| name | fit-scorer |
| description | Evaluates and scores influencer-brand alignment using weighted criteria including audience match, content quality, brand values, engagement authenticity, and partnership potential. Essential for prioritizing outreach. |
Fit Scorer
This skill helps you objectively evaluate how well an influencer matches your brand by scoring them across multiple dimensions. It transforms subjective "gut feel" into data-driven partnership decisions.
When to Use This Skill
- Prioritizing influencers from a discovery list
- Deciding between multiple candidates for a campaign
- Justifying influencer selection to stakeholders
- Creating consistent evaluation standards
- Comparing influencers across different niches or platforms
- Building long-term partner tiers
What This Skill Does
- Multi-Dimensional Scoring: Evaluates across audience, content, brand, engagement
- Weighted Analysis: Applies custom weights based on campaign priorities
- Authenticity Check: Assesses follower quality and engagement authenticity
- Risk Assessment: Identifies potential brand safety concerns
- Comparative Ranking: Ranks multiple influencers against each other
- ROI Prediction: Estimates potential performance and value
How to Use
Score a Single Influencer
Score @[handle] for [brand/campaign] and tell me if they're a good fit
Compare Multiple Influencers
Compare and rank these influencers for [campaign]:
- @influencer1
- @influencer2
- @influencer3
Custom Criteria
Score these influencers with emphasis on [engagement/audience match/content quality]:
[list of influencers]
Instructions
When a user requests influencer scoring:
-
Define Scoring Framework
### Scoring Framework
**Brand/Campaign**: [name]
**Campaign Goal**: [awareness/consideration/conversion]
**Target Audience**: [description]
### Scoring Dimensions
| Dimension | Weight | Description |
|-----------|--------|-------------|
| Audience Match | [%] | How well their audience matches target |
| Content Quality | [%] | Production value and consistency |
| Brand Alignment | [%] | Values, aesthetic, messaging fit |
| Engagement Quality | [%] | Authenticity and depth of engagement |
| Partnership Potential | [%] | Professionalism, history, availability |
| **Total** | **100%** | |
**Scoring Scale**: 1-5 (1=Poor, 2=Below Average, 3=Average, 4=Good, 5=Excellent)
-
Score Audience Match
## Audience Match Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Target vs. Actual Comparison
| Attribute | Target | Influencer's Audience | Match |
|-----------|--------|----------------------|-------|
| Age | [target] | [actual] | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Gender | [target] | [actual] | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Location | [target] | [actual] | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Interests | [target] | [actual] | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
| Income/Purchasing | [target] | [actual] | ✅/⚠️/❌ |
### Audience Quality Assessment
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|--------|-------|------------|
| Real follower % | [%] | [Good/Concerning] |
| Active follower % | [%] | [Good/Concerning] |
| Bot/spam % | [%] | [Good/Concerning] |
| Audience growth | [trend] | [Organic/Suspicious] |
### Audience Match Score: [X/5]
**Justification**: [explanation]
**Weighted Score**: [X] × [weight%] = [weighted points]
-
Score Content Quality
## Content Quality Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Production Quality
| Factor | Rating | Notes |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Visual quality | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Audio quality (if video) | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Editing skill | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Creativity | [1-5] | [notes] |
| Consistency | [1-5] | [notes] |
### Content Analysis
**Posting Frequency**: [X posts/week]
**Content Mix**: [types and %]
**Caption Quality**: [assessment]
**Hashtag Strategy**: [assessment]
### Best Content Examples
1. **[Content 1]**: [why it's good]
