rsc-universal 0.1.1

package/skills/youtube-ideation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,234 @@
+---
+name: youtube-ideation
+description: "Use when deciding which videos a YouTube channel should make next and tracking whether each bet beat baseline — generates, scores, and prioritizes candidate ideas from the channel's own performance log plus outlier/search-trend research, then records each promoted idea as a dated hypothesis with its measured outcome. Use when asked to rank the next 5 videos, score a batch of ideas down to what's worth producing, find 3x+ outliers and content gaps in a niche, or validate demand before committing a week of editing. Triggers: 'what should my next videos be', 'score these ideas and tell me which to make', 'find content gaps and outliers in my niche', 'my last video flopped, log it and adjust what we pick next', 'which of our past bets actually beat baseline and what's the pattern', 'qué vídeo grabo ahora', 'dame ideas priorizadas para mi canal', 'valida esta idea antes de grabar', 'registra que este vídeo funcionó'. NOT writing the title/thumbnail-text for a chosen idea (that is youtube-packaging)."
+tags: [youtube, video-ideas, ideation, idea-validation, outlier-analysis, content-strategy, hypothesis-tracking, learning-loop, niche-research, prioritization]
+recommends: [youtube-strategy, youtube-packaging, youtube-thumbnails, youtube-api, competitor-watch, market-research]
+origin: risco
+---
+
+# youtube-ideation
+
+You decide **what to make next, and you learn from whether it worked**. You own the
+funnel from "what should the next 5 videos be" down to a ranked, scored shortlist where
+every survivor carries an explicit bet — "this will beat our baseline because X" — that
+the *next* run can audit. You are bets plus a scoreboard, not a brainstorm.
+
+This is not the place to write the title or thumbnail of a chosen idea, design the image,
+set the channel's positioning, or pull raw analytics. Three hard stops so you don't drift
+into a neighbour's job:
+
+- You do **not** word the title / thumbnail-text / description of a chosen idea — that is
+  `../youtube-packaging/SKILL.md`. You pick *which* idea; packaging picks *how it's worded*.
+- You do **not** design or critique the thumbnail image — that is `../youtube-thumbnails/SKILL.md`.
+- You do **not** set durable positioning, format mix, niche, or cadence — that is
+  `../youtube-strategy/SKILL.md`. Strategy is doctrine; you operate inside it.
+
+You also do **not** call the Analytics/Data API for raw views/CTR/retention — that is
+`../youtube-api/SKILL.md`. You *read* the performance log it produces. And you *mine*
+competitors for outliers as one-time input; running a standing watch on a named rival is
+`../competitor-watch/SKILL.md`.
+
+## What you produce
+
+Two coupled Markdown artifacts, both written to `02-DOCS/` so the next run sees them:
+
+1. **An idea ledger** — candidate ideas scored on a fixed rubric, ranked, with the top
+   picks promoted to `produce`, each tagged with its demand evidence (outlier links,
+   search signal) and a one-line hypothesis.
+2. **An append-only hypothesis/outcome log** — idea → predicted outlier multiple → actual
+   result (views vs baseline, CTR, retention) → verdict (validated / killed / inconclusive)
+   → the lesson that updates the next scoring pass.
+
+The single governing rule, said once and loudly:
+
+> **Every promoted idea carries a dated hypothesis with a predicted outlier multiple that
+> you WILL grade after publish.** An idea without a falsifiable bet does not get promoted.
+
+*Why:* "more ideas" never grew a channel; better, audited *decisions* do. The deliverable
+is decisions and a scoreboard — not scripts (`../video-shorts/SKILL.md`) and not images.
+
+Exact templates for both artifacts: `references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`.
+
+## Read the log first — you cannot score what you can't measure
+
+Before you generate a single idea, load the channel performance history from `02-DOCS/`
+and compute each past video's **outlier multiple = views ÷ the channel's average views**.
+
+```text
+outlier_multiple = video_views / channel_average_views
+# 50,000 views on a channel averaging 6,250  -> 8.0x  (a real hit)
+# 500,000 views on a channel averaging 1,800,000 -> 0.3x  (a miss, despite the big number)
+```
+
+The multiple normalizes across channel size, so it is the only fair way to compare a small
+channel's win to a large one's — *why* you score "outlier signal" on the multiple, never on
+raw views.
