> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.creatordb.app/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Skill routing smoke test # CreatorDB Skill Routing Smoke Test Run this after every meaningful edit to any SKILL.md. Each prompt targets a specific behavior. Copy the prompt verbatim into Claude Code (with all seven CreatorDB skills loaded — `creator-search`, `creator-enrichment`, `content-search`, `content-analysis`, `brand-sponsorship`, `account`, `creator-csv-workflow`), then grade the response against the **what to check** list. Pass threshold: at least 12 of 13 should pass cleanly. If fewer than 12 pass, fix the identified skills before deploying. The failures usually point at description-overlap or missing trigger phrases. *** ## Test 1 — Basic routing: structured search **Prompt** > Find me US gaming YouTubers with at least 1M subscribers and high engagement. **Expected skill**: `creator-search` **What a correct response looks like** A short plan, then a worked example using `POST /youtube/search` with three filters (`country = USA`, a YouTube gaming category like `mainCategory = "Gaming"`, and `totalSubscribers > 1000000`), sorted by `avgRecentVideosEngagementRate` descending. Mentions the cost (1 credit per page) and the 100-result page limit. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `creator-search`, not `creator-enrichment` * [ ] Uses the correct endpoint path `/youtube/search` * [ ] Country code is ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 (`USA`, not `US` or `United States`) * [ ] Numeric `value` is wrapped in quotes (`"value": "1000000"`) * [ ] Mentions the 10-filter cap or the 100-result page limit somewhere **Common failure**: Claude offers to call `/nls` instead of structured search. That's not strictly wrong, but for an explicit-criteria prompt structured is the better fit. Sharpen the description if this happens repeatedly. *** ## Test 2 — Basic routing: per-creator enrichment **Prompt** > I have these YouTube channel IDs: UCX6OQ3DkcsbYNE6H8uQQuVA and UCsTcErHg8oDvUnTzoqsYeNw. Pull profile info, audience demographics, and emails for each. **Expected skill**: `creator-enrichment` **What a correct response looks like** A plan calling three endpoints per creator (`/youtube/profile`, `/youtube/audience`, `/youtube/contact`), with credit math: 2 + 10 + 15 = 27 per creator, 54 total. Bonus points if it notes that `/youtube/contact` is the authoritative source for emails (the only endpoint that returns the structured `data.emails` array) and that shortlisting before pulling `/contact` is the cost-saving pattern — not bio-regex scraping. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `creator-enrichment`, not `creator-search` or `creator-csv-workflow` * [ ] Cites the right per-call costs: profile 2, audience 10, contact 15 * [ ] Total credit math is correct (54 credits for 2 creators × 3 endpoints) * [ ] Calls `/youtube/contact` directly for emails — does **not** suggest extracting emails by regexing `/profile.bio` * [ ] Uses `channelId` parameter only — does **not** claim YouTube also accepts `uniqueId` (it doesn't; resolve handles through `/youtube/search` first) **Common failure**: Claude routes to `creator-csv-workflow` because the prompt mentions "each." That's wrong — two creators isn't a CSV workflow. Tighten the "When to use this skill" boundaries if this happens. *** ## Test 3 — Basic routing: brand-side analysis **Prompt** > Estimate Acer's influencer marketing spend on YouTube and Instagram over the last 30 days. **Expected skill**: `brand-sponsorship` **What a correct response looks like** Single call: `GET /sponsor/summary?brandId=acer.com`. Notes that `estimatedTotalSpend30d` is YouTube-only and Instagram returns `null` for spend fields. Cites cost (25 credits). **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `brand-sponsorship` * [ ] Knows `brandId` is the domain (`acer.com`, not "Acer") * [ ] Calls out the YouTube-only spend constraint clearly * [ ] Doesn't try to compute spend by aggregating individual creators (that would burn far more credits and is less accurate) **Common failure**: Claude offers to call `/sponsor/creators` and sum estimated costs. That works in theory but `/sponsor/summary` is the right answer — one call, authoritative numbers, much cheaper. *** ## Test 4 — Basic routing: content-level analysis **Prompt** > Transcribe MrBeast's most recent YouTube video and find any brand mentions in it. **Expected skill**: `content-analysis` **What a correct response looks like** Three-step plan: (1) `/youtube/content-detail` to get `recentVideos[0].contentId`, (2) `/youtube/subtitles/meta?videoId=` to find available tracks, (3) `/youtube/subtitles/download` with the chosen `vssId`. Notes that the download endpoint returns a streamed file, not the standard JSON envelope. Mentions `/youtube/sponsorship` as an alternative for brand verification. