← vidIQCONTENT HISTORY
WHAT CHANGED
changed
Update to vidIQ
Snapshot Nov 14, 2026 · 00:09 UTC · version 9.0.2
Collection source: downloaded plugin package.
Instructions updated for vidiq-new-upload-review
Skill instructions — Now says: For whole-channel trends call `vidiq_channel_audit`; apply an approved change through
Observed in instructions or declared skills. Runtime behavior has not been tested.
Save vidIQ and check future changes in Following.
Up to 3 plugins free · no card required.
All fields and original values.
Skill instructions
Before
Nov 3, 2026 · 00:11 UTC
For whole-channel trends switch to `vidiq-channel-audit`; apply an approved change through
After
Nov 14, 2026 · 00:09 UTC
For whole-channel trends call `vidiq_channel_audit`; apply an approved change through
Compare saved observations
Download comparison JSONSKILL.md text changes
− removed · + added
--- before +++ after @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Judge a new upload against the channel's performance at the same publication age. Recommend whether to hold, inspect, or prepare a packaging change; do not change YouTube metadata/settings. -For whole-channel trends switch to `vidiq-channel-audit`; apply an approved change through +For whole-channel trends call `vidiq_channel_audit`; apply an approved change through `vidiq-video-metadata`. ## Compare the trajectory
Full technical diff · 1 changed fields
changed /skill_md_contents
BEFORE
"---\nname: vidiq-new-upload-review\ndescription: Triage a just-published YouTube video or Short against the channel's own curve at the same publication age and decide whether to wait, investigate, or change packaging. Use when a creator says 'I just uploaded', 'my new video is not getting views or impressions', 'is my latest video flopping', 'my Shorts are getting 0 views', or 'should I change the thumbnail or title'.\n---\n\n# vidIQ New Upload Review\n\nRead [Live surface notes](references/live-surface-notes.md) first, even when using only supplied evidence.\n\nJudge a new upload against the channel's performance at the same publication age. Recommend\nwhether to hold, inspect, or prepare a packaging change; do not change YouTube metadata/settings.\nFor whole-channel trends switch to `vidiq-channel-audit`; apply an approved change through\n`vidiq-video-metadata`.\n\n## Compare the trajectory\n\n1. Establish video, channel, goal, format, publication time, and current age from supplied context.\n Use a bounded evidence plan.\n2. For “my channel” or private analytics, resolve the authorized target with `vidiq_user_channels`.\n For “my newest upload,” use `vidiq_user_videos` with the owning `channelId`, `order: \"newest\"`,\n and the relevant `privacyStatus` (it includes unlisted and scheduled private videos), or\n `vidiq_channel_videos` with `popular: false` and confirmed `videoFormat: long`, `short`, or\n `live` for a public catalog; then confirm the returned video.\n3. Use `vidiq_get_videos_by_ids` for context, `vidiq_video_stats` for history, and\n `vidiq_channel_performance_trends` for the recent-video post-publication curve.\n Stats requires `granularity`: prefer `hourly` for early launches; use coarser intervals only\n when age/window warrants them. Read `vidiq_video_change_history` before recommending a packaging\n change: a title or thumbnail edited since publication, or a running thumbnail A/B test, changes\n the interpretation.\n4. Compare cumulative `views` at equivalent `minutesSincePublication`. Use returned\n `views.perc30`, median, and `views.perc70`; missing percentiles are unavailable, not replaceable\n by min/max. VPH is not cumulative views. Disclose age mismatch and mixed-format limitations\n of the channel-wide curve. Do not manufacture checkpoints or extrapolate beyond observations.\n\n## Choose the next action\n\n- **Hold:** evidence is sparse, incomparable, or insufficient to justify intervention.\n- **Inspect:** repeated weakness against an age-matched baseline warrants investigation.\n A percentile crossing alone cannot identify packaging as the cause.\n- **Prepare a change:** weakness has corroboration from supported analytics, supplied Studio\n data, or qualitative comments, with competing explanations and confidence stated.\n Without corroboration, keep the decision at hold or inspect.\n\nInspect only decision-relevant evidence within scope: authorized `vidiq_channel_analytics`,\nsupplied Studio CTR/impressions, or `vidiq_video_comments`. Thumbnail CTR/impressions are not in\nthe analytics metric enum; annotation CTR and ad impressions are not substitutes. Comments and\nscores cannot prove low CTR or its cause. Use `vidiq_score_title`/`vidiq_score_thumbnail` only\nwhen useful within the requested diagnosis.