+
+Decision at the top of every run:
+
+| Found in `02-DOCS/`? | Do this |
+| --- | --- |
+| A performance log with views per video | Use it. Compute the channel average → that is your **baseline**. |
+| Nothing | Bootstrap: compute the average from whatever videos you can get, write `baseline = N views (from M videos, YYYY-MM-DD)` to `02-DOCS/`, and say so out loud. |
+
+You cannot grade a hypothesis "vs baseline" if there is no baseline. The raw numbers are
+populated by `../youtube-api/SKILL.md` — you read them, you do not pull them.
+
+## Generate research-led, not blind
+
+The 2026 workflow that actually works is research-led, not brainstorm-led. Run these six
+steps in order — do not skip to step 6:
+
+1. Analyze the successful channels in the niche.
+2. Find their **outlier videos** (high multiple, not high raw views).
+3. Study the title + thumbnail patterns those outliers share.
+4. Identify the **content gaps** — what the outliers prove demand for but nobody owns well.
+5. Check audience + trend signals (next section).
+6. Generate **original variations** — your angle, not a copy.
+
+Two non-negotiable rules from the data:
+
+- **3x or better is a real signal; 2x is likely noise.** *Why:* a 2x sits inside normal
+  channel variance, so betting on it is betting on luck.
+- **Find 5–10 outliers and extract the shared trait.** *Why:* one outlier is an anecdote;
+  a pattern across many is a signal you can name and reproduce.
+
+```text
+Bad:  "Make a video about X because it's trending right now."
+Good: "Make OUR angle on X: 6 niche outliers (3.4x–7.1x) all open on the same stakes
+       in the first 8 seconds, and we hold first-hand proof none of them have."
+```
+
+Outlier math worked end to end, plus the expanded pipeline: `references/research-and-signals.md`.
+
+## Score on the rubric — a fixed scorecard beats vibes
+
+Score every surviving idea 1–5 on seven dimensions, sum to a total out of 35.
+
+| # | Dimension | 1 | 5 |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 1 | Audience fit | off-niche | dead center for our core viewer |
+| 2 | Proven demand | no signal | strong search/trend evidence on the row |
+| 3 | Outlier signal | no outliers found | 5+ niche outliers at 3x+ share the trait |
+| 4 | Packaging potential | hard to title/thumbnail | obvious strong title + thumbnail exist |
+| 5 | Retention potential | thin payoff | a hook + payoff that holds to the end |
+| 6 | Originality | a copy of an outlier | a genuinely new angle / unique proof |
+| 7 | Monetization fit | off-brand for sponsors | natural fit for our revenue |
+
+Verdict bands (out of 35):
+
+- **30–35 → produce.** Promote it (and it must carry a hypothesis — see below).
+- **24–29 → improve the angle first**, then rescore.
+- **18–23 → gray middle**: re-angle or shelve; do not produce as-is.
+- **under 18 → abandon.** Say why in one line so the next run doesn't re-raise it.
+
+Worked example — two ideas, same niche:
+
+| Idea | Fit | Demand | Outlier | Pkg | Ret | Orig | Money | Total | Verdict |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| "I rebuilt X the way the pros do" | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | **31** | produce |
+| "My honest thoughts on X this year" | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | **19** | re-angle (gray) |
+
+*Why a fixed rubric:* it makes "no" defensible and makes every hypothesis comparable across
+runs — without it, last month's score and this month's score mean nothing to each other.
+
+## Validate demand before committing a week of editing
+
+Three fast pre-tests before any idea earns `produce`:
+
+1. Can you state the idea in **one sentence**? If not, it isn't ready.
+2. Does it serve the **core audience AND** have reach to **new** viewers? Need both.
+3. Does **search/trend demand** exist for the topic? Prove it, don't assume it.
+
+Where to get the signal:
+
+| Free (use first) | Paid (for real volume numbers) |
+| --- | --- |
+| YouTube Studio **Trends** tab — top searches for *your* audience + saved topics, last 28 days | OutlierKit, Keywords Everywhere |
+| Google Trends (direction, seasonality) | vidIQ (volume + trending, ~50 Daily Ideas/day) |
+| YouTube **autocomplete** (real query phrasings) | TubeBuddy (weights score vs *your* channel authority), Semrush |
+
+Hard rule: **record the evidence on the idea's ledger row** — the outlier links and the
+search number. An unsupported `proven demand: 5` is vibes laundered as rigor and is not
+allowed. (TubeBuddy and vidIQ also do title/thumbnail A/B testing — that is a *packaging*
+job; route it to `../youtube-packaging/SKILL.md`.) Source table: `references/research-and-signals.md`.
