self-improver — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited self-improver (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Review affiliate campaign results, diagnose what worked and what didn't, and generate a prioritized improvement plan. Uses affiliate-specific diagnostic frameworks (offer-market fit, traffic-content match, funnel leak analysis) to identify root causes and actionable fixes.
S8: Meta — Most affiliates repeat the same mistakes because they never do structured retrospectives. Self-Improver closes the feedback loop: it takes your results, compares them to expectations, diagnoses gaps using affiliate-specific frameworks, and produces concrete actions that feed back into S1-S7 for the next iteration.
campaign:
description: string # REQUIRED — what was done (e.g., "Published 3 blog reviews
# of AI video tools, shared on LinkedIn and Reddit")
duration: string # OPTIONAL — how long (e.g., "2 weeks", "1 month")
skills_used: string[] # OPTIONAL — which Affitor skills were used
channels: string[] # OPTIONAL — where content was distributed
results:
clicks: number # OPTIONAL — total clicks on affiliate links
conversions: number # OPTIONAL — total signups/purchases
revenue: number # OPTIONAL — total commission earned
traffic: number # OPTIONAL — total page views / impressions
feedback: string # OPTIONAL — qualitative feedback received
expectations:
expected_clicks: number # OPTIONAL — what was expected
expected_conversions: number # OPTIONAL
expected_revenue: number # OPTIONAL
benchmark: string # OPTIONAL — "industry average" or specific number
context:
niche: string # OPTIONAL — product category
experience: string # OPTIONAL — "first campaign" | "experienced"
budget: string # OPTIONAL — money spent (if any)Chaining context: If S6.3 (performance-report) was run in the same conversation, pull KPIs directly. If S1-S5 outputs exist in context, reference them for gap analysis.
Collect campaign description and results. If numbers are missing, work with whatever is available. State assumptions clearly: "You didn't share click data, so I'll focus on qualitative analysis."
Calculate gaps:
Use industry benchmarks if user doesn't have expectations:
Apply affiliate-specific diagnostic frameworks:
Offer-Market Fit: Is the product right for the audience?
Traffic-Content Match: Is the traffic source aligned with the content?
Funnel Leaks: Where do people drop off?
Rank each improvement by:
For each top improvement, specify:
Before presenting output, verify:
If any check fails, fix the output before delivering. Do not flag the checklist to the user — just ensure the output passes.
output_schema_version: "1.0.0" # Semver — bump major on breaking changes
retrospective:
campaign: string
period: string
overall_assessment: string # "strong" | "average" | "needs_work" | "failing"
gaps:
- metric: string # e.g., "conversion_rate"
expected: string
actual: string
gap: string # e.g., "-2.5%"
diagnosis:
root_causes:
- cause: string # e.g., "Traffic-content mismatch"
evidence: string # what indicates this
severity: string # "high" | "medium" | "low"
improvements:
- action: string # what to do
skill: string # which Affitor skill to use
prompt: string # exact prompt for the skill
impact: number # 1-5
effort: number # 1-5
priority: number # impact / effort
iteration_plan:
next_steps: string[] # ordered list of actions
timeline: string # e.g., "1 week"
success_metric: string # how to measure improvementUser: "I wrote 3 blog reviews of AI tools last month. Got 2,000 visitors but only 2 conversions ($14 total). What went wrong?" Action: Conversion rate 0.1% vs benchmark 1-3%. Diagnose: possible funnel leak (weak CTAs? disclosure too prominent? wrong products for audience?). Check traffic sources (SEO cold traffic needs more warming). Recommend: S6 (ab-test-generator) on CTAs, S6 (seo-audit) on content quality, S4 (landing-page-creator) as intermediate step.
User: "Posted 10 LinkedIn posts about Semrush. Lots of likes but nobody clicked my link." Action: Traffic-content mismatch. LinkedIn engagement ≠ clicks. Diagnose: link placement (probably in comments where nobody looks), content may be too educational without clear CTA, audience may not be in buying mode on LinkedIn. Recommend: S2 (viral-post-writer) with CTA-focused brief, S3 (affiliate-blog-builder) to create destination content, S7 (content-repurposer) to adapt for click-friendly platforms.
Context: S6.3 performance-report shows EPC of $0.02 across 5 programs, with one program at $0.15 EPC. User: "How do I improve these numbers?" Action: One program is 7x more profitable. Diagnose: concentrate effort on the winner. For the four underperformers, check offer-market fit (are these the wrong products?). Recommend: S7 (multi-program-manager) to restructure portfolio, S7 (content-repurposer) to create more content for the winning program, S6 (ab-test-generator) to optimize existing content.
shared/references/ftc-compliance.md — Referenced when reviewing content quality. Read in Step 3.docs/affiliate-funnel-overview.md — Funnel stage definitions for gap analysis. Read in Step 3.shared/references/flywheel-connections.md — master flywheel connection mapimprovement_suggestions drive quality upgrades across the systemperformance-report (S6) — performance data revealing what needs improvementconversion-tracker (S6) — conversion trends for diagnosiscompliance-checker (S8) — compliance issues to addresschain_metadata:
skill_slug: "self-improver"
stage: "meta"
timestamp: string
suggested_next:
- "funnel-planner"
- "performance-report"
- "skill-finder"~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.