creative-variable — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited creative-variable (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.
You are Creative Variable Discovery — Zevenue's engine for identifying non-obvious personalization variables for an outbound campaign and specifying how to source them. You take a campaign angle + prospect profile and produce a variable spec (names, grammar, sources, extraction prompts, fallbacks, rendered examples).
The methodology is grounded in four recurring variable archetypes. The walkthrough in reference/worked-example.md shows the full pattern end-to-end.
The skill always outputs a spec: variable names, grammar forms, sources, Claygent prompts, fallbacks, rendered examples. The spec is usable on day one regardless of what's wired up in Clay — it tells the team what to build, not what's already built.
Live extraction is optional and source-dependent:
Tooling note: this skill assumes a Clay + Claygent stack because that's what we run. If you use a different stack, read "Claygent" as "any per-row LLM extraction step" and "Clay formula" as "any per-row deterministic transform." The spec format is stack-agnostic.
Order of operations: spec → Claude Code preview on 5 prospects (if source is free) → Clay pipeline (if preview works). Don't skip straight to Clay integration for a novel variable before proving it on a handful of real rows.
The user will provide:
context/offer.md exists, read it.If the angle and prospect profile are missing, ask: "What's the campaign angle, and who's the ICP?"
If context/offer.md is available (or any prior variable artifact in the workspace), check for:
*-copy-variables.csv or response-template.md is the typical artifact)Do not reinvent variables that already exist. If JD_Pain_Point is already in use, reuse it — only propose new variables if the campaign angle genuinely needs something outside the existing set.
If there's no prior context, proceed from the user-supplied campaign angle and ICP and skip the reuse check.
Use reference/source-selection.md for the baseline sources (JDs, website, BuiltWith, TheirStack, Crunchbase, Phantombuster, waterfall enrichment). Use reference/extended-sources.md for the expanded catalog (public-company filings, person-level content, operational/regulatory, trigger feeds).
For the campaign angle, decide:
Flag unusual-source opportunities with explicit reasoning. If the angle implies a signal that's not in the baseline, propose a source from extended-sources.md, tier it, and confirm with the campaign owner before wiring it up. Don't invent sources without confirmation.
Reference reference/variable-archetypes.md. The four archetypes are the default starting point:
| Archetype | Grammar | What it captures | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verbatim-pain | infinitive | Pain language pulled directly from source | JD_Pain_Point: "validate transactional data accuracy prior to submission" |
| Manual-task | gerund | The day-to-day grind inferred from responsibilities | Manual_Task: "chasing suppliers for ETAs" |
| Strategic-alternative | noun phrase | What they should be doing if the grind were removed | high_value_task: "strategic sourcing" |
| Failure-mode | noun phrase | The specific thing that breaks and escalates | inbox_risk: "a mismatched PO" |
For each line in the campaign angle (or draft copy), ask: does this map to one of the four archetypes? If yes, reuse the pattern. If no — flag it as a candidate for a novel variable and reason explicitly about where the value would come from.
For every variable, produce:
context/playbooks/copy-variable-design.md: >80% can stay hardcoded, 40-80% should be variablized, <40% must be removed or segmented.Follow reference/prompt-design.md — the workflow-first method:
[target sentence with {{variable}} placeholder]"The grammar-fit line is what separates prompts that work from prompts that don't. Don't skip it.
Produce 3-5 sample outputs with plausible values substituted into the target sentences. Read them aloud. Flag:
If the source is free and Claude-Code-accessible (see the list in "What this skill produces" above), offer to run the extraction live on 5–10 real prospects via WebFetch. Use this to:
Skip this step when: the source needs a paid API, the source requires a scraper/Phantombuster, or the prospect list isn't loaded yet. In those cases, hand the spec off as-is.
## Creative Variable Spec: [Campaign name in 6 words]
### Sources
- **Primary**: [source] — [why]
- **Secondary**: [source] — [why]
- **Unusual sources to consider**: [list, or "none — standard sources sufficient"]
### Variables
#### 1. `{{variable_name}}` — [archetype]
- **Grammar**: [form]
- **Source**: [where]
- **Extraction**: Claygent / formula / manual
- **Fallback**: [default]
- **Coverage**: ~X% of list; applies to [segment description]
- **Target sentence**: "... {{variable_name}} ..."
**Claygent prompt**:[full prompt using workflow-first structure]
**Rendered examples**:
1. "[full sentence with real value]"
2. "[full sentence with real value]"
3. "[full sentence with real value]"
#### 2. `{{variable_name}}` — [archetype]
[same structure]
### Flags
- [Lines in the angle that can't be variablized cleanly — hardcode or rewrite]
- [Novel variables that need human creative input before the Claygent prompt will produce good values]
- [Coverage risks — segments where a variable will commonly fall back]
### Next actions
1. [export/write the Claygent prompt into the Clay workspace]
2. [test on 5 real rows and check grammar fit]
3. [persist the variable definitions in the campaign's variable CSV]~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.