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
Most recently taken up by
- gooseworks-ai/goose-skillsword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
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.
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- gooseworks-ai/goose-skills★ 1.3k100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository180 other files it gives its agents.
- goose-adsSkill
- goose-product-photosSkill
- goose-video-localSkill
- goose-videoSkill
- gooseworksSkill
- make-custom-videoSkill
- ad-policy-checkSkill
- analyze-performance-call-and-learnSkill
- analyze-performance-diagnoseSkill
- analyze-performance-intakeSkill
- analyze-performance-rank-and-readSkill
- analyze-performance-revenue-joinSkill
- analyze-performanceSkill
- claims-gateSkill
- email-lifecycle-broadcast-plannerSkill
- email-lifecycle-flow-writerSkill
- email-lifecycle-lifecycle-auditSkill
- email-lifecycle-offer-mathSkill
- email-lifecycle-send-checkSkill
- email-lifecycleSkill
- honest-reviewSkill
- improve-search-visibility-citation-checkSkill
- improve-search-visibility-entity-footprintSkill
- improve-search-visibility-fix-writerSkill
- improve-search-visibility-page-and-foundation-checkSkill
- improve-search-visibility-question-setSkill
- improve-search-visibilitySkill
- improve-search-visibility-store-listing-auditSkill
- make-content-content-briefSkill
- make-contentSkill
- make-content-source-to-unitsSkill
- make-content-two-pass-editSkill
- make-static-ads-ad-copySkill
- make-static-ads-claims-extractSkill
- make-static-ads-composeSkill
- make-static-ads-concept-gridSkill
- make-static-ads-copy-variantsSkill
- make-static-ads-find-referencesSkill
- make-static-ads-fix-rejectedSkill
- make-static-ads-graphic-requestSkill
- make-static-adsSkill
- marketing-data-accessSkill
- marketing-guideSkill
- outcomes-ledgerSkill
- plan-campaign-brief-and-assetsSkill
- plan-campaign-budget-and-testsSkill
- plan-campaign-channel-decisionSkill
- plan-campaign-goal-chainSkill
- plan-campaignSkill
- research-audience-account-sourcingSkill
- research-audience-fit-definitionSkill
- research-audience-people-and-contactsSkill
- research-audience-score-segment-qaSkill
- research-audience-segment-passSkill
- research-audience-signals-and-hooksSkill
- research-audienceSkill
- research-competitors-category-passSkill
- research-competitors-edge-casesSkill
- research-competitors-rival-passSkill
- research-competitorsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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
- Distinctive: line 28
The set: After all renders: rubric check 19.
≈ “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.
Files
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.
- 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. - 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.pywith the real logo file (corner and width as the prompt left clear), upload the result withgooseworks:media_upload(scope: "brand",kind: "image",source: {type: "bytes"}, base64, under 8 MB), andgooseworks:ads_saveit with the raw render's creative asparent_creative_id. This logo version is what the judge sees, what gets the tags, and what the marketer receives; tag the raw rendersuperseded. 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. - 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.mdwith 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. - Your checks, on every try: 1 by Pass B of the
make-static-ads-claims-extractskill (../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. - 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.
- 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
- 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: truefirst; a price above the quote needs a new yes. - Content refusal. The model refused → remove the line or visual that triggered it, re-check claims, show the marketer what changed,
dry_run: trueagain (a new price needs a new yes), then send once more. That is this ad and ratio's retry. - The set. After all renders: rubric check 19. Do two images say the same thing?
- 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), includingjudge:pass/judge:needs-review/judge:unjudgedandtry:1/try:2; earlier tries getsuperseded, and a raw render only when a logo version replaced it. Render feedback follows thehonest-reviewskill §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.
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
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.