2. **[Content 2]**: [why it's good]
### Content Concerns
- [Concern 1 if any]
- [Concern 2 if any]
### Content Quality Score: [X/5]
**Justification**: [explanation]
**Weighted Score**: [X] × [weight%] = [weighted points]
-
Score Brand Alignment
## Brand Alignment Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Value Alignment
| Brand Value | Influencer Alignment | Evidence |
|-------------|---------------------|----------|
| [Value 1] | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [example from content] |
| [Value 2] | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [example from content] |
| [Value 3] | ✅/⚠️/❌ | [example from content] |
### Aesthetic Alignment
| Element | Brand Style | Influencer Style | Match |
|---------|-------------|------------------|-------|
| Colors | [brand] | [influencer] | [%] |
| Tone | [brand] | [influencer] | [%] |
| Visual style | [brand] | [influencer] | [%] |
### Messaging Fit
- **Voice compatibility**: [assessment]
- **Topic relevance**: [assessment]
- **Audience overlap**: [assessment]
### Brand Safety Check
| Risk Category | Assessment | Notes |
|---------------|------------|-------|
| Political content | [Low/Medium/High] | [notes] |
| Controversial opinions | [Low/Medium/High] | [notes] |
| Competitor mentions | [Low/Medium/High] | [notes] |
| Adult content | [Low/Medium/High] | [notes] |
| Legal/regulatory | [Low/Medium/High] | [notes] |
**Overall Brand Safety**: [Safe/Proceed with caution/Risk]
### Brand Alignment Score: [X/5]
**Justification**: [explanation]
**Weighted Score**: [X] × [weight%] = [weighted points]
-
Score Engagement Quality
## Engagement Quality Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Engagement Metrics
| Platform | Followers | Eng. Rate | Industry Avg | vs. Avg |
|----------|-----------|-----------|--------------|---------|
| [Platform 1] | [count] | [%] | [%] | [+/-] |
| [Platform 2] | [count] | [%] | [%] | [+/-] |
### Engagement Authenticity
| Indicator | Assessment | Evidence |
|-----------|------------|----------|
| Comment quality | [1-5] | [sample comments] |
| Comment diversity | [1-5] | [unique commenters] |
| Like/comment ratio | [ratio] | [normal/abnormal] |
| Engagement timing | [pattern] | [organic/suspicious] |
| Follower engagement % | [%] | [good/poor] |
### Engagement Pods/Buying Signs
- [ ] Sudden follower spikes
- [ ] Engagement from unrelated accounts
- [ ] Generic/emoji-only comments
- [ ] Inconsistent engagement patterns
- [ ] Follower/following ratio red flags
**Authenticity Assessment**: [Authentic/Some concerns/Suspicious]
### Response & Interaction
- **Responds to comments**: [Yes/Sometimes/Rarely]
- **Community building**: [Strong/Average/Weak]
- **Two-way engagement**: [assessment]
### Engagement Quality Score: [X/5]
**Justification**: [explanation]
**Weighted Score**: [X] × [weight%] = [weighted points]
-
Score Partnership Potential
## Partnership Potential Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Partnership History
| Brand | Recency | Content Quality | Disclosure | Notes |
|-------|---------|-----------------|------------|-------|
| [Brand 1] | [date] | [rating] | [✅/❌] | [notes] |
| [Brand 2] | [date] | [rating] | [✅/❌] | [notes] |
**Observations**:
- Partnership frequency: [X per month]
- Brand category mix: [categories]
- Competitor partnerships: [details]
### Professionalism Indicators
| Factor | Assessment | Evidence |
|--------|------------|----------|
| Contact availability | [Easy/Moderate/Difficult] | [contact info] |
| Response reputation | [Responsive/Mixed/Unresponsive] | [if known] |
| Content delivery | [On time/Variable/Problematic] | [if known] |
| Creative quality in ads | [Strong/Average/Weak] | [examples] |
| Disclosure compliance | [Always/Usually/Sometimes] | [examples] |
### Exclusivity & Availability
- **Category exclusivity**: [Yes/No - details]
- **Competitor restrictions**: [details]
- **Upcoming availability**: [if known]
### Estimated Value
| Metric | Estimate | Notes |
|--------|----------|-------|
