ai-video-qa

AI Video QA

Validate the quality of your AI videos before publication with a complete checklist covering technical, creative, and brand positioning.

When to Use This Skill

Before publication - Final validation before going live
Client review - Prepare anticipated feedback points
Quality iteration - Identify issues to fix
Go/No-Go decision - Decide whether the video is ready
Post-mortem - Analyze why a video did (or did not) perform

Methodology Foundation

Source: PJ Ace best practices + Industry standards + Wistia 2025 State of Video

Core Principle: "An AI video can be technically impressive but fail commercially. QA must cover all three dimensions: technical, creative, and strategic."

Why This Matters: 41% of pros use AI video in 2025, but many produce "AI slop" that harms their brand. Rigorous QA makes the difference between viral and ridiculous.

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

Claude Does	You Decide
Structures production workflow	Final creative direction
Suggests technical approaches	Equipment and tool choices
Creates templates and checklists	Quality standards
Identifies best practices	Brand/voice decisions
Generates script outlines	Final script approval

What This Skill Does

Validates technical quality - Resolution, audio, transitions, artifacts
Evaluates creative effectiveness - Hook, storytelling, CTA
Checks brand positioning - PR risk, brand alignment
Identifies AI red flags - Uncanny valley, hands, inconsistencies
Generates an actionable report - Prioritized issues with solutions

How to Use

Full QA before publication

J'ai terminé ma vidéo IA de [durée]. Fais une QA complète avec le skill ai-video-qa.

Focus on a specific aspect

Vérifie uniquement les aspects techniques / créatifs / brand de ma vidéo.

Prepare a client review

Liste les objections potentielles d'un client pour cette vidéo IA.

Instructions

Step 1: The 3-Second Rule

## Test des 3 Premières Secondes

Regardez la vidéo sur mute. En 3 secondes, l'audience doit pouvoir répondre:

### 1. WHAT IS IT?
**Question:** Le produit ou la marque est-il visible/clair?
[ ] Oui - Immédiatement identifiable
[ ] Partiel - Visible mais pas focal
[ ] Non - Pas clair du tout

**Si Non:** ⚠️ BLOQUANT - Ajouter brand/produit dans le hook

### 2. WHO IS IT FOR?
**Question:** Le public cible est-il évident?
[ ] Oui - Signaux démographiques/psychographiques clairs
[ ] Partiel - Vaguement suggéré
[ ] Non - Audience universelle = personne

**Si Non:** ⚠️ IMPORTANT - Renforcer les signaux d'identification

### 3. WHAT DO I DO?
**Question:** L'action souhaitée est-elle visible?
[ ] Oui - CTA clair dès le début ou anticipé
[ ] Partiel - Suggéré mais pas explicite
[ ] Non - Pas de direction claire

**Si Non:** ⚠️ IMPORTANT - CTA doit être présent ou teasé

### Verdict 3 Secondes
[ ] ✅ PASS - Les 3 questions ont une réponse claire
[ ] ⚠️ NEEDS WORK - 1-2 éléments à renforcer
[ ] ❌ FAIL - Refaire le hook

Step 2: Technical Checklist

## Validation Technique

### Résolution & Format
- [ ] Résolution correcte (1080p minimum)
- [ ] Aspect ratio approprié (16:9 horizontal, 9:16 vertical)
- [ ] Frame rate stable (24fps cinéma, 30fps digital)
- [ ] Pas de pixelisation visible
- [ ] Export dans le bon codec (H.264/H.265)

### Audio
- [ ] Voix claire et intelligible
- [ ] Niveau audio normalisé (-6dB voix)
- [ ] Pas de clipping ou distorsion
- [ ] Balance voix/musique/SFX correcte
- [ ] Lip-sync acceptable (±2-3 frames max)

### Transitions & Montage
- [ ] Transitions fluides (pas de jump cuts non intentionnels)
- [ ] Continuité de direction de mouvement
- [ ] Éclairage cohérent entre plans
- [ ] Pas de flash frames ou frames noires

### Artefacts IA
- [ ] Pas de morphing de visage visible
- [ ] Pas de membres qui apparaissent/disparaissent
- [ ] Texte lisible (s'il y en a)
- [ ] Arrière-plans stables (pas de "breathing")
- [ ] Pas d'objets flottants ou impossibles

### Durée
- [ ] Durée appropriée pour la plateforme
  - TikTok/Reels: 15-60s
  - YouTube Pre-roll: 6-15s skippable
  - LinkedIn: 30-90s
  - TV/OTT: 15-30s

### Score Technique
____ / 20 points
- 18-20: ✅ Production-ready
- 14-17: ⚠️ Minor fixes needed
- <14: ❌ Significant rework required

Step 3: Creative Checklist

## Validation Créative

### Hook (0-3 secondes)
- [ ] Capte l'attention immédiatement
- [ ] Pattern interrupt efficace (son, visuel, question)
- [ ] Pas de logo/intro lent (forbidden!)
- [ ] Crée curiosité ou émotion
- [ ] Viewer retention: donnerait-on 5 sec de plus?

