Platform Audit Generator
Scores each of the client's social profiles, benchmarks them against three named competitors and sets ten first-week quick wins plus a 6-slide deck outline, from public profile data and the completed client brief. Apply the east-african-english skill for tone throughout.
Use When
- We need to know how complete, active and on-brand each of the client's social profiles is before we write strategy.
- The client wants a side-by-side benchmark of their pages against two or three named competitors, with estimates flagged.
- The agency wants to offer a prospect a free 30-minute social audit as a lead offer, scored across five areas out of 50, with a wins-and-gaps one-pager and a path to a paid retainer.
- Every profile needs tidying: bio rewrites using WHO-WHAT-WHO-CTA, cover images, handles, link in bio and the WhatsApp button, on a 48-hour, one-week and one-month fix plan.
Do Not Use When
meta-competitor-analysis for a deeper study of rivals' content, messaging and positioning gaps.meta-content-audit for a keep, stop or test review of the client's own past posts.01-client-brief when the client has not yet completed intake.- Stop before logging into, editing or publishing to a live profile without the client's written permission; deliver the fix list for approval.
Required Inputs
| Artefact |
Source/provider |
Required? |
If absent |
Client name, industry and completed 01-client-brief |
01-client-brief output |
Yes (brief as context if available) |
Note the brief gaps in the audit; route to 01-client-brief when intake has not started. |
| Active platforms with the exact handle or URL for each |
Client brief or client |
Yes |
Search public profiles and confirm each handle with the client before scoring. |
| Three named competitors with handles on each relevant platform |
Client |
Yes |
Ask for them before proceeding; the competitive benchmarking section cannot be completed without them. |
| Native insights, Meta Business Suite or Google Analytics access |
Client |
Optional |
Estimate engagement with the formula below and label it (estimated — no account access). |
| Country / city |
Client brief |
Yes |
Default to Kampala, Uganda. |
Workflow
- Confirm the audit type: a paid pre-strategy audit, or a free lead-offer audit for an unsigned prospect (route to audit-as-lead-offer); stop and ask for competitor handles if they are missing.
- Collect data from the listed sources (manual profile review, Meta Ad Library, native insights, SimilarWeb free tier, Google Analytics / Meta Business Suite) and note the source against each data point.
- Fill one audit table per active platform; score profile completeness (1–10) and content quality (1–10) with the scoring guides, and justify every score with a specific observation.
- Build one competitive benchmarking table per major platform, followed by the three-point commentary: where the client leads, where the client lags, visible gap to exploit.
- Write exactly 10 quick wins for the first week, sequenced from easiest/fastest to more involved and covering all four categories; for element-level fixes use profile-optimisation-fixes.
- Write the 6-slide deck outline with Headline, Bullets, Speaker Notes and Visual Direction for every slide.
- Check every estimate is labelled and every score is evidenced; correct any unlabelled estimate or unsupported score and rerun the affected table and slide before hand-off.
- Run the anti-slop ship gate and hand the audit to the strategy skills (
05-social-media-strategy); deliver profile fixes as an approval list, never as live edits.
Scoring bands and engagement formula
- Estimated engagement rate = (total likes + comments on last 10 posts) ÷ (follower count × 10) × 100; label all estimates (estimated — no account access).
- Profile completeness (one point per element, ten elements): 7–10 = strong; 4–6 = needs attention; below 4 = significant gaps.
- Content quality (five dimensions, 2 points each): 8–10 = strong; 5–7 = developing; below 5 = requires urgent improvement.
- Full scoring guides, table layouts and the deck template: audit-method-and-presentation-outline.
Outputs
| Artefact |
Consumer |
Acceptance condition |
| Platform audit tables (one per active platform) |
Client lead; 05-social-media-strategy |
Every active platform has a completed table or a stated reason for skipping; scores carry observations. |
| Competitive benchmarking tables with three-point commentary |
Client lead; strategy skills |
At least one concrete gap the client can exploit is named. |
| Quick wins list |
Client; account team |
Exactly 10 items, each with action, platform(s), effort, impact and category; all four categories covered. |
| 6-slide deck outline |
Client presentation |
All four fields completed for every slide. |
Evidence Produced
| Evidence |
Format |
Acceptance condition |
| Data-source notes per data point |
Source column or note beside each figure, with review date |
No claim is presented as measured fact unless account access was provided. |
| Engagement-rate calculation record |
Formula, inputs (last 10 posts, follower count) and result |
Every estimate labelled and reproducible. |
Capability and Permission Boundaries
Read and search only; analysis is read-only. Publishing, spend, live account changes, outreach and personal-data processing need explicit, action-specific client authority. The audit is read-only by default: inspect and report without changing profiles, accounts or campaigns, and do not log into or edit a live profile without the client's written permission.
Degraded Mode
Without account access or competitor handles, return the narrowest qualified result and mark the affected checks not assessed. Public-profile audit tables with labelled engagement estimates can still be delivered; the benchmark waits for the handles.
Decision Rules
| Condition |
Action |
Failure or risk avoided |
| The prospect has not signed and the audit is a free lead offer |
Run the five-area, 30-minute audit and findings one-pager in audit-as-lead-offer, then hand over to biz-dev-proposal. |
Giving the full paid audit away, or a pitch with no scripted route to paid work. |
| Profile-completeness gaps need element-level fixes and paste-ready bios |
Apply the platform checklists and three-tier plan in profile-optimisation-fixes. |
Vague "improve your bio" advice and arbitrary priorities. |
| No account access is available |
Use the estimated engagement formula and label each figure (estimated — no account access). |
Presenting inferred data as measured fact. |
| Competitor handles are missing |
Ask for them before proceeding; do not guess handles. |
A benchmark against the wrong accounts. |
| The client is not active on a minor platform |
Combine minor platforms into a single summary row in the benchmark. |
Padding the benchmark with empty tables. |
| Competitor data comes only from public profiles and Meta Ad Library |
Treat follower counts and engagement as point-in-time observations; do not infer strategy or revenue from public data alone. |
Unfounded claims about rivals. |
| The requested outcome is a keep/stop/test review of past posts |
Route to meta-content-audit and hand over the verified inputs already collected. |
Neighbour collision and duplicated work. |
Quality Standards
- Every active platform has a completed audit table; no platform is skipped without an explanation.
- Profile completeness and content quality scores are justified with specific observations, not assigned without evidence.
- Competitor benchmarking identifies at least one concrete gap the client can exploit, not a generic observation.
- Quick wins list contains exactly 10 items, sequenced by effort and impact, covering all four categories.
- Deck outline follows the exact format from CLAUDE.md with all five fields (Headline, Bullets, Speaker Notes, Visual Direction) completed for every slide.
- Estimated engagement rates are clearly labelled as estimates; the calculation method is documented.
- Data sources are noted throughout; no claim is presented as measured fact unless account access was provided.
- British English spelling throughout; tone follows the
east-african-english skill.
Anti-Patterns
- Presenting estimated engagement as measured fact. Fix: label it (estimated — no account access) and document the formula.
- Scoring profiles without observations. Fix: list the missing elements and the specific content notes behind each score.
- Treating follower count as the headline result. Fix: note it is a vanity metric and compare engagement and content quality (Bodnar and Cohen, 2012).
- Generic quick wins ("post more"). Fix: tie each to a platform, effort, impact and category, and use peak Uganda/EA times where posting rhythm is the gap.
- Editing a client's live profile during the audit. Fix: deliver the fix list for approval; editing needs written permission.
- Absorbing a deep competitor content study or a past-post review. Fix: route to
meta-competitor-analysis or meta-content-audit.
References