+
+## Write the hypothesis, then promote
+
+Every `produce`-tier idea gets a bet in this exact shape:
+
+```text
+idea → predicted outlier multiple → why (the mechanism) → judge-by metric (vs baseline) → date
+```
+
+```text
+Bad:  "This one should do well."
+Good: "Predict 2.5x baseline. Bet: the contrarian title + we own first-hand proof no
+       outlier has. Judge by 28-day views vs trailing-10 average AND CTR vs channel
+       median. 2026-06-02."
+```
+
+Promote the **top 3–5** by score (default). Each promoted row moves into the
+hypothesis/outcome log as a `pending` bet, dated. Template:
+`references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`.
+
+## Close the loop — the part most creators skip
+
+This is why the skill exists. After the video publishes, **append** an outcome row to the
+log:
+
+- actual outlier multiple, CTR, retention vs baseline;
+- **verdict**: `validated` / `killed` / `inconclusive`;
+- the **lesson** that adjusts the next scoring pass.
+
+| Verdict | What it means | What it changes next run |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| validated | beat the predicted multiple | double down on the shared trait that worked |
+| killed | missed baseline clearly | demote that dimension's weight for similar ideas |
+| inconclusive | too small a sample / confounded | note the confound, re-run, don't conclude |
+
+Hard rules: the log is **append-only and dated**. **Never overwrite a past bet** — the
+entire value is the audit trail of what you predicted versus what happened. A log you can
+rewrite teaches you nothing.
+
+## 2026 context that weights the bet
+
+- **Shorts-first storytelling is the dominant discovery force.** Weight format reach when
+  scoring — a Shorts-shaped idea tests messaging cheaply and fast.
+- **YouTube is rolling out AI-content disclosure labels** (voluntary or auto-applied). If an
+  idea leans on AI-generated media, **flag it on the row** — the label can dampen reach.
+
+Both are inputs to *this* bet, not a durable format-mix decision; that durable call belongs
+to `../youtube-strategy/SKILL.md`. Dated notes: `references/research-and-signals.md`.
+
+## Anti-patterns
+
+| Bad | Why it costs you | Good |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Brainstorm 50 ideas with no channel data | "outlier signal" becomes fiction | read the log + find real outliers first |
+| Promote an idea with no hypothesis | you can't learn from the outcome | every `produce` idea gets a falsifiable bet |
+| Treat one outlier as a trend | anecdote, not signal | require 5–10 outliers sharing a trait |
+| Overwrite the log when a bet fails | destroys the audit trail | append-only, dated, never rewrite |
+| Chase a 2x like it's a hit | inside normal variance — likely noise | use the 3x+ threshold |
+| Score "proven demand: 5" with no evidence | vibes laundered as rigor | attach outlier links + a search number |
+| Write the title/thumbnail here | wrong skill | route to youtube-packaging / youtube-thumbnails |
+| Run ideation as a one-shot | no learning loop | outcomes feed the next scoring pass |
+
+## Verify + references
+
+Lint a produced ledger before you trust it:
+
+```bash
+scripts/verify.sh path/to/idea-ledger.md
+```
+
+It is read-only: it checks every idea is scored on all 7 dimensions with a /35 total that
+matches its verdict band, every `produce` idea carries a hypothesis + numeric predicted
+multiple + judge-by metric, and the outcome log is append-only-shaped (dated rows; each bet
+either `pending` or carrying `actual + verdict + lesson`). An empty/clean target is a skip,
+never a failure.
+
+- Templates + a fully worked example (3 ideas scored, 1 promoted, outcome appended):
+  `references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md`.
+- Outlier math, the 6-step pipeline expanded, the signal-source table, 2026 context:
+  `references/research-and-signals.md`.

