agentleFS
chanktbchanktb/claude-google-ads/skills/measurement/SKILL.md

google-ads-measurement

Skill11 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Validates conversion tracking BEFORE any spend — the #1 failure point in Google Ads accounts. Checks conversion actions (purchase/lead), counting settings, primary vs secondary, double-count risk by source (store channel e.g. Shopify vs GA4 import vs gtag), enhanced conversions, server-side/CAPI, and value tracking — and judges them HOLISTICALLY (which actions each campaign actually fires) before any verdict. Use when the user says "conversion tracking", "is my tracking right", "GA4 import", "enhanced conversions", "why are my conversions wrong", or as the gate before plan/builder.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 3 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.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read account-context.yaml: google_ads.customer_id, conversion_actions, measurement.*, data_source (for value sanity), …

    line 19
  2. Distinctive:

    When more than one source is available, compare and report the gap (don't silently pick one):

    line 68
  3. Very specific:

    Read the context connections block.

    line 76
  4. Very specific:

    Update account-context.yaml: refresh conversion_actions (with the verified primary + source) and measurement.* flags (enhanced_conversions, …

    line 87

≈ “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

Google Ads — Measurement (tracking gate)

Prove conversion tracking is correct and trustworthy, or block plan/builder-* until it is. Reuse the live MCP detection from setup. Never raise an alarm from the action list alone.

STEP 0 — Load context

If account-context.yaml is missing, run setup first — don't validate tracking on an unconfigured account. Read account-context.yaml: google_ads.customer_id, conversion_actions, measurement.*, data_source (for value sanity), business.model/vertical (lead vs purchase expectations). Output goes to the working directory; update the context's conversion_actions + measurement.* as you verify them.

Model dispatch (run cheap, decide expensive) — see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/model-tier-dispatch.md

  • Scout (haiku) — STEP 0 context read; the conversion-action list pull.
  • Routine (sonnet) — STEP 1 per-campaign conversion segmentation (segments.conversion_action_name), STEP 3 Ads/GA4/store value pulls. Dispatch as general-purpose sub-agents; return raw, don't conclude.
  • Judge (main session) — the WHOLE-picture verdict, every is-it-a-problem call, the double-count judgment, the PASS/WARN/FAIL that gates plan/builder. Never let a cheap tier raise the alarm — that holistic judgment is the entire point of this skill.

STEP 1 — Build the WHOLE picture before concluding (mandatory)

A conversion list read in isolation lies. The same flag is fine or fatal depending on context. Do all four:

  1. Actions — enabled conversion actions: name, category, primary_for_goal, counting_type, value_settings.default_value (value tracking on/off), source. (Omit conversion_action.type if the MCP rejects it; see ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/audit/references/gaql-notes.md.) Decode the enums: category 4=PURCHASE · 6=LEAD · 5=SIGNUP · 3=PAGE_VIEW · 8=ADD_TO_CART · 9=BEGIN_CHECKOUT · 11=PHONE_CALL_LEAD · 13=SUBMIT_LEAD_FORM · 16=GET_DIRECTIONS · 18=CONTACT · 19=ENGAGEMENT · 20=STORE_VISIT; counting_type 2=ONE (one per click) · 3=EVERY (many per click). For ecommerce, the working primary should be category=PURCHASE with EVERY counting + value tracking on.
  2. Usage — which actions each ACTIVE campaign actually fires/optimizes for: segment conversions by segments.conversion_action_name per campaign over 30-90 days (explicit YYYY-MM-DD dates). An action no campaign fires is inert.
  3. Source & double-count — map each value-carrying action to a source (store channel, e.g. Shopify Google&YouTube "App Purchase" / WooCommerce / GA4 import / gtag / Merchant Center). Two value purchases both PRIMARY and both firing = double count. One primary + one secondary = correct. See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/conversion-tracking-logic.md.
  4. Verdict — only now, per the rules below.

What is / isn't a problem

  • ✅ Campaigns optimize toward the real working purchase action → healthy, even if other purchase actions exist as secondary. A second purchase action kept secondary (e.g. GA4 web purchase alongside the channel App Purchase) is the CORRECT anti-double-count setup, not a bug.
  • ✅ "Junk" actions (menu views, directions, calls, store visits, app micro-events) flagged primary but fired by NO active campaign → harmless. Note for awareness; do not alarm.
  • ✅ Cross-brand action sitting secondary and unused → harmless; note it.
  • 🔴 Two value-carrying purchase actions BOTH primary and BOTH firing in the same campaigns → real double-count. Flag.
  • 🔴 The action campaigns optimize for is a low-value engagement action, not the purchase action → flag.
  • 🔴 No working purchase/lead conversion at all, or value tracking off for ecommerce → flag.

STEP 2 — Other checks

  • Counting type: one for leads (avoid form-spam inflation); every for ecommerce purchases.
  • Value tracking: on for ecommerce; sane currency.
  • Enhanced Conversions / Consent Mode v2 / server-side (CAPI): the API/MCP usually CANNOT confirm these — mark them verify-in-UI, not FAIL. State the ceiling if confirmed.
  • Conversion lag: are conversions still trickling in (long lag windows)? Note if attribution looks cut.

STEP 3 — Value sanity cross-check

When more than one source is available, compare and report the gap (don't silently pick one):

  • Google Ads attributed value/conversions for the primary purchase action (30-90d).
  • GA4 purchase value for the same window (via GA4 MCP / API / a connected GA4 client).
  • Store net sales (Online Store channel only — exclude draft/POS/TikTok/marketplace; see audit/references or aov-and-sales-sourcing.md). A large divergence (>35% Ads vs GA4) is itself a finding (attribution, tagging, or channel-mix issue).

Data sources & fallback (graceful, but NO fabrication)

Read the context connections block. GA4/store via MCP → API creds → a connected client/script. Missing GA4/store does NOT block measurement — you can still judge the Google-Ads-side setup. But report only the Ads number and mark the value cross-check UNVERIFIED — connect GA4/store; NEVER estimate the missing side to "complete" the comparison (a fabricated GA4/store figure is worse than an honest gap). If the source is merely unwired, prefer guiding the user to connect it over skipping.

Output — verdict + notes (to the working dir)

  • Notes for awareness — the harmless-but-worth-knowing items (inert primaries, unused cross-brand actions). Frame as notes, never alarms.
  • Verdict: PASS / WARN / FAIL with specific fixes. Only genuine 🔴 problems gate downstream. FAIL blocks plan and builder-*.
  • Update account-context.yaml: refresh conversion_actions (with the verified primary + source) and measurement.* flags (enhanced_conversions, server_side, ga4.enabled).

To build / refine later

  • A runnable helper to pull the per-campaign conversion segmentation + format the verdict.
  • Reuse the shared HTML report module (see DECISIONS) when it exists.

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.