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `content-analysis`, not `creator-enrichment` * [ ] Uses `videoId` (11 chars) for subtitle endpoints, not `channelId` (24 chars) * [ ] Prefers `.en` over `a.en` if both available (human captions over auto-generated) * [ ] Notes the file-download response shape on `/subtitles/download` **Common failure**: Claude tries to use `channelId` on the subtitle endpoint, or guesses at a non-existent `/youtube/transcript` endpoint. Both signal that the subtitle section of `content-analysis` didn't load. *** ## Test 5 — Basic routing: account / quota **Prompt** > How many CreatorDB credits do I have left? **Expected skill**: `account` **What a correct response looks like** Single call: `GET /usage`, read `creditsAvailable` from the wrapper. Notes that `-1` means unlimited. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `account` * [ ] Single endpoint call, not multiple * [ ] Mentions the `-1 = unlimited` semantics * [ ] Doesn't conflate `creditsAvailable` (current balance) with `data.records[].totalQuotaUsed` (historical usage) **Common failure**: Claude doesn't route to any skill and answers "I don't have access to your usage data." That means `account` didn't load or its description didn't match the prompt. Check that the skill is in `~/.claude/skills/` and its description includes "credits" and "remaining quota" trigger phrases. *** ## Test 6 — Cross-skill handoff: CSV workflow **Prompt** > I have a CSV of 200 YouTube channels with columns name, url, my\_notes. Enrich it with audience demographics and emails. What would the credit budget be, and what's your plan? **Expected primary skill**: `creator-csv-workflow` **Expected supporting skills loaded**: `creator-enrichment`, `account` **What a correct response looks like** A multi-step plan citing the CSV-workflow's structure: parse + classify identifiers, add `_row_id`, pre-flight `/usage`, enrich with `/profile + /audience` on the full roster and `/contact` only on the shortlisted rows, dedupe + flatten, export. Budget math should offer the user a "full contact" path (\~27 cr/row × 200 = \~5,400 cr) versus a "shortlist-before-contact" path (\~12 cr/row × 200 + 15 cr × shortlist-size) and let them choose. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `creator-csv-workflow` first, then mentions the others * [ ] Includes the `_row_id` discipline * [ ] Budget number is in the right ballpark (4,000–6,000 credits for the full-roster path; lower if shortlisting before `/contact`) * [ ] Mentions **shortlist-before-`/contact`** as the cost-saving pattern — does **not** suggest bio-regex scraping in lieu of `/contact` * [ ] Mentions running `/usage` as a pre-flight (this is the cross-skill handoff to `account`) **Common failure**: Claude tries to do everything from `creator-csv-workflow` alone and never references `creator-enrichment` for the per-endpoint detail. If that happens, the cross-skill links in `creator-csv-workflow`'s "Related skills" section need to be more prominent earlier in the file. *** ## Test 7 — Adversarial: trigger-phrase poison **Prompt** > I want to find creators who have already worked with Nike. What's the best way? **Expected skill**: `brand-sponsorship` (specifically `/sponsor/creators`) **What a correct response looks like** Single call: `GET /sponsor/creators?brandId=nike.com&platform=youtube` (and again for Instagram). Notes there's no TikTok endpoint. Cites cost (25 credits per page). **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `brand-sponsorship`, NOT `creator-search`, despite the prompt starting with "find creators" * [ ] Resolves "Nike" to `nike.com` automatically * [ ] Notes the TikTok gap **Common failure**: Claude routes to `creator-search` because of "find creators." This is the canonical description-overlap test. If it fails, the `creator-search` description needs an explicit "Do not use for finding creators by brand affiliation — use brand-sponsorship instead" line, and `brand-sponsorship` needs "find creators who worked with ``" as an explicit trigger. *** ## Test 8 — Adversarial: vague prompt requiring inference **Prompt** > Show me what MrBeast is up to lately. **Expected skill**: `content-analysis` (`/youtube/content-detail`) — possibly combined with `creator-enrichment` for a profile snapshot **What a correct response looks like** A plan to call `/youtube/content-detail?channelId=UCX6OQ3DkcsbYNE6H8uQQuVA` for