### Storytelling
- [ ] Arc narratif clair (début-milieu-fin)
- [ ] Tension/conflit puis résolution
- [ ] Progression logique
- [ ] Payoff satisfaisant
- [ ] Mémorable (passerait le "tell a friend" test)

### Émotion
- [ ] Émotion cible identifiable
- [ ] Cohérence émotionnelle tout au long
- [ ] Pas de dissonance (humour + sérieux mal mixés)
- [ ] Authenticité (pas "AI slop" feeling)

### Message
- [ ] Message principal clair en une phrase
- [ ] Pas de messages contradictoires
- [ ] Bénéfice client évident (pas feature-focused)
- [ ] USP différenciante visible

### CTA
- [ ] Call-to-action explicite
- [ ] Timing approprié (fin, ou teasé + rappelé)
- [ ] Action simple et claire (un seul CTA)
- [ ] Urgence ou raison d'agir maintenant

### Créativité
- [ ] Original (pas un template vu 1000 fois)
- [ ] Approprié au ton de marque
- [ ] Adapté à la culture de la plateforme
- [ ] Shareable potential

### Score Créatif
____ / 24 points
- 20-24: ✅ Excellent creative
- 15-19: ⚠️ Solid but improvable
- <15: ❌ Rethink creative approach

Step 4: Specific AI Red Flags

## Détection Artefacts IA

### Visages (CRITIQUE)
- [ ] Expressions naturelles (pas de sourire figé)
- [ ] Mouvements de lèvres réalistes
- [ ] Clignements des yeux présents
- [ ] Pas de morphing entre expressions
- [ ] Symétrie faciale raisonnable (pas parfaite)

### Mains & Doigts (HIGH RISK)
- [ ] Nombre de doigts correct (5 par main)
- [ ] Proportions réalistes
- [ ] Pas de fusion entre doigts
- [ ] Mouvements naturels
- [ ] **Si problématique → Recadrer pour éviter**

### Corps & Mouvement
- [ ] Proportions anatomiques correctes
- [ ] Articulations réalistes
- [ ] Pas de membres qui s'étirent
- [ ] Vêtements cohérents (pas de texture morphing)
- [ ] Cheveux naturels (pas de flickering)

### Environnement
- [ ] Perspective cohérente
- [ ] Objets stables (pas de flickering)
- [ ] Ombres correctes et cohérentes
- [ ] Textures stables
- [ ] Pas d'éléments qui apparaissent/disparaissent

### Texte & Logos
- [ ] Texte lisible s'il est généré
- [ ] Logos corrects (pas déformés)
- [ ] **Recommandation: Toujours ajouter en post**

### Score Artefacts IA
____ / 20 points
- 18-20: ✅ Indiscernable de vidéo réelle
- 14-17: ⚠️ AI visible mais acceptable
- 10-13: 🟡 Stylisé/cartoon recommandé
- <10: ❌ Refaire ou changer d'approche

Step 5: Brand Positioning Assessment

## Analyse Risque & Positionnement

### Type de marque
[ ] Challenger brand (peu connue, disruptive)
[ ] Growing brand (en développement)
[ ] Established brand (connue, attentes élevées)
[ ] Heritage/Legacy brand (très connue, sacrée)

### Matrice Risque IA
| Type | Risque PR si "AI visible" | Recommandation |
|------|---------------------------|----------------|
| Challenger | Faible | Oser, innover |
| Growing | Moyen | Qualité++, tests |
| Established | Élevé | Très haute qualité |
| Heritage | Très élevé | Éviter ou hybride |

### Questions critiques
- [ ] L'audience cible est-elle AI-friendly?
- [ ] Le contexte pardonne-t-il les imperfections?
  (Humour oui, Luxe non)
- [ ] Y a-t-il un précédent négatif dans l'industrie?
- [ ] La concurrence utilise-t-elle déjà l'IA vidéo?

