agentleFS
deeployCOdeeployCO/youtube-seo-skills/youtube-seo-audit/SKILL.md

youtube-seo-audit

Skill9 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Advanced full YouTube channel audit with parallel sub-skill delegation. Analyzes topical authority, channel-level retention patterns, traffic- source mix, upload velocity consistency, playlist session chains, and sub-skill breakdowns. Generates health score and prioritized action plan. Use when user says "YouTube audit", "audit my channel", "full YouTube check", or provides a channel URL.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Ask for Studio exports: before starting any retention or CTR analysis:

    line 27
  2. Very specific:

    Report: write YT-AUDIT-REPORT.md + YT-ACTION-PLAN.md to the current directory.

    line 59
  3. Distinctive:

    If Studio CSV is missing, Retention & Watch Time drops to 0 weight and other weights rescale proportionally — the report flags this …

    line 75

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

Full YouTube Channel Audit (Advanced)

Process

  1. Resolve channel: accept @handle, /channel/UC..., /c/name, or a video URL. Normalize to channel ID via API or WebFetch.
  2. Ask for Studio exports before starting any retention or CTR analysis:
    • Analytics → Advanced Mode → Last 28/90 days CSV for:
      • Content (video-level stats)
      • Traffic source
      • Audience → geography + top subtitles
      • Key moments (retention curves for top 10 videos) Without these, score only metadata and structure; label retention metrics as "unknown".
  3. Fetch channel surface: /about, /videos, /shorts, /playlists, /community, /featured. Extract:
    • Channel name, handle, description, country, links, join date
    • Banner and profile image presence
    • Total videos, views, subs (if public)
    • Topic categories (from API channels.list?part=topicDetails)
    • Upload cadence from last 25 long-form + last 25 Shorts
  4. Sample videos: pull the last 25 uploads and the top 25 all-time by views. For each: title, description, visible tags, view count, like count, comment count, duration, upload date, thumbnail URL, chapters.
  5. Delegate (parallel via Agent tool when available):
    • youtube-seo-channel — identity, about, playlists, trailer, session chains
    • youtube-seo-video — run on top 3 + bottom 3 performers (contrast analysis)
    • youtube-seo-thumbnail — review last 12 thumbnails as a grid + SERP differentiation
    • youtube-seo-keywords — topical authority score + gap analysis
    • youtube-seo-competitor — detect 3-5 direct competitors + pattern extraction
  6. Compute topical authority: cluster the channel's videos by topic and measure concentration (entropy). High concentration = high authority on that cluster. Diffuse = weak algorithmic classification.
  7. Compute velocity consistency: stddev of days-between-uploads. Low stddev + regular cadence = Browse feed promotion friendly.
  8. Compute session chain strength: % of videos that appear in at least one playlist; % of playlists with ≥5 videos; avg playlist view count.
  9. Score: aggregate into YouTube Health Score (0-100)
  10. Report: write YT-AUDIT-REPORT.md + YT-ACTION-PLAN.md to the current directory.

Scoring Weights

CategoryWeightWhy
Retention & Watch Time (Tier 1)25%Dominant ranking signal; only scorable with Studio CSV
Video Metadata Quality18%Title, description, tags, chapters, entities, captions
Thumbnails (CTR)15%Second-largest lever for impressions
Topical Authority12%Channel classification strength
Content Strategy (cadence, format mix, length)10%Browse feed friendliness
Channel Setup (identity, about, playlists)8%Foundational but ceiling-limited
Discoverability (translations, captions, hashtags)7%International + accessibility multiplier
Engagement (likes, comments, saves)5%Secondary signal, correlates with above

If Studio CSV is missing, Retention & Watch Time drops to 0 weight and other weights rescale proportionally — the report flags this explicitly.

Report Structure

Executive Summary

  • Overall YouTube Health Score (0-100) with CSV-available flag
  • Channel stage: Starter (0-1k) / Growing (1k-100k) / Established (100k+)
  • Niche detected + topical authority concentration score
  • Top 5 critical issues with estimated impact
  • Top 5 quick wins with expected lift

Retention & Watch Time (only if Studio CSV provided)

  • APV distribution across sample (median, p25, p75)
  • Retention-cliff inventory: which videos have cliffs, where, why
  • Intro-retention (0:30) median vs niche benchmark
  • Session contribution: which videos drive next views
  • End-of-video drop analysis

Traffic Source Mix (from Studio CSV)

