Example
What a grade looks like
A sample report on a made-up skincare routine video, so you can see the shape before you upload. It is the full report, as Creator and Pro show it: scores, timestamped evidence, the checks, and the direction. Free's one grade shows the scores, the format, the #1 fix, and what's working.
Overall
6.0/10
Getting there
Format
Get ready with me
Also: Before and after
Fix your #1 thing below to move toward Strong.
The overall weighs the hook most. Every score judges the craft of the video, not its results.
What to improve
Your #1 fix
Hold the comparison longer and anchor it in time.
- 2
Put the ask on screen as well as in audio.
- 3
Cover the mid-video dead zone.
Timestamps count from the start of the video.
What’s working · Hook
Hand motion and a product close-up in the first frame.
The verdict
A competent routine video with a strong opening frame and thin proof. The middle stretch and the ending are where it loses people.
Your scores
Out of 10. Scores judge the craft of the video, not its expected results. A high score means the video is well built, not that it will sell.
TikTok Shop policy check
One moment may break a TikTok Shop content rule. Worth a second look before you post.
Filters or edits that fake a result
On screen: The treated half of the face is lit warmer and brighter than the untreated half.
A lighting difference in a before-and-after can make the result look bigger than it is.
TikTok's rule: How to Avoid Misleading Content
Possible issues to check, not a compliance review, and never a promise a video will or won't be removed. Based on TikTok Shop's published rules.
Each score, explained
Hook
Score 7/10
Evidence
- Close-up of a hand pressing a pump; serum beads on the fingertip.
- On-screen text names dry, flaky skin before any words are spoken.
Checks
- MetFirst frame stop Hand motion and a product close-up in the first frame.
- MetProblem or product identifiable by 3 s Dry, flaky skin named on screen.
- MetSelf selection The on-screen text names the viewer's skin concern.
- PartlyOpen promise The problem is named but nothing is set up to pay off.
- MetWorks with sound off Text carries the opening for a muted viewer.
- MetNo wasted seconds No greeting or intro.
Why
The first frame has motion and a product moment, and the text self-selects dry-skin viewers with sound off. The promise is soft: nothing yet tells the viewer what they will see resolved.
Direction
Set up something the rest of the video has to pay off in the first two seconds, such as showing the end state before the routine starts.
Body
Score 5/10
Evidence
- Creator describes the problem while applying the product to one cheek.
- Half-face comparison shown for under a second.
Checks
- PartlyFelt problem Stated while applying, not made to sting.
- MetProduct in real use Applied to the cheek on camera.
- PartlyProof with an anchor Half-face comparison shown for under a second, no time anchor.
- PartlySpecificity Three weeks mentioned once; no amounts or steps.
- MissedThe obvious objectionSkin type never addressed.
- MetOne promise Stays on the flaking problem throughout.
Why
The problem is stated and the product is in real use, but the proof is a single brief comparison and the obvious objection about skin type is never addressed.
Direction
Hold the comparison longer and give it a time anchor. Answer the skin-type doubt directly on screen.
CTA
Score 6/10
Evidence
- Spoken ask to tap the cart; no matching on-screen text.
Checks
- MetIt exists and is unmistakable Spoken ask to tap the cart.
- MetNative and specific Names the cart, not a bio link.
- MetAfter the proof Arrives after the comparison.
- MetLow friction One step.
- MetTruthful urgencyNo urgency claimed, nothing to check.
- PartlySame voice Slight shift to a pitch tone; no on-screen text.
Why
The ask is native and lands after the proof, but only in audio, so a muted viewer misses it.
Direction
Reinforce the ask with on-screen text at the same moment it is spoken.
Sellability
Score 6/10
Evidence
- Creator mentions using the product for three weeks.
- Price is spoken; no comparison to what it replaces.
Checks
- MetCredibility Three weeks of use stated.
- PartlyProof the viewer believes Comparison is brief and lit the same, but short.
- MissedSocial proofNo mention of anyone else.
- PartlyPrice and value framing Price spoken, not framed against anything.
- MissedObjections handledSkin type doubt left open.
- MetHonesty and complianceNo claims beyond what is shown.
Why
Dated usage and a spoken price build some trust. Value is not framed, and no limitation is admitted, which caps credibility.
Direction
Frame the price against what it replaces and say who it is not for. That makes the rest more believable.
Retention
Score 5/10
Evidence
- Static talking shot with no text from 13 s to 20 s.
- Video ends mid-sentence after the ask.
Checks
- PartlyPacing fits the content Six cuts in 28 seconds; one eight-second shot.
- MissedSomething new every few seconds Nothing new from 13 s to 20 s.
- MissedNo dead zones Static talking shot with no text.
- PartlySound off still works Text only in the opening and the comparison.
- MetNative feel and length fitReads as a person, length fits.
- MissedPayoff and ending Ends mid-sentence after the ask.
Why
Measured pacing is fine early, but a seven-second dead zone in the middle and a trailing ending lose viewers who stayed for the hook.
Direction
Cover the mid-video stretch with a visual change or on-screen text, and end cleanly on the ask.
Tags
- Reads as
- Beauty · as filed
- Formats
- Get ready with me
- Before and after