資料には具体的なスキルの内容や手順が記載されていないため、用途や得られる結果を特定できません。
- 用途を確認したいとき
- 入力や手順を確認したいとき
- 期待する結果を確認したいとき
マーケティング施策の前回記録を読み、提案の実施状況や結果を確認して、次回に引き継ぐ短い記録を残します。対応するプレイブックから呼び出して使います。
Shared step of the marketing playbooks (analyze-performance, run-paid-campaigns, research-competitors, email-lifecycle): reads the last run's record, checks whether its recommendations were done and whether they worked, and saves a short record of this run for the next one. Loaded by those playbooks; not for direct use.
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見る繰り返し実行するマーケティング業務の前回記録を読み、未完了の提案や実施後の結果を確認して、今回の短い記録を残します。記録には、確認した情報源や期間、主要な数値、判断、提案の状態などをまとめ、次の実行時に読み返せる形にします。分析、広告、競合調査、メール施策などのプレイブックが作業の開始時と終了時に読み込む共通ステップです。
週次や月次で同じブランドの施策を見直し、前回からの変化や提案の進捗を引き継ぎたい場合に役立ちます。前の提案が効いたか判断できる情報があるかを確認し、判断できない場合はその理由や確認に必要な情報も記録します。
単独で直接使うスキルではなく、対応するマーケティングのプレイブックから読み込まれます。記録に個人の氏名、メールアドレス、電話番号、ハンドル名などを含めない規則があります。
この紹介文は、公開されている SKILL.md をもとに AI(OpenAI Codex)が作成しました。正確な仕様は下の原文を確認してください。
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。
A playbook that runs again (often as a weekly or monthly automation) must know what its last run found, what it recommended and whether that worked. This atom is that memory. The report is separate (the write-report skill, ../write-report/SKILL.md); a run record is the short, structured note the next run reads.
Who loads it: every playbook that can run more than once for the same brand: research, analysis, ads, social, email, search, creators. Not one-off makers (a single post, one photo set). It runs twice per run: Start before the playbook's own work, End after its report.
What it does not replace. Where a playbook already keeps a working log, that log stays the source of truth: run-paid-campaigns' ads/campaigns/<slug>/state.md + decisions.md (the server's campaign-harness grammar, R<n> ids, ## Checks due), the outcomes-ledger skill's ledgers, analyze-performance's definitions.md. The run record copies their ids and adds only what they lack (the baseline recipe and the result numbers). It never keeps a second, different copy of their state, and when the playbook has its own scoring rule (run-paid-campaigns' "Score last week"), step 3 below is that step. Use its rule and add only what is missing.
| Input | Rule |
|---|---|
playbook | The playbook slug (analyze-performance). Goes in the tags. |
job | The job in plain words (weekly ads check, monthly read, competitor watch). Never a slug, tool or id. One playbook with several cadences has one job per cadence. Keep it the same on every run, because the next run searches by it. job-slug is job lower-cased and hyphenated. |
subject | Optional. Only when a job keeps separate runs per campaign, rival or list (spring-launch). Lower-case slug. |
cadence | daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or ad hoc. Used to judge whether the last record is old. |
outcome_sources | Where this playbook can see whether a recommendation happened and what it did. Examples: meta_read change or push status, its own log file, social_post_list, campaign_read, a ledger. |
Brand inputs (brand_id, brand_slug, coworker_agent_id, scope) come from the marketing-guide skill (../marketing-guide/SKILL.md) §1–2.
File: runs/<playbook>/<job-slug>/[<subject>/]<YYYY-MM-DD>.md. A second run on the same day is <YYYY-MM-DD>-2.md.
Title: Run record — <job>[ — <subject>] — <Brand> — <YYYY-MM-DD>, with (2) added for a second run that day (save-to-brain's never-overwrite rule, its step 1). The subject sits in the title because brain search cannot filter by tag.
Local mode (the marketing-guide skill (../marketing-guide/SKILL.md) §5) calls no gooseworks: tool and no brain or knowledge search:
gooseworks-local/<brand-slug>/runs/<playbook>/<job-slug>/[<subject>/] and read the newest record whole. Empty → no earlier run (step 1's rule).brand-notes.md); no readout fact (it stays in the record). The line says "Saved this run's notes in this folder", never "to your brand".Look in the workspace first, because it is the canonical copy and the exact check. Use the brain search to catch a record saved somewhere else.