  • % Browse / Suggested / Search / External / Notifications / Shorts feed
  • Which surface is over/under-indexed vs niche norm
  • Strategy implication: optimize for the dominant surface, then diversify

Video Metadata (aggregate)

  • Title patterns: avg length, keyword-front usage, hook types, emotional intensity
  • Description: above-fold usage, avg length, entity coverage, link block presence, chapter presence
  • Tags: avg count, first-tag alignment with title
  • Chapters: % of videos with ≥3 starting at 0:00
  • Captions: manual vs auto, languages translated
  • Key Moments schema eligibility

Thumbnails

  • Style consistency across the last 12
  • Text legibility at 120px
  • Face / emotion usage vs niche
  • Color palette analysis (dominant colors across the grid)
  • SERP differentiation sample for top 3 target keywords
  • Specific thumbnails to redesign

Topical Authority

  • Topic cluster map (from video titles, tags, transcripts)
  • Concentration score (0-100, higher = stronger classification)
  • Cluster drift: is the channel becoming more or less focused over time?
  • Recommended consolidation: playlists to build, videos to unlist or reclassify, topics to stop covering

Content Strategy

  • Upload cadence: median days-between, stddev, regularity score
  • Format mix: long-form / Shorts / live %
  • Length distribution: median, with mid-roll ad eligibility %
  • Series / playlist alignment
  • Premiere usage

Channel Setup

  • Delegated to youtube-seo-channel

Engagement Snapshot

  • Like-to-view ratio trend
  • Comment velocity and creator reply rate
  • Pinned-comment usage and reply rate
  • Community tab activity (last 30 days)

Discoverability

  • Target keywords present in titles/descriptions
  • Translated metadata for top 3 audience countries
  • Caption languages available
  • Hashtag strategy

Velocity & Freshness

  • First-24h view velocity distribution for last 25 videos
  • Videos decaying fast vs holding evergreen
  • Evergreen:topical mix recommendation

Safety & Compliance

  • Made-for-Kids flag consistency
  • Altered/synthetic content disclosure usage (for AI content)
  • Copyright claims on top videos
  • Community guideline strikes
  • Monetization status

Priority Definitions

  • Critical: Blocks discovery, damages CTR, or breaks algorithmic classification (fix this week)
  • High: Significantly limits ranking or watch time (fix this month)
  • Medium: Optimization opportunity (fix this quarter)
  • Low: Nice to have (backlog)

Each recommendation includes estimated impact and the Studio metric to watch after implementation.

Data Sources Policy

First-party only. YouTube Data API v3, YouTube Studio CSV exports (user-provided), yt-dlp, YouTube suggest API, WebFetch on youtube.com, and the local helper scripts in scripts/. Do NOT pull data from SocialBlade, VidIQ, TubeBuddy, NoxInfluencer, HypeAuditor, or similar third parties — they rate-limit and error, which blocks the audit.

The seo-dataforseo MCP is OPTIONAL. If it is installed AND returns data cleanly, it may supplement SERP position checks. On any error, skip it silently and continue with native sources — do not retry.

Error Handling

Core principle: degrade gracefully, score what you can, flag what you can't, never fabricate Tier 1 numbers.

ScenarioAction
Channel URL not resolvableTry @handle, /channel/UC..., and /c/name forms; if all fail, ask user for the canonical URL
Fewer than 5 videos publishedSkip metadata aggregation; focus on setup + strategy
API key missing or quota exhaustedFall back to yt-dlp --flat-playlist -J for channel crawl; tags and topicDetails will be missing — note in report
WebFetch blocked on a pageRetry once with the /channel/UC... canonical form; if still blocked, skip that section and flag
Any optional tool (DataForSEO etc.) errorsSkip it, continue, do not retry — the audit must not depend on optional tools
yt-dlp transcript fetch failsRetry with --sub-lang en.*,a.en; on second failure, skip transcript-dependent analysis for that video
No Studio CSV providedRetention and CTR analysis skipped; rescale scoring weights and flag explicitly in the executive summary
Mixed-language channelSegment metadata analysis per language before aggregation
MFK channelSkip comment/engagement analysis (disabled); emphasize thumbnail + playlist
Partial sub-skill failureContinue the audit with remaining sub-skills; list failed sections at the bottom of the report with their error codes

Download now (ZIP)

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. tubealfred/youtube-skills★ 1same name

    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 repository7 other files it gives its agents.

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.