package/skills/youtube-ideation/evals/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Evals — youtube-ideation
+
+Read or run `cases.yaml` manually, or via the catalog eval harness. The `should_trigger` /
+`should_not_trigger` prompts confirm the description fires on real "what to make next / did
+it work" asks (including the non-obvious learning-loop ones and the Spanish phrasing) and
+routes near-misses to the correct YouTube sibling — packaging for the title/thumbnail words,
+thumbnails for the image, strategy for durable positioning, youtube-api for raw data,
+video-shorts for the script. The `capability` case is graded by inspecting a generated idea
+ledger + hypothesis/outcome log against its `must_include` rubric: it must compute an outlier
+baseline, ground ideas in named 3x+ outliers (not a blind brainstorm), score all 7
+dimensions to a /35 with the right verdict band, attach a dated hypothesis with a predicted
+multiple and a judge-by metric to every promoted idea, and define the append-only outcome
+log. `scripts/verify.sh <ledger.md>` is the static lint that backs the structural half of
+that rubric; it is read-only and skips cleanly on an empty target.

package/skills/youtube-ideation/evals/cases.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+skill: youtube-ideation
+
+should_trigger:
+  - prompt: "What should my next 5 YouTube videos be? Rank them for my channel."
+    why: Core ask — generate and prioritize a ranked shortlist for this channel.
+  - prompt: "Score these 12 ideas and tell me which ones to actually produce."
+    why: Rubric scoring down to a produce/improve/abandon shortlist is the skill's center.
+  - prompt: "Find content gaps and 3x+ outliers in my niche I could win."
+    why: Outlier/gap research is step 2-4 of the research-led pipeline.
+  - prompt: "My last video flopped — log the result and adjust what we pick next."
+    why: Non-obvious — the back-half learning loop (append outcome, update next scoring) most
+      creators skip; this skill owns it.
+  - prompt: "Which of our past video bets actually beat baseline, and what's the pattern?"
+    why: Non-obvious — reading the append-only hypothesis/outcome log to find validated bets.
+  - prompt: "Qué vídeo grabo ahora? Dame ideas priorizadas y valida la demanda antes de grabar."
+    why: Spanish — full ideation + demand-validation ask before committing to production.
+  - prompt: "Is there real search demand for this topic before I commit a week of editing?"
+    why: Demand pre-test (search/trend signal) gating an idea before production.
+
+should_not_trigger:
+  - prompt: "Write the title and thumbnail text for this video I'm making."
+    route_to: youtube-packaging
+    why: Wording the sell of an already-chosen idea, not picking which idea — packaging's job.
+  - prompt: "Design a high-contrast thumbnail with my face for this video."
+    route_to: youtube-thumbnails
+    why: Image composition/craft, not idea selection.
+  - prompt: "Set my channel's niche, format mix, and upload cadence for the year."
+    route_to: youtube-strategy
+    why: Durable positioning doctrine; ideation operates inside it, it does not set it.
+  - prompt: "Pull my last 30 videos' views, CTR, and retention curves from the API."
+    route_to: youtube-api
+    why: Raw data plumbing; this skill reads the log the API produces, it does not call it.
+  - prompt: "Write the 8-minute script for this explainer video."
+    route_to: video-shorts
+    why: Scripting / edit direction of a chosen video, not deciding which video to make.
+
+capability:
+  - scenario: >
+      Given a small channel performance log (a stated baseline plus a handful of past videos
+      with view counts) and a niche, produce a ranked idea ledger and promote the top picks
+      with hypotheses.
+    must_include:
+      - Computes or uses an outlier baseline (views divided by channel average views).
+      - Generates ideas grounded in named outliers (3x+ examples), not a blind brainstorm.
+      - Requires 5-10 outliers with a shared trait, not a single anecdote.
+      - Scores each idea on all 7 rubric dimensions with a /35 total.
+      - Applies the correct verdict band (>=30 produce, 24-29 improve, 18-23 gray, <18 abandon).
+      - Every promoted idea carries a dated hypothesis with a predicted outlier multiple AND a
+        judge-by metric vs baseline.
+      - Records demand evidence (outlier links + search number) on each scored row.
+      - Defines the append-only hypothesis/outcome log shape to grade the bets later.
+      - Routes title/thumbnail work out to youtube-packaging / youtube-thumbnails.

package/skills/youtube-ideation/references/idea-ledger-and-loop.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# Idea ledger + hypothesis/outcome log — templates and a worked example
+
+Two artifacts, both Markdown, both in `02-DOCS/`. The ledger is rewritten each run (it is
+the current shortlist). The log is **append-only** — it is the audit trail and must never
+be overwritten.
+
+## Artifact 1 — the idea ledger
+
+Header records the baseline so "outlier signal" and every later hypothesis are anchored.
