agentleFS
athina-aiathina-ai/goose-skills/skills/marketing/make-static-ads-render-review/SKILL.md

make-static-ads-render-review

Skill1.3k starsChanged 22 days agoMITView on GitHub

Step of make-static-ads: a fresh judge checks every render against its concept-board row and the official product photos, one retry inside the marketer's approval, then the claims and set checks; records each verdict in tags and the batch file. Run make-static-ads instead; not for direct use.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Trending

Quiet since March.thin dataabout the whole repository

Dec 2025: 0 mentionsJan 2026: 0 mentionsFeb 2026: 0 mentionsMar 2026: 1 mentionApr 2026: 0 mentionsMay 2026: 0 mentionsJun 2026: 0 mentionsJul 2026: 0 mentionsAug 2026: 0 mentionsSep 2026: 0 mentionsOct 2026: 0 mentionsNov 2026: 0 mentions
Dec 2025Jun 2026Nov 2026
Mentions a month of the athina-ai/goose-skills repository that our weekly crawl found: only 1 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend. There is no adoption data for this file yet.

Most recently taken up by

Who's talking about athina-ai/goose-skills

The biggest 1 of 1 mention linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    The set: After all renders: rubric check 19.

    line 28

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

render-review

Shared principles for reviewing generated media (looking vs reading metadata, unseen images): the honest-review skill (../honest-review/SKILL.md). Checks and their severities: ../make-static-ads/references/review-rubric.md. This file is the one home of the retry rule.

Reads: each render (gooseworks:ads_creative_read creative_id, include: ["renders"]), its board row (level, style and template), its exact prompt and copy, profile.md with two of the brand's own ads, the official product photos or UI screenshots, and the logo. Writes: per render the verdict and the failed checks; retries; the drop list; tags; all of it in the batch file.

  1. Failed or empty render. Say so in one line. Read the job (gooseworks:job_get): charged, or no charge shown → it counts as this ad and ratio's first try; its one retry (step 5) is still covered; clearly uncharged → submit the same quoted request once more, outside the retry. If that fails too, stop for that ad and ratio and tell the marketer.
  2. Place the logo on every try (unless the marketer said none; then, as with no shell, the raw render is the kept version): on a shell host run ../make-static-ads/scripts/place_logo.py with the real logo file (corner and width as the prompt left clear), upload the result with gooseworks:media_upload (scope: "brand", kind: "image", source: {type: "bytes"}, base64, under 8 MB), and gooseworks:ads_save it with the raw render's creative as parent_creative_id. This logo version is what the judge sees, what gets the tags, and what the marketer receives; tag the raw render superseded. Record the box the script prints. No shell: the marketer's choice (playbook Step 2, or graphic-request step 3): a clear corner they fill, or the model's logo; the raw render is then the kept version.
  3. The judge. A fresh subagent gets only: the kept version (step 1), the product photos or screenshots and logo, the exact on-image copy, the board row's visual idea, style, protected choice, level, and the template's image with its description, profile.md with two of the brand's own ads, and the rubric. Not the conversation. It runs every rubric check except 1, 7, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 29, and returns each failed check's number and severity with one sentence each. It works in the rubric's Order. For software, the screen must match the real screenshot in layout, colours and its large labels; soft small UI text is a NOTE, never a retry. No subagents → you judge from exactly those inputs, and the batch file says so.
  4. Your checks, on every try: 1 by Pass B of the make-static-ads-claims-extract skill (../make-static-ads-claims-extract/SKILL.md: invented badges, stars, prices, changed words); 7 by the price rule (../make-static-ads/references/claims-and-policy.md §2); 21 against the copy (12 and 17 ran at the copy step; re-run them only on changed copy); 20 against the permissions on file; 29 against the made-before list; for a direct competitor's template, 22's side-by-side with both logos covered.
  5. Verdict, in this order:
    • Label drift only (scene, shape and pose pass): the free repair first. A shell host may patch the official label's real pixels in with ../make-static-ads/scripts/repair_patch.py (../make-static-ads/scripts/repair_patch.md), then judge the patched image again in full; keep the original render. A seam, altered geometry or wrong product still fails.
    • A stray mark or small artifact outside the protected choice and the words: a free pixel fix on a shell host, then judged again in full.
    • A fault only in the copy around the image → fix the copy (free), run Pass A and the policy check on the new line; no re-render.
    • A BLOCK no re-render can fix (5, 20, a copied template) → drop the ad and say why, or offer a new board row with its own quote. A REMAKE no re-render can fix → judge:needs-review, shown to the marketer.
    • Try 1: any other BLOCK or REMAKE → retry (step 5); NOTEs only → pass. Never retry for logo drift (step 1 places the real logo) or tiny pack print.
    • Try 2: a BLOCK → drop the ad; a REMAKE → judge:needs-review, shown to the marketer with the reason; NOTEs only → judge:pass. Never a third render without a new quote and yes.
  6. The retry (one per ad and ratio, covered by the Step 7 yes at its quoted price). The same prompt plus one line: "Fix exactly this, change nothing else: <the failure>". Spell out misdrawn words letter by letter. A lost idea (the event didn't happen) is fixed by rewriting the scene sentences. A rewritten prompt or changed words go through Pass A and the policy check again, and changed words are shown to the marketer before it is sent. dry_run: true first; a price above the quote needs a new yes.
  7. Content refusal. The model refused → remove the line or visual that triggered it, re-check claims, show the marketer what changed, dry_run: true again (a new price needs a new yes), then send once more. That is this ad and ratio's retry.
  8. The set. After all renders: rubric check 19. Do two images say the same thing?
  9. Record. In the batch file: verdict per try, who judged, and each retry's creative id next to the one it replaces. The marketer gets one image per ad and ratio (the kept try). Tags on each kept version (step 1), as ../make-static-ads/references/handoff-format.md §1 lists (read current tags, merge, write once, lower-case), including judge:pass / judge:needs-review / judge:unjudged and try:1 / try:2; earlier tries get superseded, and a raw render only when a logo version replaced it. Render feedback follows the honest-review skill §5.

Can't see images on this host → each render is unjudged: no retry, marked "not checked by eye", with a three-item checklist for the marketer (e.g. "read the headline letter by letter; check the label; look for any badge or star we did not ask for").

Done: every ad and ratio has one kept image (logo placed, its corner left clear, the model's logo, or none, as chosen) that passed, is flagged for the marketer's look, or was dropped with the reason; all of it is in the batch file and tags.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.