\n\nA known factual or formatting error can warrant correction at any age, independently of\nperformance. Choose a reassessment point from the observed channel curve, with no universal\nwaiting period or fixed checkpoint count.\n\n## Deliver\n\nReport publication age, evidence window, observed trajectory/bands and their gaps, and the\ncount/ages of checkpoints used. Give the decision, strongest evidence for and against it,\nconfidence, and next measurement/checkpoint. An unresolved video or channel prevents a trajectory\nclaim; a recommendation does not mean a change was applied.\n"
AFTER
"---\nname: vidiq-new-upload-review\ndescription: Triage a just-published YouTube video or Short against the channel's own curve at the same publication age and decide whether to wait, investigate, or change packaging. Use when a creator says 'I just uploaded', 'my new video is not getting views or impressions', 'is my latest video flopping', 'my Shorts are getting 0 views', or 'should I change the thumbnail or title'.\n---\n\n# vidIQ New Upload Review\n\nRead [Live surface notes](references/live-surface-notes.md) first, even when using only supplied evidence.\n\nJudge a new upload against the channel's performance at the same publication age. Recommend\nwhether to hold, inspect, or prepare a packaging change; do not change YouTube metadata/settings.\nFor whole-channel trends call `vidiq_channel_audit`; apply an approved change through\n`vidiq-video-metadata`.\n\n## Compare the trajectory\n\n1. Establish video, channel, goal, format, publication time, and current age from supplied context.\n Use a bounded evidence plan.\n2. For “my channel” or private analytics, resolve the authorized target with `vidiq_user_channels`.\n For “my newest upload,” use `vidiq_user_videos` with the owning `channelId`, `order: \"newest\"`,\n and the relevant `privacyStatus` (it includes unlisted and scheduled private videos), or\n `vidiq_channel_videos` with `popular: false` and confirmed `videoFormat: long`, `short`, or\n `live` for a public catalog; then confirm the returned video.\n3. Use `vidiq_get_videos_by_ids` for context, `vidiq_video_stats` for history, and\n `vidiq_channel_performance_trends` for the recent-video post-publication curve.\n Stats requires `granularity`: prefer `hourly` for early launches; use coarser intervals only\n when age/window warrants them. Read `vidiq_video_change_history` before recommending a packaging\n change: a title or thumbnail edited since publication, or a running thumbnail A/B test, changes\n the interpretation.\n4. Compare cumulative `views` at equivalent `minutesSincePublication`. Use returned\n `views.perc30`, median, and `views.perc70`; missing percentiles are unavailable, not replaceable\n by min/max. VPH is not cumulative views. Disclose age mismatch and mixed-format limitations\n of the channel-wide curve. Do not manufacture checkpoints or extrapolate beyond observations.\n\n## Choose the next action\n\n- **Hold:** evidence is sparse, incomparable, or insufficient to justify intervention.\n- **Inspect:** repeated weakness against an age-matched baseline warrants investigation.\n A percentile crossing alone cannot identify packaging as the cause.\n- **Prepare a change:** weakness has corroboration from supported analytics, supplied Studio\n data, or qualitative comments, with competing explanations and confidence stated.\n Without corroboration, keep the decision at hold or inspect.\n\nInspect only decision-relevant evidence within scope: authorized `vidiq_channel_analytics`,\nsupplied Studio CTR/impressions, or `vidiq_video_comments`. Thumbnail CTR/impressions are not in\nthe analytics metric enum; annotation CTR and ad impressions are not substitutes. Comments and\nscores cannot prove low CTR or its cause. Use `vidiq_score_title`/`vidiq_score_thumbnail` only\nwhen useful within the requested diagnosis.\n\nA known factual or formatting error can warrant correction at any age, independently of\nperformance. Choose a reassessment point from the observed channel curve, with no universal\nwaiting period or fixed checkpoint count.\n\n## Deliver\n\nReport publication age, evidence window, observed trajectory/bands and their gaps, and the\ncount/ages of checkpoints used. Give the decision, strongest evidence for and against it,\nconfidence, and next measurement/checkpoint. An unresolved video or channel prevents a trajectory\nclaim; a recommendation does not mean a change was applied.\n"
Full snapshot data
