# Youtube Title Thumbnail Audit > Audit YouTube titles and thumbnails against channel performance and peer packaging patterns - Skill: `georgeqle/youtube-title-thumbnail-audit` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add georgeqle/youtube-title-thumbnail-audit` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/georgeqle/youtube-title-thumbnail-audit/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: GeorgeQLe (https://skillmd.com/u/georgeqle) - Updated: 2026-09-09 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/georgeqle/youtube-title-thumbnail-audit --- ## Pack Availability Guard Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `npx skillpacks install ` instead of the target skill. Only the currently running skill and skills verified available in the active session or project-local install state are directly recommendable. For unavailable pack skills, recommend `npx skillpacks install `; for unavailable base skills, recommend `npx skillpacks init` before the skill. # YouTube Title Thumbnail Audit Invoke as `$youtube-title-thumbnail-audit`. ## AFPS 2.0 Packaging Slice Follow `docs/afps-2.0-convention.md` in source checkouts or `.agents/skillpacks/docs/afps-2.0-convention.md` in installed projects. Resolve current evidence, analyze packaging, produce exactly three differentiated Test and Compare pairs, and write the canonical audit without a scope gate, working packet, review page, or final-artifact gate. Expose the hypothesis each pair tests, the visible comparison, the evaluation, an evidence-backed recommendation with confidence, and the next safe move. Within the video-launch play, consume the real generated-pair comparison and checkpoint record owned by `$youtube-video-prelaunch-audit`; do not ask the same taste or strategy question again. Outside that play, write the recommendation and alternatives so the user can inspect or amend them without blocking further reversible work. Uploading variants, changing YouTube Studio metadata, selecting public visibility, scheduling, or making any account-authenticated change is a permission stop. Missing channel evidence or inaccessible thumbnails are input/capability blockers. ## Evidence And Feedback Handling Treat user feedback as input to evaluate, not as automatic ground truth. - For factual, evidentiary, technical, or source-backed claims: verify against available evidence. If the user appears to misunderstand the evidence or states something factually incorrect, push back clearly and cite the evidence. Do not rewrite findings merely to agree. - For taste, brand, positioning preference, risk appetite, prioritization, or other subjective judgment calls: weigh user feedback heavily and adapt the recommendation unless it conflicts with verified evidence. - When feedback mixes facts and preference, separate them explicitly: correct the factual part, then incorporate the preference where it is a legitimate judgment call. - When uncertain, say what is known, what is inferred, and what would change the conclusion. ## Inputs - `research/youtube/channel-audit-.md` - `research/youtube/data//videos-*.jsonl` - Optional `research/youtube/peer-benchmark-.md` - Optional peer raw metadata under `research/youtube/data//` ## Process 1. Require a channel slug, handle, or channel audit path. 2. Ensure current channel evidence exists. If not, run `$youtube-channel-audit [--count N]`. 3. When peers are provided, ensure comparable peer benchmark or raw peer metadata exists. 4. Pull thumbnail URLs or local thumbnail files from raw `yt-dlp` metadata when available. If thumbnails are missing, fetch them through the existing `$youtube-audit` evidence path rather than inventing visual details. 5. Score each title for length, keyword clarity, specificity, curiosity pattern, series fit, and avoidable redundancy. 6. Classify thumbnail patterns: text density, face presence, product screenshot presence, logo count, background style, contrast, focal clarity, and channel-template consistency. 7. Correlate packaging features with views, views/day, upload age, and content role. 8. Produce exactly 3 title+thumbnail combinations for YouTube's **Test and Compare** feature. Each combination is a paired title and thumbnail concept designed to run simultaneously — YouTube rotates all 3 across real viewers and measures watch-time-per-impression over up to 2 weeks to surface a winner. Do not frame these as "pick one and swap later"; all 3 upload at the same time. Each combo should test a distinct packaging hypothesis (e.g., search-led vs. curiosity-hook vs. feature-led) while staying within the channel's visual identity. 