Orphex RSA Ad Copy & Asset Review
An asset-by-asset RSA review with directional performance evidence, approved-claim sourcing, pinning risk, and clearly labeled copy-test proposals.
When to use
Review supplied responsive Search ad assets for keep, replace, pin, and copy-test proposals grounded in query, offer, and asset evidence.
Requirements
- RSA asset export with asset IDs, text, type, pin/status, and date range
- Ad-level totals and named conversion definition
- Approved product claims, offers, brand voice, and legal wording for copy drafts
The method
Collect the ad and business context
Request campaign/ad-group/ad identifiers, final URL, date range and timezone, currency, conversion action/window, business objective, and approved claims, offers, legal wording, voice, and prohibited language. For each asset, capture ID/text/type, enabled state, pin position, source/“added by” if present, impressions, clicks, cost, conversions/value, and the ad-level totals for the same scope. Include query themes or search terms and landing-page content where available. If only an asset report is supplied, do not infer unprovided campaign goals, approvals, or legal claims.
View SKILL.md
Orphex RSA Ad Copy & Asset Review
Use this skill to review responsive search ad (RSA) headlines, descriptions, pins, and reported asset performance, or to draft new copy from approved evidence. Work from supplied exports, ads, landing pages, and brand or legal guidance. An authorized read-only source is optional. Produce reviewable recommendations, never publish or edit an ad.
Collect the ad and business context
Request campaign/ad-group/ad identifiers, final URL, date range and timezone, currency, conversion action/window, business objective, and approved claims, offers, legal wording, voice, and prohibited language. For each asset, capture ID/text/type, enabled state, pin position, source/“added by” if present, impressions, clicks, cost, conversions/value, and the ad-level totals for the same scope. Include query themes or search terms and landing-page content where available. If only an asset report is supplied, do not infer unprovided campaign goals, approvals, or legal claims.
Use aligned date ranges and comparable asset types. Google reports full performance statistics for RSA assets for dates on or after June 5, 2025; earlier data may use different reporting. The former Performance label is deprecated. Check the current report columns and pinning semantics before interpreting an unfamiliar export. See Google's RSA asset report guide and RSA guide.
Interpret asset rows as directional evidence
RSA combinations vary. Asset-level impressions, clicks, cost, conversions, and value can be attributed per asset instance in a combination; totals across assets are not additive and ratios such as CTR, CPA, or ROAS are directional, not isolated causal effects. Compare an asset's served volume and outcome pattern with other assets of the same type in the same ad, while using ad-level totals for the overall result. A low-volume or never-served asset is “insufficient evidence,” not a loser. Ratings or Ad Strength can guide diversity and relevance checks; they do not prove that an asset caused a performance change.
Look for message themes supported by actual query intent, approved product facts, offer terms, landing-page language, and ad-level outcomes. Describe keep, replace, pin, unpin, or test as proposals. Pin only when a stated placement or legal requirement justifies reduced flexibility; verify current position guarantees and character/format rules in Google Ads before preparing publish-ready copy. Never invent discounts, guarantees, availability, performance claims, product features, or legal assurances. When source facts conflict, flag the conflict and withhold copy that depends on it.
Draft a low-risk review
For each proposed action, state the asset ID and exact current text, evidence window and volume, status/pin, observed query or approved message theme, proposal, reason, expected uncertainty, and next review. For replacement copy, give the proposed text with the source fact that supports each claim, plus any remaining approval needed. Do not promise a lift or call the comparison a causal test. If the account has no control group or randomized experiment, recommend a measured test using ad-level outcomes and enough time for conversion lag rather than attributing changes to one asset.
Report conversion counts and values with their definitions; do not compare metrics across unlike attribution windows, currencies, or goals. If a denominator is zero or missing, mark the ratio unavailable. Note whether the report excludes paused or privacy-limited rows, and distinguish “not shown” from “underperformed.”
Output and authorization
Lead with the review scope and data limits. Use a table with ad/ad-group; asset ID/type/text; pin/status; impressions/clicks/cost/conversions/value; source evidence; decision (keep, replace, pin, unpin, test, or hold); draft or change rationale; claim source; risk; confidence; and approver. Include a short set of coherent message themes rather than a pile of disconnected variants.
Fictional example: a 28-day USD RSA export shows headline H-17 “Same-day pickup” with 14,000 asset impressions, while the ad's landing page says pickup is available only in two cities. Keep only for a verified matching campaign or revise the draft to name those cities; do not call H-17 a conversion winner from asset rows alone. The ad-level total remains the outcome reference.
Any ad or asset mutation requires explicit user authorization naming the account, campaign/ad, exact text or pin changes, and timing. The presence of copy in an export or an installed skill grants no permission.
Source:View on GitHub Open SKILL.md