SYSTEM · ONLINE// CREATOR_VETTINGBUILD · 2.5.β--:--:-- UTC

// CREATOR_VETTING

Vetting UGC creators before outreach

Most agencies vet creators by scrolling their feed for 90 seconds, screenshotting two posts, and going with their gut. That's expensive — a bad creator hire burns budget, time, and the creative slot. The vetting workbenches replace gut with quantified signal in three minutes per creator.

The pipeline

  1. Source candidate handles (TikTok search, Aspire, Whalar, agency roster).
  2. Run each through /draft/creator-scorecardwith your brief.
  3. Filter to score ≥ 70 (consider) or ≥ 80 (hire).
  4. Generate outbound briefs at /draft/creator-brief — one per finalist, each tilted to their strengths.
  5. Send.

What the scorecard sees

The scorecard takes a creator handle, your brief, and 3–15 of their recent TikTok URLs. It runs Quick Bench on each post in parallel, then aggregates. Output:

  • Fit score (0–100) — composite of style alignment with the brief.
  • Recommendation— hire (≥80), consider (60–79), pass (<60).
  • Signature — their dominant hook patterns + tone observations across the batch.
  • Strengths for this brief — specific moves they make that align with what you want.
  • Gaps— where their style doesn't match what the brief asks for. Don't paper over these in outreach.
  • Top 3 most relevant posts — links + relevance notes. These are the screenshots you would otherwise have taken manually.

Reading the score

  • ≥80 (hire) — strong alignment. Their existing style already shoots what you need. Lowest brief-effort path.
  • 60–79 (consider)— they have the chops but not the angle. Need a tighter brief that spells out the gaps. Often these become your best long-term partners because they're flexible.
  • <60 (pass)— wrong voice or wrong format for this campaign. Don't try to reshape them via brief — find a different creator. (They might be perfect for a different campaign later.)

When to use the swipe file instead

The swipe file at /draft/swipe-file is the same parallel-Quick-Bench foundation, but the output is different. Use it when:

  • You're analyzing a competitor's feed, not vetting a potential hire.
  • You want pattern aggregation (top hooks, recurring themes, what works) instead of fit scoring.
  • You don't have a brief yet — you're doing market research to write one.

Both surfaces consume from the team's 1000/day analyze quota — each URL counts as one unit.

Brief template library

When the scorecard says "hire," head to /draft/creator-brief to generate the outbound DM. The template picker at the top of the workbench loads saved templates with one click — handy when you run multiple concurrent campaigns with the same structure but slightly different products.

Save successful templates after each successful run. Six campaigns in, you have a fully indexed brief library.

The cost math

A typical scorecard run with 10 URLs: 10 analyze units + ~30 seconds of wall time. The team's 1000/day Agency analyze quota covers 100 such vettings per day shared across the team. Each successful hire costs ~$0.02 in analyzer credits. The bad hire it prevents costs at minimum the production fee and at maximum a campaign timeline.

// PUT_IT_TO_WORK

Run one of your own ads through the rubric and see the scores against everything you just read.

ANALYZE_AD →