pipixia-labs/creative-claw/creative-qc

Creative QC

Use this skill to review creative work before handoff, generation, or publishing.

Trigger Cues

• "review this storyboard"
• "sanity-check these prompts"
• "is this ready to generate"
• "spot issues before we publish"
• "quality-check this creative pack"

Best For

• storyboard review
• prompt pack review
• script cleanup
• checking generated assets against plan
• catching mismatch before spending more generation budget

When To Use

• The user wants review, risk detection, or final sanity-checking.
• There is already a concrete artifact to inspect.
• You need to compare plan vs execution, or prompt vs output.

When Not To Use

• The user wants first-pass ideation or prompt creation, not review.
• There is no concrete artifact yet.
• The user already asked for direct rewriting instead of review-first feedback.

Workflow

1. Identify the artifact type:

• brief
• storyboard
• prompt pack
• generated images
• generated videos

1. Run structural checks:

• language consistency
• count alignment
• one-to-one mapping between scenes and prompts
• hook strength and opening variety
• CTA presence when the content is promotional
• platform fit such as 9:16, 16:9, short-form pacing, or still-image use

1. Run creative checks:

• visual coherence
• tone consistency
• prompt specificity
• repeated or generic phrasing

1. If real assets are provided, compare them against the plan:

• ImageUnderstandingAgent for images
• VideoUnderstandingExpert for videos

1. Return prioritized issues and concrete fixes.
2. Only rewrite automatically if the user asks for direct revision. Otherwise review first.

Severity Rules

• pass: no material blockers, only optional polish
• revise: usable direction but there are issues that should be fixed before generation or handoff
• block: high-risk mismatch, missing inputs, or structural failure that should stop the next step

Handoff Examples

If a prompt pack needs source comparison first:

{"input_path":"inbox/reference.png","mode":"prompt"}

If a generated video needs intent comparison:

{"input_path":"inbox/output.mp4","mode":"shot_breakdown"}

If the QC result says the script itself should be revised:

{"input_text":"<script to revise>","mode":"rewrite","constraints":"fix repetition and keep the original meaning"}

Output Contract

Return a QC summary like this:

{
  "status": "pass",
  "critical_issues": [],
  "major_issues": [],
  "minor_issues": [],
  "fix_plan": [
    "..."
  ],
  "residual_risks": [
    "..."
  ]
}

Guardrails

• Distinguish objective mismatch from subjective taste.
• Review first; do not silently rewrite the user's material unless asked.
• If there are no issues, say what you checked so the pass result is meaningful.
• When reviewing prompts, keep model compatibility in mind: concise, unambiguous, and medium-appropriate prompts usually beat overloaded prompts.
• Prioritize findings that would waste generation budget, break platform fit, or create scene-to-prompt mismatch.