use when the user asks about strict mode, AI-only scoring, custom weights, CI gating, or wants org-wide standardisation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Add educational comments to the file specified, or prompt asking for file to comment if one is not provided.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

Write, debug, and optimize Adobe Illustrator automation scripts using ExtendScript (JavaScript/JSX). Use when creating or modifying scripts that manipulate documents, layers, paths, text frames, colors, symbols, artboards, or any Illustrator DOM objects. Covers the complete JavaScript object model, coordinate system, measurement units, export workflows, and scripting best practices.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

github/awesome-copilot4万2026年10月9日 更新

github のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する