### Ton & Authenticité
- [ ] Le ton est cohérent avec la marque
- [ ] Pas de claim impossible/trompeur
- [ ] Transparence sur l'usage IA si nécessaire
- [ ] Pas d'appropriation culturelle involontaire

### Score Brand Risk
[ ] ✅ LOW RISK - Feu vert
[ ] 🟡 MEDIUM RISK - Validation stakeholder recommandée
[ ] 🔴 HIGH RISK - Reconsidérer ou modifier

### Si HIGH RISK, options:
1. Améliorer qualité jusqu'à "indiscernable"
2. Assumer le côté IA (style, ton humoristique)
3. Hybrider avec footage réel
4. Abandonner l'approche IA

Step 6: Generate the QA Report

## QA Report Template

# Rapport QA Vidéo: [Titre]

**Date:** ________________
**Version:** _______________
**Reviewers:** _______________

---

## Résumé Exécutif

| Dimension | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| 3 Secondes Rule | [X/3] | [PASS/FAIL] |
| Technique | [X/20] | [✅/⚠️/❌] |
| Créatif | [X/24] | [✅/⚠️/❌] |
| Artefacts IA | [X/20] | [✅/⚠️/❌] |
| Brand Risk | [Level] | [🟢/🟡/🔴] |

**VERDICT GLOBAL:** [ ] APPROVED [ ] NEEDS REVISION [ ] REJECTED

---

## Issues Identifiées

### Bloquants (P0)
| # | Issue | Timing | Solution |
|---|-------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [Description] | [0:XX] | [Action] |

### Importants (P1)
| # | Issue | Timing | Solution |
|---|-------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [Description] | [0:XX] | [Action] |

### Nice-to-have (P2)
| # | Issue | Timing | Solution |
|---|-------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [Description] | [0:XX] | [Action] |

---

## Recommandations

1. [Recommandation prioritaire]
2. [Recommandation secondaire]
3. [Amélioration optionnelle]

---

## Sign-off

[ ] P0 résolus → Prêt pour publication
[ ] P0 + P1 résolus → Qualité optimale
[ ] Stakeholder approval si risque medium/high

Examples

Example 1: QA of a SaaS ad

Context: 30s video for a productivity app, quirky style

Input:

I have a 30-second video for TaskFlow. Office/mockumentary style. Do the QA.

Output:

QA Report: TaskFlow "Meeting Chaos"

Date: 2026-01-25 Version: v1.0 Duration: 30 seconds

3 Second Test

Question	Answer	Status
What is it?	App visible at 0:18 only	⚠️
Who is it for?	Tech teams, obviously	✅
What do I do?	CTA at 0:28 "Free trial"	✅

Verdict: ⚠️ NEEDS WORK - Add TaskFlow mention in hook

Scores

Dimension	Score	Details
Technical	17/20	-2 audio balance, -1 transition @0:12
Creative	21/24	Strong hook, satisfying payoff
AI Artifacts	15/20	Visible hands @0:08 problematic
Brand Risk	🟢 LOW	Challenger brand, confident tone

P0 Issues (Blockers)

#	Issue	Timing	Solution
1	Hands with 6 fingers	0:08	Reframe to medium shot
2	App not visible in hook	0:00-0:08	Add TaskFlow screen as overlay

P1 Issues (Important)

#	Issue	Timing	Solution
1	Voice under music	0:14-0:20	Lower music -6dB
2	Visible jump cut	0:12	Add intermediate shot

P2 Issues (Nice-to-have)

#	Issue	Timing	Solution
1	Logo small in CTA	0:28	Enlarge 20%

Verdict

NEEDS REVISION - 2 P0 issues to resolve

After P0 corrections:

Re-render scene 0:08 (framing)
Add TaskFlow overlay in hook
Re-QA then APPROVED

Example 2: QA premium ad with high risk

Context: Video for established luxury brand

Input:

QA for a Heritage Collection watch ad, premium brand established for 130 years.

Output:

QA Report: Heritage Collection "Timeless"

Date: 2026-01-25 Version: v2.3 Duration: 45 seconds

⚠️ ALERT: HIGH BRAND RISK

Brand type: Heritage/Legacy (130 years) PR risk if AI detected: VERY HIGH

Industry precedent: Coca-Cola Christmas AI ad backlash 2024

3 Second Test

Question	Answer	Status
What is it?	Watch visible, brand at 0:02	✅
Who is it for?	Executives/collectors	✅
What do I do?	Implicit (aspiration)	⚠️ Acceptable for luxury

Scores

Dimension	Score	Details
Technique	19/20	Almost perfect
Creative	23/24	Excellent storytelling
AI Artifacts	16/20	Some subtle tells
Brand Risk	🔴 HIGH	Legacy brand + detectable artifacts

Critical Artifact Analysis

Timing	Issue	Detectable by audience?	Risk
0:12	Reflection shows slightly unstable	Yes if freeze-frame	Medium
0:23	Costume texture "breathing"	Yes, subtle	Medium
0:34	Face transition slightly AI	Yes	HIGH

Artifact verdict: A trained eye detects AI. For a heritage brand, that's risky.

