skills/aso-audit/references/scoring-criteria.md
Score each dimension 0-10 using the rubrics below. Apply brand maturity tier adjustments from Phase 1.5 of the main skill.
Before scoring, determine the app's tier: Dominant, Established, or Challenger.
Dominant apps (Instagram, Uber, Spotify, WhatsApp, Netflix):
Established apps (Duolingo, Strava, Notion, Calm, Cash App):
Challenger apps (most apps):
Key principle: Before docking points, ask: "Is this a mistake or a data-informed choice by a team with more information than I have?"
Challenger rubric:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Brand + high-value keyword in title, complementary keywords in subtitle, no word repetition across fields, near max character usage, instantly communicates app purpose |
| 7-8 | Good keyword presence, minor character waste (5+ unused chars), clear purpose |
| 5-6 | Has keywords but poor placement, some repetition between fields, purpose somewhat clear |
| 3-4 | Title is brand-only or generic, subtitle missing or weak, poor character usage |
| 1-2 | No keyword strategy, title doesn't communicate purpose, major character waste |
| 0 | Cannot assess (data unavailable) |
Dominant/Established adjustment: Brand-only titles (e.g., "Instagram") are valid if the brand has high search volume. Score 8+ for Dominant apps where brand recognition eliminates the need for generic keywords. Evaluate whether unused characters represent waste or intentional simplicity.
Check for:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | First 3 lines hook with clear value prop, structured with features/benefits/social proof/CTA, promotional text actively used, compelling and scannable |
| 7-8 | Good opening, decent structure, could improve scannability or CTA |
| 5-6 | Generic opening ("Welcome to..."), some structure, missing CTA or social proof |
| 3-4 | Wall of text, no clear value prop above fold, no promotional text |
| 1-2 | Minimal or boilerplate description, no effort |
| 0 | Cannot assess |
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Keywords in first 3 sentences, 2-3% natural density throughout, HTML formatting used, structured sections, strong CTA, keywords feel natural |
| 7-8 | Good keyword presence, some structure, density slightly off (1-2% or 3-4%) |
| 5-6 | Keywords present but sparse (<1%) or stuffed (>5%), weak structure |
| 3-4 | No keyword strategy visible, poor formatting, wall of text |
| 1-2 | Minimal description, no keywords, no structure |
| 0 | Cannot assess |
Check for:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | 8-10 screenshots with clear messaging/captions, preview video present, screenshots tell a story in sequence, each communicates one benefit, icon is distinctive and memorable |
| 7-8 | 6-7 screenshots with captions, good icon, no video OR good video but some screenshot messaging unclear |
| 5-6 | 5+ screenshots but weak/no captions, basic icon, no video, screenshots are UI dumps |
| 3-4 | 3-4 screenshots, no captions, generic icon, no storytelling |
| 1-2 | Fewer than 3 screenshots, or screenshots are raw unedited UI, poor icon |
| 0 | Cannot assess |
Check for:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | 4.5+ stars, 10K+ ratings, recent reviews positive, developer responds to negatives, steady review flow |
| 7-8 | 4.0-4.4 stars, 1K+ ratings, mostly positive recent reviews, some developer responses |
| 5-6 | 3.5-3.9 stars, 500+ ratings, mixed recent reviews, no developer responses |
| 3-4 | 3.0-3.4 stars, <500 ratings, negative themes in recent reviews |
| 1-2 | Below 3.0 stars, few ratings, no developer engagement, visible complaints |
| 0 | No ratings yet or cannot assess |
Check for:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Updated within last month, 10+ localizations, optimal category choice, in-app events/LiveOps active, data safety complete |
| 7-8 | Updated within 2 months, 5+ localizations, good category, data safety present |
| 5-6 | Updated within 3 months, 2-4 localizations, acceptable category |
| 3-4 | Updated 3-6 months ago, 1-2 localizations, possibly wrong category |
| 1-2 | Not updated in 6+ months, single language, poor category choice |
| 0 | Cannot assess |
Check for:
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Clear value before download, transparent pricing/IAP, social proof visible (press, awards), download range suggests strong traction, developer credibility strong |
| 7-8 | Good value communication, pricing clear, some social proof |
| 5-6 | Value prop exists but weak, pricing unclear or IAP heavy, limited social proof |
| 3-4 | Unclear what user gets, confusing pricing, no social proof, low downloads visible |
| 1-2 | No value communication, suspicious pricing, app looks abandoned |
| 0 | Cannot assess |
Check for:
Final Score = (Title * 0.20) + (Description * 0.15) + (Visuals * 0.25)
+ (Ratings * 0.20) + (Metadata * 0.10) + (Conversion * 0.10)
Scale to 100: Final Score * 10
Example: Title: 7, Description: 6, Visuals: 8, Ratings: 9, Metadata: 5, Conversion: 7
(7 * 0.20) + (6 * 0.15) + (8 * 0.25) + (9 * 0.20) + (5 * 0.10) + (7 * 0.10)
= 1.4 + 0.9 + 2.0 + 1.8 + 0.5 + 0.7
= 7.3 → 73/100 → Grade: B