| Estimated rate | [range] | Based on [followers/engagement] |
| CPM estimate | [$X] | Industry average: [$X] |
| Value assessment | [Good/Fair/Premium] | |
### Partnership Potential Score: [X/5]
**Justification**: [explanation]
**Weighted Score**: [X] × [weight%] = [weighted points]
-
Calculate Final Score
## Final Fit Score
**Influencer**: @[handle]
### Score Summary
| Dimension | Raw Score | Weight | Weighted Score |
|-----------|-----------|--------|----------------|
| Audience Match | [X/5] | [%] | [points] |
| Content Quality | [X/5] | [%] | [points] |
| Brand Alignment | [X/5] | [%] | [points] |
| Engagement Quality | [X/5] | [%] | [points] |
| Partnership Potential | [X/5] | [%] | [points] |
| **Total** | | **100%** | **[X/5.00]** |
### Score Interpretation
| Score Range | Rating | Recommendation |
|-------------|--------|----------------|
| 4.5-5.0 | Excellent | Priority partner |
| 4.0-4.4 | Very Good | Strong candidate |
| 3.5-3.9 | Good | Worth pursuing |
| 3.0-3.4 | Average | Consider with caveats |
| 2.5-2.9 | Below Average | Proceed with caution |
| <2.5 | Poor | Not recommended |
### Final Rating: [X/5] - [Rating]
### Recommendation
**Verdict**: [Highly Recommended / Recommended / Consider / Pass]
**Key Strengths**:
1. [Strength 1]
2. [Strength 2]
3. [Strength 3]
**Key Concerns**:
1. [Concern 1]
2. [Concern 2]
**Best Use Case**: [what type of campaign/content]
**Expected Performance**:
- Estimated reach: [X]
- Estimated engagement: [X]
- Cost estimate: [$X]
- Projected CPE: [$X]
-
For Multiple Influencers - Comparison
# Influencer Comparison Report
**Campaign**: [name]
**Date**: [date]
**Influencers Evaluated**: [count]
## Ranking Summary
| Rank | Influencer | Platform | Followers | Final Score | Rating |
|------|------------|----------|-----------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | @[handle] | [platform] | [count] | [X/5] | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| 2 | @[handle] | [platform] | [count] | [X/5] | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
| 3 | @[handle] | [platform] | [count] | [X/5] | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ |
## Detailed Comparison
| Dimension | @[handle1] | @[handle2] | @[handle3] |
|-----------|------------|------------|------------|
| Audience Match | [X/5] | [X/5] | [X/5] |
| Content Quality | [X/5] | [X/5] | [X/5] |
| Brand Alignment | [X/5] | [X/5] | [X/5] |
| Engagement Quality | [X/5] | [X/5] | [X/5] |
| Partnership Potential | [X/5] | [X/5] | [X/5] |
| **Final Score** | **[X/5]** | **[X/5]** | **[X/5]** |
## Visual Comparison
Audience Match |████████░░| |██████░░░░| |████████░░|
Content Quality |██████░░░░| |████████░░| |██████░░░░|
Brand Alignment |████████░░| |██████░░░░| |████████░░|
Engagement |██████░░░░| |████████░░| |████████░░|
Partnership |████████░░| |██████░░░░| |██████░░░░|
@handle1 @handle2 @handle3
## Recommendation
**For this campaign, prioritize**:
1. **@[handle]** - [reason]
2. **@[handle]** - [reason]
**Consider combining**:
- [Influencer A] for [purpose] + [Influencer B] for [purpose]
**Pass on**:
- @[handle]: [reason]
Example
User: "Compare these 3 influencers for our sustainable fashion brand: @ecofashionista, @greenwardrobe, @sustainablesarah"
Output: [Detailed comparison with scores, leading to clear recommendations with @sustainablesarah ranked #1 due to highest audience match and engagement authenticity]
Custom Weighting
Adjust weights based on campaign goals:
| Campaign Goal | Audience | Content | Brand | Engagement | Partnership |
|---|
| Awareness | 30% | 25% | 15% | 20% | 10% |
| Engagement | 20% | 20% | 15% | 35% | 10% |
| Conversion | 35% | 15% | 20% | 20% | 10% |
| Brand Building | 20% | 25% | 30% | 15% | 10% |
| Long-term | 25% | 20% | 25% | 15% | 15% |
Tips for Success
- Be consistent - Use same criteria for all influencers
- Gather data - More data = more accurate scores
- Consider context - Scores are relative to campaign needs
- Update regularly - Influencer quality changes over time
- Trust but verify - Spot-check high scores before outreach
Related Skills