gooseworks:file_list on runs/<playbook>/<job-slug>/ (or the subject folder) in the brand's scope. If the coworker scope has no record, also list brands/<brand_slug>/runs/… in the default workspace. Records saved before the brand had a coworker live there.brand_knowledge_*), call gooseworks:brand_knowledge_search with query Run record <job> <Brand>, source_types: ["document"], since = today minus 180 days, and limit: 5. Otherwise call gooseworks:knowledge_search with the same query and source_types. Keep only hits whose title matches this job's title up to the date, subject included. An empty search proves nothing: the brain may still be indexing ("Still indexing: 65 of 204…"), or the import may not have finished.The newest dated record wins. Read the whole record: use gooseworks:file_read on the workspace file, or, if the brain is the only place it exists, gooseworks:brand_knowledge_read on the document hit, following its continuations. Without brand_knowledge_* tools (older servers) a hit that exists only in the brain can't be opened in full: say "I found an earlier record I can't open here", treat this as a run with no readable record, and continue. Never work from a search snippet.
The baseline is the newest record that has Numbers. A Not run record (see Scheduled runs) only adds gaps and carried items. Keep reading back until you find one with Numbers.
No record → no earlier run of this job. Say so. Do not invent a "since last time". Still do step 2 with since = today minus 90 days. Server reports and the playbook's own log may hold history from before this job existed; if they do, say what they show and that it was not this job's own check. Every number this run records becomes the baseline.
An old record means older than 3× the cadence, or 90 days for ad hoc. Say so: "Last check was 2 August; a lot may have changed." Still check its open recommendations, but don't assume its baseline holds.
All of these are free. Read only what this playbook needs. since is the last record's date.
outcome_sources. For a money move, gooseworks:meta_read view change_status with its change_id tells you whether a person approved or declined it, and what Meta reported before and after. That is the budget setting, not results. For a launch, use view push_status.brand_knowledge_* tools listed: gooseworks:brand_knowledge_search with since and source_types limited to what matters. report covers the server's own checks in chapter 18 "How we count results" (for example its weekly Meta deep check). creative and meta_ad cover chapter 22 "Everything we have made and run". learning covers chapter 23 "What is working". Without brain tools, use gooseworks:knowledge_search with the same filters.For each recommendation the last record left open (carried-forward ones included):
| Status | Only when |
|---|---|
done | A source shows it happened: an approved and applied change, a published post, a file, a log entry, or the human saying so in this conversation. Never from your own inference. |
not done | A source shows it did not happen (declined, still pending, nothing published by its date), or the human says so. |
unknown | Nothing shows either way. Say what would settle it. In a scheduled run, put that question in the report's "Decisions for you", and record the date you asked (asked on). Don't ask again until the marketer has answered. |
dropped | The human dropped it, or a newer recommendation replaced it (name which one). |
open | Not due yet: its review-by date is still ahead. Carry it forward unchanged; don't question it. |
Result, for done ones past their review-by date. Re-run the record's "how we'll know" test with its baseline recipe (step 6). Pull both windows today, with the same lag and settings; never judge from a shorter window than the baseline, from unsettled days or from a single day. A number recorded last week was still filling in, so use it only as a sanity check. Give one verdict:
worked or didn't work: the numbers before → after, with their windows and their truth/claimed label. Say what got worse, if anything did.too early: give the date it becomes readable. Carry it forward with that date as the new review-by.can't tell: say why. Other changes landed on the same thing in either window, tracking broke, the data is stale, there is no view at the right level, or the volume is too low to separate from noise.Paid moves (budget changes, pauses, launches): use this recipe unless the playbook's own rule is stricter.
change_status or decisions.md. It skips the first 3 days after a budget step of 30% or more, because that can restart Meta's learning. It ends 72 hours before today, since late conversions are still arriving.decisions.md for that object in either window (a swap, a launch, a promo, stock) → can't tell or too early, with a date.gooseworks:meta_read view performance returns trailing totals per Goose-made creative, with no date range. Totals for a past window can be built by subtracting two trailing reads (days: 21 minus days: 12); ratios cannot. If the ad set holds ads GooseWorks didn't make, or its ads changed between the windows, the readout needs the marketer's Ads Manager export at ad-set level. Without one, the verdict is can't tell (no ad-set view).claimed (platform-reported) unless they are joined to the brand's own store or CRM data (truth). Never compare a truth number with a claimed one as if they were alike.Plain words, for the marketer. It opens the chat answer. In a report it goes at the top of "The story", with the one thing that matters most also in "In short". For example:
Since 12 Oct: the summer ad set's budget went from $100 to $150 a day on 14 Oct. Over 9 settled days it brought about 1.3 more orders a day, at about $38 per extra order against your $40 limit, so it worked. These are Meta's own counts, and the rest of the account was flat. Two of last week's three recommendations were done; the new-hook test is still waiting for your yes. Not done: the landing-page fix, so I'm not judging the ads that send people there yet.
asked on rule above).Prose under 400 words. The whole record, tables included, under 1,500 words. Anything longer belongs in the report or in the playbook's own files, linked by path. Fixed sections, in this order. A section with nothing in it says "none".