+
+```markdown
+# Idea ledger — <channel> — <YYYY-MM-DD>
+Baseline: <N> avg views (from <M> videos, computed YYYY-MM-DD via youtube-api log)
+
+| # | Idea (one sentence) | Fit | Demand | Outlier | Pkg | Ret | Orig | Money | /35 | Verdict | Evidence | AI-flag |
+|---|---------------------|-----|--------|---------|-----|-----|------|-------|-----|---------|----------|---------|
+```
+
+- Each dimension cell is an integer 1–5.
+- `/35` is the sum; `Verdict` is one of `produce` / `improve` / `gray` / `abandon` and must
+  match the band (30–35 produce, 24–29 improve, 18–23 gray, <18 abandon).
+- `Evidence` carries the outlier links + a search number — never blank for a non-zero demand
+  score.
+- `AI-flag` = `yes` if the idea leans on AI-generated media (disclosure-label risk), else `-`.
+
+## Artifact 2 — the append-only hypothesis/outcome log
+
+```markdown
+# Hypothesis/outcome log — <channel> (APPEND ONLY — never edit a past row)
+
+## <YYYY-MM-DD> — <idea>
+- predicted: <X>x baseline
+- why: <the mechanism — what makes this beat baseline>
+- judge-by: <metric> vs <baseline metric>
+- status: pending
+```
+
+After publish, **append** below the same entry (do not edit the lines above):
+
+```markdown
+### outcome <YYYY-MM-DD>
+- actual: <X>x baseline   (views <V> vs baseline <N>)
+- CTR: <c>% (channel median <m>%)   retention: <r>% (baseline <b>%)
+- verdict: validated | killed | inconclusive
+- lesson: <what this changes in the next scoring pass>
+```
+
+## Fully worked example
+
+### Ledger (run of 2026-06-02)
+
+```markdown
+# Idea ledger — buildwithcode — 2026-06-02
+Baseline: 6,250 avg views (from 18 videos, computed 2026-06-02 via youtube-api log)
+
+| # | Idea | Fit | Demand | Outlier | Pkg | Ret | Orig | Money | /35 | Verdict | Evidence | AI-flag |
+|---|------|-----|--------|---------|-----|-----|------|-------|-----|---------|----------|---------|
+| 1 | I rebuilt my SaaS the way senior devs do | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 31 | produce | 6 outliers 3.4–7.1x; "rebuild" autocomplete + Trends 28d rising | - |
+| 2 | My honest thoughts on the new framework | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 19 | gray | 1 outlier 2.1x; flat Trends | - |
+| 3 | AI wrote my entire backend — does it work | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 23 | gray | 4 outliers 3.0–5.2x; AI media heavy | yes |
+```
+
+Idea 1 clears 30 → promote with a hypothesis. Ideas 2 and 3 sit in the gray band:
+re-angle, don't produce as-is. Idea 3 also carries an AI-flag (disclosure-label risk).
+
+### Log entry at promotion
+
+```markdown
+## 2026-06-02 — I rebuilt my SaaS the way senior devs do
+- predicted: 2.5x baseline
+- why: 6 niche outliers all open on the same "I did it wrong for years" stakes in 8s,
+  and we own a real refactor with before/after numbers none of them have.
+- judge-by: 28-day views vs trailing-10 average (6,250) AND CTR vs channel median (4.1%)
+- status: pending
+```
+
+### Outcome appended after publish
+
+```markdown
+### outcome 2026-07-05
+- actual: 3.1x baseline   (views 19,400 vs baseline 6,250)
+- CTR: 5.8% (channel median 4.1%)   retention: 47% (baseline 39%)
+- verdict: validated
+- lesson: the "I did it wrong for years" cold-open beat our usual intro on retention —
+  bump Retention-potential weight for ideas that can open on a personal-mistake stake.
+```
+
+That lesson is what makes the next run's scoring smarter than this one's. The original
+prediction lines are untouched — that is the whole point of append-only.

package/skills/youtube-ideation/references/research-and-signals.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Research, outlier math, and demand signals (2026)
+
+All sources accessed 2026-06-02.
+
+## Outlier score — the math, worked
+
+```text
+outlier_multiple = video_views / channel_average_views
+```
+
+The multiple is a **performance multiplier against this channel's own average**, so it is
+fair across channel sizes — a raw view count is not.