{
"description": "Triage a just-published YouTube video or Short against the channel's own curve at the same publication age and decide whether to wait, investigate, or change packaging. Use when a creator says 'I just uploaded', 'my new video is not getting views or impressions', 'is my latest video flopping', 'my Shorts are getting 0 views', or 'should I change the thumbnail or title'.",
"included_files": [
{
"relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
"size_in_bytes": 465
},
{
"relative_path": "references/live-surface-notes.md",
"size_in_bytes": 2014
}
],
"name": "vidiq-new-upload-review",
"skill_md_contents": "---\nname: vidiq-new-upload-review\ndescription: Triage a just-published YouTube video or Short against the channel's own curve at the same publication age and decide whether to wait, investigate, or change packaging. Use when a creator says 'I just uploaded', 'my new video is not getting views or impressions', 'is my latest video flopping', 'my Shorts are getting 0 views', or 'should I change the thumbnail or title'.\n---\n\n# vidIQ New Upload Review\n\nRead [Live surface notes](references/live-surface-notes.md) first, even when using only supplied evidence.\n\nJudge a new upload against the channel's performance at the same publication age. Recommend\nwhether to hold, inspect, or prepare a packaging change; do not change YouTube metadata/settings.\nFor whole-channel trends call `vidiq_channel_audit`; apply an approved change through\n`vidiq-video-metadata`.\n\n## Compare the trajectory\n\n1. Establish video, channel, goal, format, publication time, and current age from supplied context.\n Use a bounded evidence plan.\n2. For “my channel” or private analytics, resolve the authorized target with `vidiq_user_channels`.\n For “my newest upload,” use `vidiq_user_videos` with the owning `channelId`, `order: \"newest\"`,\n and the relevant `privacyStatus` (it includes unlisted and scheduled private videos), or\n `vidiq_channel_videos` with `popular: false` and confirmed `videoFormat: long`, `short`, or\n `live` for a public catalog; then confirm the returned video.\n3. Use `vidiq_get_videos_by_ids` for context, `vidiq_video_stats` for history, and\n `vidiq_channel_performance_trends` for the recent-video post-publication curve.\n Stats requires `granularity`: prefer `hourly` for early launches; use coarser intervals only\n when age/window warrants them. Read `vidiq_video_change_history` before recommending a packaging\n change: a title or thumbnail edited since publication, or a running thumbnail A/B test, changes\n the interpretation.\n4. Compare cumulative `views` at equivalent `minutesSincePublication`. Use returned\n `views.perc30`, median, and `views.perc70`; missing percentiles are unavailable, not replaceable\n by min/max. VPH is not cumulative views. Disclose age mismatch and mixed-format limitations\n of the channel-wide curve. Do not manufacture checkpoints or extrapolate beyond observations.\n\n## Choose the next action\n\n- **Hold:** evidence is sparse, incomparable, or insufficient to justify intervention.\n- **Inspect:** repeated weakness against an age-matched baseline warrants investigation.\n A percentile crossing alone cannot identify packaging as the cause.\n- **Prepare a change:** weakness has corroboration from supported analytics, supplied Studio\n data, or qualitative comments, with competing explanations and confidence stated.\n Without corroboration, keep the decision at hold or inspect.\n\nInspect only decision-relevant evidence within scope: authorized `vidiq_channel_analytics`,\nsupplied Studio CTR/impressions, or `vidiq_video_comments`. Thumbnail CTR/impressions are not in\nthe analytics metric enum; annotation CTR and ad impressions are not substitutes. Comments and\nscores cannot prove low CTR or its cause. Use `vidiq_score_title`/`vidiq_score_thumbnail` only\nwhen useful within the requested diagnosis.\n\nA known factual or formatting error can warrant correction at any age, independently of\nperformance. Choose a reassessment point from the observed channel curve, with no universal\nwaiting period or fixed checkpoint count.\n\n## Deliver\n\nReport publication age, evidence window, observed trajectory/bands and their gaps, and the\ncount/ages of checkpoints used. Give the decision, strongest evidence for and against it,\nconfidence, and next measurement/checkpoint. An unresolved video or channel prevents a trajectory\nclaim; a recommendation does not mean a change was applied.\n"
}SHA-256 of public snapshot: 6f0e761ebca3f5306fa6953b79235946a4f7fbf20f3a8ccc7f3d0aabdaf55f04