# Run record — <job>[ — <subject>] — <Brand> — <YYYY-MM-DD>
Playbook: <playbook> · Run: <with the marketer | scheduled> · Previous: <date or "none">
Report: <workspace path of this run's report, or "none">
## Checked
- Sources and period: <what was read, the date range, data freshness (e.g. "Meta synced 2026-10-18; settled through 2026-10-16")>
- Not checked: <what was skipped and why (no ceiling, not connected, stale)>
## Numbers
<scorecard or 3–6 key counts. Every number has its window and a label: truth / claimed / derived, with its source.>
## Decisions
- <YYYY-MM-DD> — <what was decided, and by whom: the marketer's words, or "proposal, waiting for yes">
## Recommendations
| id | what | owner | review by | how we'll know (test + baseline recipe) | evidence | status | asked on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
## Outcomes of the previous run's recommendations
| id | status | verdict | numbers (before → after, windows, label) | asked on |
|---|---|---|---|---|
R<n>, a change_id, a push_id), that is the record's id. Mint <YYYYMMDD>-<n> (the run date) only when none exists; a second run on the same day continues that day's numbering. A carried recommendation keeps its first id. Never give one thing two ids.marketer; agent (this job's next run); approval page (waiting for a person's yes in GooseWorks); or another playbook that carries it out (run-paid-campaigns, with its R<n> or decisions.md block as evidence once it adopts the move).judgement call, with what would show it was wrong.scale / keep / watch / cut / too new), change since the last record. Use a settled window (for example days: 14 minus days: 3), and say what share of spend it covers and where any rows from outside GooseWorks came from.R<n> + change_id/push_id, from → to, applied on, baseline recipe, verdict. Approval state, trip-wires and checks stay in state.md. Link it.save-to-brain skill (../save-to-brain/SKILL.md), with path = the file above, artifact = Run record — <job>[ — <subject>], title = the title above, tags = [<playbook>, run-record] (plus subject:<slug>), versioned: keep-history, import: yes. Earlier records are history and are never deleted.save-learning skill (../save-learning/SKILL.md), and only in the human's own words. A pattern you noticed yourself stays in the record and the report as a finding.experiment_readout.<id>), when brand_knowledge_* tools are listed. That means only a worked or didn't work verdict, with its truth/claimed label, and never from a scheduled run: it waits for a run with the marketer present. Tell the marketer it is saved as found, not confirmed.spend-gate skill (../spend-gate/SKILL.md) §C).unknown statuses and keep-or-drop questions go into the report's "Decisions for you", once each (asked on). A quiet run that sends no report (a watch below its threshold) keeps those questions in the run record, with the date they were first raised, and the next run that does send a report asks them.gooseworks:propose_meta_budget_change (its approval page), or a brand_knowledge_save change that waits in the app. Record each one with owner approval page. Never accept a proposal yourself.Not run: <why> (the data is stale, a connection is missing). It keeps the sources checked and carries every open recommendation forward unchanged, so the next run knows the gap and reads its baseline from the record before.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。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
資料には具体的なスキルの内容や手順が記載されていないため、用途や得られる結果を特定できません。
顧客の課題や商品情報、広告事例を調べ、根拠のある広告訴求と静止画・動画・コピー案にまとめます。動画案は実際の制作フォーマットとの相性も確認し、商品単位の角度集として整理します。
Google、Meta、LinkedInなどの広告実績を分析し、成果の出た広告や予算の無駄を特定します。停止・拡大・テスト案や、具体的な予算配分を提案します。
広告費と登録後の成果を照合し、質の高いリード獲得にかかった実コストを算出します。広告素材ごとに拡大・維持・調査・停止の判断材料を整理するスキルです。
Meta広告を始める前にブランド情報を調べ、予算や広告表現に関わる不明点だけを質問して準備を整えます。確認事項と仮定を記録し、ブランド情報とキャンペーン概要を作成します。
広告文や画像内の表現を配信先と商品カテゴリのルールに照らして確認し、直せる箇所を修正しながら、法務や人の判断が必要なリスクを広告ごとに整理します。