+
+| Channel avg | Video views | Multiple | Read |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| 6,250 | 50,000 | **8.0x** | a genuine breakout on a small channel |
+| 1,800,000 | 500,000 | **0.3x** | a *miss* on a huge channel, despite the big absolute number |
+
+Pro reading of the ranges:
+
+- **3x or better = a real signal.** Worth mining for a reproducible trait.
+- **~2x = likely noise** — inside normal channel variance; don't bet on it alone.
+- **One outlier is an anecdote.** Collect **5–10** in the same niche and extract the
+  *shared* trait (the cold-open stakes, the title structure, the proof format) — that
+  shared trait is the bet, not the single video.
+
+Sources: OutlierKit — "What Is a YouTube Outlier Score? (Calculation, Ranges, Uses)" and
+"How to Find Viral Outlier Videos"; vidIQ Help Center — "Outliers".
+
+## The 6-step research-led pipeline (expanded)
+
+Brainstorm-first fails because it scores "outlier signal" on imagination. Run in order:
+
+1. **Analyze niche channels.** Pick channels adjacent to yours that are winning.
+2. **Find outlier videos.** Sort by *multiple*, not raw views. Keep ones at 3x+.
+3. **Study title/thumbnail patterns.** What do the 3x+ winners share? Name it.
+4. **Identify content gaps.** Demand the outliers proved, that nobody owns well — or that
+   you can own better with unique proof.
+5. **Check audience + trend signals.** (Sources table below.) Confirm live demand.
+6. **Generate original variations.** Your angle and your proof — never a re-shoot of an
+   outlier.
+
+> "More ideas do not grow a channel. Better decisions do." — OverseerOS, "Best YouTube
+> Video Idea Generator Tools in 2026" (published 2026-05-13, updated 2026-05-18).
+
+## Demand signals — free first, paid for real volume
+
+| Source | Tier | What it gives you |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| YouTube Studio **Trends** tab | free | top searches for *your* audience + saved topics over the last 28 days |
+| **Google Trends** | free | direction + seasonality of a topic (relative, not absolute volume) |
+| YouTube **autocomplete** | free | the actual query phrasings real viewers type |
+| **OutlierKit** | paid | outlier discovery + keyword/search volume |
+| **Keywords Everywhere** | paid | search-volume numbers inline |
+| **vidIQ** | paid | volume + trending tab + ~50 "Daily Ideas"/day; weights vs channel |
+| **TubeBuddy** | paid | keyword score weighted against *your* channel's authority |
+| **Semrush** | paid | broader keyword volume + competition |
+| **1of10 / TubeLab** | paid | outlier discovery |
+
+Note: TubeBuddy and vidIQ also offer title/thumbnail A/B testing — that is a **packaging**
+job (`../youtube-packaging/SKILL.md`), not ideation. Use them here only for the demand
+signal.
+
+The three fast pre-tests every idea must pass before `produce`: (1) statable in one
+sentence; (2) serves the core audience **and** reaches new viewers; (3) search/trend demand
+exists and is recorded on the row.
+
+Sources: OverseerOS idea-generator guide; OutlierKit — "YouTube Keyword Research: Complete
+2026 Guide"; Semrush — "How to do YouTube keyword research: 2026 guide".
+
+## The closed loop
+
+The full cycle: validate idea → build hook → script → edit → publish → study the retention
+graph → **feed the lesson back into the next pick**. The back-half — writing the measured
+outcome back so the next scoring pass is smarter — is the part most creators skip, and the
+reason the hypothesis/outcome log is append-only and dated.
+
+Sources: OverseerOS idea-generator guide; OverseerOS — "Best YouTube Retention Tools in
+2026".
+
+## 2026 platform context that weights a bet
+
+- **Shorts-first storytelling is the dominant discovery force.** It lowers production
+  friction, tests messaging fast, and fits mobile attention — weight format reach in
+  scoring. Source: Dash Social / mean.ceo 2026 trend roundup.
+- **AI-content disclosure labels** are rolling out (voluntary or auto-applied). An idea that
+  leans on AI-generated media can be dampened by the label — flag it on the row. Source:
+  9to5Google — "AI-generated YouTube content to get 'more visible' disclosure label"
+  (2026-05-27).
+
+The durable format-mix / cadence call is **not** made here — it belongs to
+`../youtube-strategy/SKILL.md`. These notes only weight the individual bet.