recent videos and shorts. Optionally `/youtube/profile` for current subscriber count. Maps "lately" to "recent content" rather than "recent search trends." **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `content-analysis` or a content+profile combination * [ ] Doesn't try to call a non-existent search/news endpoint * [ ] Resolves "MrBeast" to a channelId or handle correctly * [ ] Cites cost (2 credits for content-detail) **Common failure**: Claude asks the user to clarify, when "lately" + named creator unambiguously means "show recent posts." Mild failure — if it asks once and proceeds, that's fine. If it gets stuck asking, the `content-analysis` description should add "what is X up to" as a trigger phrase. *** ## Test 9 — Refusal: out-of-scope request **Prompt** > Transcribe this TikTok video for me: [https://tiktok.com/@charlidamelio/video/1234567890](https://tiktok.com/@charlidamelio/video/1234567890) **Expected behavior**: Decline politely, explain why, suggest alternatives. **What a correct response looks like** Claude should explicitly say subtitles are YouTube-only in CreatorDB API v3, and offer alternatives: pulling caption text from `/tiktok/content-detail`, or using external transcription tools. Should NOT make up a `/tiktok/subtitles` endpoint or attempt the call. **What to check** * [ ] Explicitly identifies the YouTube-only constraint * [ ] Doesn't fabricate a TikTok transcript endpoint * [ ] Suggests `/tiktok/content-detail` as the partial alternative for caption text * [ ] Doesn't refuse without explanation (that signals the gotcha didn't load) **Common failure**: Claude calls `/tiktok/subtitles/meta` (which doesn't exist) and returns a 404. This is a critical fail — it means the YouTube-only constraint in `content-analysis` didn't get into context. Check the file actually has the "Subtitles are YouTube-only" callout in the gotchas section. *** ## Test 10 — Substantive accuracy: gotcha awareness **Prompt** > Compare the engagement rate of this YouTube creator (UCX6OQ3DkcsbYNE6H8uQQuVA) against this Instagram creator (cristiano). **Expected behavior**: Claude warns that engagement formulas differ across platforms before doing the comparison, then either normalizes them or labels both clearly. **What a correct response looks like** A plan to call `/youtube/profile` and `/instagram/profile`, plus an explicit caveat: "Note that YouTube and Instagram compute engagement rate differently — YouTube uses `(likes + comments + views) / subscribers` in some endpoints and `(likes + comments) / subscribers` in others; Instagram uses `(likes + comments) / followers`. Comparing the raw values is misleading. I'll either normalize both to `(likes + comments) / follower-or-subscriber` or label each value with its source formula." **What to check** * [ ] The formula divergence warning appears unprompted * [ ] Claude offers to normalize before comparing * [ ] Mentions at least two of the three formula variants * [ ] Doesn't blindly subtract one rate from the other **Common failure**: Claude does the naive comparison without warning. This is the single highest-value gotcha across all six skills (it appears in three of them) and the test of whether the skill content is actually informing reasoning, not just sitting in context. If this fails, the formula-divergence warning needs to be surfaced higher in the affected skills' bodies, not buried in a "Common gotchas" section. *** ## Test 11 — Basic routing: content-level discovery **Prompt** > Find sponsored YouTube videos with over 1 million views published in the last 30 days. **Expected skill**: `content-search` **What a correct response looks like** A plan calling `POST /youtube/content-search` with content-level filters (`isSponsored = true`, `views > 1000000`, `publishTime < 30`), sorted by `views` descending. Notes that the unit of return is a content item (with a nested `creator` summary), not a creator. Cites the cost (\~25 credits per page) and the 10-filter cap. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `content-search`, NOT `creator-search` (which returns creators) and NOT `content-analysis` (which is per-creator, not cross-creator) * [ ] Uses `/youtube/content-search` (not `/youtube/search` or `/youtube/content-detail`) * [ ] Interprets `publishTime < 30` as **"within the last 30 days"** (relative day count when used as a filter), not as a Unix-millisecond timestamp * [ ] Mentions that `partneredBrands[]` in the response maps directly to `brandId` domains used in `brand-sponsorship` (clean handoff if the user wants brand detail next) **Common failure**: Claude routes to `creator-search` because of "find ... videos" and tries to filter creators by `avgRecentVideosViews > 1000000`. That answers a different question (creators whose *average* video has 1M+ views). Sharpen `creator-search`'s description if this happens — it should explicitly defer to `content-search` for content-level filters. *** ## Test 12 — Adversarial: content-first vs creator-first routing **Prompt** > Show me which Reels using #skincare are getting the most engagement right now. **Expected skill**: `content-search` (specifically `/instagram/content-search` with a hashtag + recency + engagement filter) **What a correct response looks like** Plan: `POST /instagram/content-search` with filters `hashtag = "#skincare"`, `postType = "reel"`, `publishTime < 7` (or similar recent-window), sorted by `engagementRate` descending (or `likes` descending). Returns content items, not creators. Notes that Instagram's response has no `views` field — engagement is computed from likes + comments only. **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `content-search`, NOT `creator-search` * [ ] Picks `/instagram/content-search` based on "Reels" * [ ] Uses `postType = "reel"` (not `"reels"` or `"Reel"`) — exact enum * [ ] Notes the Instagram-has-no-views constraint when discussing engagement * [ ] Sorts on a content-level metric (`likes`, `engagementRate`), not a creator-level metric (`totalFollowers`) **Common failure**: Claude routes to `creator-search` and filters by `niches in [...]` to find skincare creators. That's a creator-first answer to a content-first question — the user gets a list of creators rather than a list of high-performing posts. If this fails repeatedly, the "content-first vs creator-first" rule of thumb in `content-search`'s "When to use" section needs to be repeated in the routing tables of `creator-search` and `content-analysis`. *** ## Test 13 — Substantive accuracy: brand submission write path **Prompt** > Notion isn't showing up in any of your brand searches but they sponsor a lot of YouTube creators. How do I get them indexed? **Expected skill**: `brand-sponsorship` (specifically `POST /sponsor/submit`) **What a correct response looks like** A plan calling `POST /sponsor/submit` with `brandName: "Notion"` and `brandUrl: "https://www.notion.so"` (with the protocol). Notes that: * The response `status` will be `accepted` (1 cr), `done` if already indexed (0 cr, with `existingBrandId` returned), or `rejected` (0 cr) * `accepted` does **not** mean the brand is immediately queryable — it queues the record for review * Daily cap is **100 submissions per API key**, resetting at 00:00 UTC * The API has no "check submission status" endpoint, so the returned `submissionId` is the only audit handle **What to check** * [ ] Routes to `brand-sponsorship`, lands on `/sponsor/submit` (not `/sponsor/search`) * [ ] Includes the `http://` or `https://` protocol in `brandUrl` (bare `notion.so` is rejected by the API) * [ ] Explains all three `status` outcomes and their credit costs * [ ] Mentions the 100/day cap and the no-status-check limitation * [ ] Does NOT promise the brand will be immediately available in `/sponsor/search` results after submission **Common failure**: Claude treats `/sponsor/submit` as a synchronous "add brand" endpoint and tells the user they can query the brand immediately. That's wrong — submissions are reviewed before indexing. If this fails, the "accepted does not mean queryable" callout in `brand-sponsorship`'s submit section needs to be more prominent. *** ## Scoring | Result | Action | | ------- | ------------------------------------------------ | | 13/13 | Ship it | | 12/13 | Ship it; note the failure for next iteration | | 9–11/13 | Fix the specific failures before deploying | | ≤8/13 | Pause; the routing layer needs structural rework | The most diagnostic failures are tests **7** (trigger-phrase poison: creator-search vs brand-sponsorship), **10** (gotcha awareness: engagement-formula divergence), and **12** (content-first vs creator-first: creator-search vs content-search). Failure on any of these signals a class of problem that touches multiple skills, not just one. Fix those first. ## Re-running after edits After fixing any failures and redeploying: ```bash theme={null} # Re-pull skills from the live deployment to confirm Claude Code sees the fix for skill in creator-search creator-enrichment content-search content-analysis brand-sponsorship account creator-csv-workflow; do curl -s "https://docs.creatordb.app/.well-known/agent-skills/$skill/SKILL.md" \ -o ~/.claude/skills/$skill/SKILL.md done ``` Then start a fresh Claude Code session (skills are loaded at session start) and re-run the failing tests.