9. Write `research/youtube/title-thumbnail-audit-.md`. Create the `research/youtube/` directory if it does not exist. ## Report Sections - Evidence coverage: videos scored, thumbnail availability, peer coverage, and missing fields. - Packaging performance table: title, views, views/day, title pattern, thumbnail pattern, and recommendation. - Title diagnosis: recurring strengths, overlong patterns, keyword loading, unclear promises, and examples to keep. - Thumbnail diagnosis: visual templates, consistency gaps, high-performing motifs, low-performing motifs, and peer contrasts. - Channel identity impact: whether packaging creates a coherent channel signal. - Existing-video fixes: prioritized title and thumbnail refresh candidates with expected rationale. - Future templates: 3-5 repeatable title/thumbnail patterns mapped to content roles. - Test and Compare combos: exactly 3 title+thumbnail combinations ready for YouTube's native A/B testing. Each combo includes a full title, thumbnail concept description, packaging hypothesis, and what signal a win for that variant would confirm about the channel's audience. Present these as simultaneous uploads, not sequential swaps. - Strategic packaging recommendation: which combo to watch most closely and what to do after Test and Compare declares a winner. ## Constraints - Cite source metadata paths and video IDs. - Do not claim visual features unless thumbnail evidence was inspected or unavailable status is explicit. - Do not recommend copying peer faces, branding, or trade dress; translate peer evidence into differentiated templates. - Keep recommendations practical for the creator's apparent production capacity. - Route follow-up cleanup decisions to `$youtube-portfolio` and future-topic decisions to `$youtube-search-positioning` or `$content-programming`. ## Artifact Handoff After a synthesized write or any direct artifact mutation: - List every created or updated synthesized artifact path in the final response. - State the verification performed, such as readback, schema/check command, or why no executable verification applies for a Markdown-only strategy artifact. - Check and report the relevant git status for intended artifacts when the project is a git repository. If intended artifacts are modified or untracked, make the next action shipping, committing, or an explicit dirty-artifact handoff before recommending downstream strategy work. - Do not imply the research workflow is complete while intended artifacts remain untracked or uncommitted unless the user explicitly asked not to ship. ## Intent-Aware Routing Before applying the default `## Next-Skill Routing` sequence, classify the user's immediate intent and route to the missing action that best serves that intent: - Strategy refresh: recommend the missing or stale positioning, programming, portfolio, metrics, or product-media artifact. - Recording prep: recommend the missing series spec, script, build proof, walkthrough guide, or validation artifact needed before recording. - Upload prep: recommend packaging, title/thumbnail, description, chapters, or final metadata work before broader strategy work. - Performance review: recommend metrics, cadence, portfolio, peer benchmark, or owner-analytics export work before new content planning. - Owner analytics or private/manual platform evidence: route to an explicit manual/guide handoff instead of inventing unavailable metrics. - Dirty intended artifacts: route to shipping/commit/handoff first, not another creator strategy skill. Use the default next-skill sequence only when no stronger user intent, missing artifact, manual blocker, or dirty-artifact handoff applies. ## Next-Step Routing After writing the artifact, recommend the next contextual creator-media skill in the final response as `Recommended next skill: `. Default recommendation: `$youtube-description-optimizer`. If the default successor already exists and is current, recommend the first missing or stale downstream creator-media artifact in this order: `$youtube-channel-audit` -> `$youtube-video-audit` -> `$youtube-vid-research` -> `$youtube-concept-research` -> `$youtube-competitive-research` -> `$youtube-title-thumbnail-audit` -> `$youtube-description-optimizer` -> `$youtube-portfolio` -> `$youtube-peer-benchmark` -> `$youtube-search-positioning` -> `$youtube-cadence-diagnosis` -> `$creator-positioning` -> `$content-programming` -> `$series-spec` -> `$product-led-media-map` -> `$creator-metrics-review` If the sequence is ambiguous, multiple upstream artifacts are stale, or the recommendation depends on channel-level strategy vs programming-level changes, recommend `$creator-metrics-review` when metrics evidence exists, otherwise recommend the default successor and explain the missing artifact. ## Default Shipping Contract Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.