---
name: review-recometrix-audit
description: Review an authorized Recometrix audit, test the strongest explanations against prompt answers and sources, and return a short evidence-backed priority assessment.
---

# Review a Recometrix audit

Use this workflow when the user wants to understand what an audit means, what matters now, or whether the recommended actions are supported by the recorded evidence.

## Required inputs

- An authorized Recometrix MCP connection or REST API key configured in the client's secret storage.
- The project name or project id to review.
- The decision the user is trying to make, when they provided one.

Follow the authentication, confidentiality, methodology, and safety rules in the `recometrix-api` skill. Never ask the user to paste an API key into chat, logs, or files.

## Workflow

1. Call `list_projects` and resolve the exact project id. Do not guess it.
2. Call `get_methodology` before interpreting scores or comparing runs. Record measurement time, provider coverage, sample size, and errors that affect confidence.
3. Call `get_visibility_metrics` to identify the largest movement, persistent weakness, and competitor pattern. Treat sampled AI answers as observations, not deterministic rankings.
4. Call `get_prompt_results` for the prompts behind the strongest hypothesis. Read the verbatim answers and cited domains instead of reasoning from the overall score alone.
5. Call `get_sources` when citations, third-party authority, or competitor presence may explain the result.
6. Call `get_actions` and test the leading actions against the evidence already reviewed. An action is not automatically correct because it appears in the queue.
7. Use `get_referrals` or `get_deliverables` only when traffic, outcomes, or completed work are relevant to the user's question.
8. Compare supporting and contradictory evidence. Prefer no recommendation over a weak causal story.

## Output

Return a compact review with:

- **Measurement:** when and how the audit was run, including material gaps.
- **Diagnosis:** the one or two project-specific bottlenecks best supported by the evidence.
- **Receipts:** exact prompts, providers, answer observations, cited sources, and metrics behind each conclusion.
- **Priority:** which existing action deserves attention first, or why none is sufficiently supported.
- **Uncertainty:** what the audit cannot establish and what evidence would resolve it.

Keep every conclusion attached to inspectable Recometrix evidence. Do not claim that a later metric movement proves causation.