Recommended Options

Option A: Improve (Recommended)

Re-generate scenes 0:12, 0:23, 0:34 with stricter settings
Use Veo 3.1 Standard (max quality)
Target artifact score 19+/20

Option B: Hybridize

Shoot critical shots (face, hands) live-action
Keep ambiance shots in AI
Additional cost but risk reduced to LOW

Option C: Own it (Not recommended)

Mention "Created with AI" in credits
Risk: "A 130-year-old brand uses cheap AI"

Verdict

REJECTED - PR risk too high as-is

Path to approval:

Rework the 3 problematic scenes
Reach artifact score 19+/20
Blind test with 5 unaware people
If 0/5 detect AI → APPROVED
Otherwise → Option B (hybrid)

Checklists & Templates

Express QA Checklist (2 min)

## Quick QA

### Non-négociables
- [ ] 3 Secondes Rule passé
- [ ] Pas de mains/doigts déformés visibles
- [ ] Audio compréhensible
- [ ] CTA présent et clair

### Si TOUT coché → Publication OK pour test
### Si UN non coché → QA complète requise

Client Report Template

## Rapport QA - [Projet]

### Résumé
✅ Vidéo approuvée / ⚠️ Révisions mineures / ❌ Révisions majeures

### Points forts
- [Point 1]
- [Point 2]
- [Point 3]

### Points d'amélioration
| Priorité | Issue | Recommendation |
|----------|-------|----------------|
| Haute | [...] | [...] |
| Medium | [...] | [...] |

### Prochaines étapes
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]

### Timeline estimée pour corrections
[X] jours si révisions mineures
[Y] jours si révisions majeures

Scoring Guide

## Interprétation des Scores

### Score Global (sur 87 points max)
- 75-87: ✅ APPROVED - Publication immédiate
- 60-74: ⚠️ CONDITIONAL - Fixes mineurs, re-QA rapide
- 45-59: 🟡 NEEDS WORK - Révisions substantielles
- <45: ❌ REJECTED - Refaire ou abandonner approche

### Score Technique (sur 20)
18+: Broadcast quality
14-17: Digital/social quality
10-13: Acceptable pour test
<10: Problèmes techniques majeurs

### Score Créatif (sur 24)
20+: Award-worthy creative
15-19: Solid professional work
10-14: Functional but forgettable
<10: Creative rethink needed

### Score Artefacts (sur 20)
18+: Indiscernable de réel
14-17: AI visible mais acceptable
10-13: Stylisé/assumé recommandé
<10: Uncanny valley territory

Skill Boundaries

What This Skill Does Well

Structuring audio production workflows
Providing technical guidance
Creating quality checklists
Suggesting creative approaches

What This Skill Cannot Do

Replace audio engineering expertise
Make subjective creative decisions
Access or edit audio files directly
Guarantee commercial success

References

Wistia. "2025 State of Video Report" - AI video adoption statistics
PJ Ace. "AI Video Production Workflow" - Quality standards
MKTG Skills - AI Video Ecosystem Study
Nielsen Norman Group. "Video UX Guidelines"

Related Skills

ai-video-concept - Reference for evaluating concept alignment
ai-storyboard-2x2 - Check consistency with storyboard
ai-video-prompting - To improve problematic scenes
ai-voice-design - For audio issues

Skill Metadata

Mode: cyborg

name: ai-video-qa
category: video
subcategory: post-production
version: 1.0
author: MKTG Skills
source_expert: PJ Ace + Wistia + Industry Standards
source_work: AI Video Best Practices
difficulty: intermediate
estimated_value: $500-1500 (professional QA review)
tags: [video, ai, qa, quality, review, checklist, production]
created: 2026-01-25
updated: 2026-01-25

About this skill

When to Use This Skill

Methodology Foundation

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

What This Skill Does

How to Use

Full QA before publication

Focus on a specific aspect

Prepare a client review

Instructions

Step 1: The 3-Second Rule

Step 2: Technical Checklist

Step 3: Creative Checklist

Step 4: Specific AI Red Flags

Step 5: Brand Positioning Assessment

Step 6: Generate the QA Report

Examples

Example 1: QA of a SaaS ad

QA Report: TaskFlow "Meeting Chaos"

3 Second Test

Scores

P0 Issues (Blockers)

P1 Issues (Important)

P2 Issues (Nice-to-have)

Verdict

Example 2: QA premium ad with high risk

QA Report: Heritage Collection "Timeless"

⚠️ ALERT: HIGH BRAND RISK

3 Second Test

Scores

Critical Artifact Analysis

Recommended Options

Verdict

Checklists & Templates

Express QA Checklist (2 min)

Client Report Template

Scoring Guide

Skill Boundaries

What This Skill Does Well

What This Skill Cannot Do

References

Related Skills

Skill Metadata