Algo ad ctr
Skill charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill/.claude/skills/algo-ad-ctr
Curated skill pack for LLM agents in engineer and science workflow (Cursor & Claude ready).
npx -y skills add charlieviettq/awesome-agent-skill --skill algo-ad-ctrAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 22 stars22 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
"Build CTR prediction models for estimating ad click-through rates from features. Use this skill when the user needs to predict click probability, build an ad ranking model, or evaluate ad creative performance — even if they say 'predict click rate', 'ad relevance scoring', or 'which ad will get more clicks'.".
SKILL.md
4.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
CTR Prediction Model
Overview
CTR prediction estimates the probability that a user clicks on an ad given context (user, query, ad, position). Forms the core of ad ranking: AdRank = Bid × pCTR. Typically uses logistic regression or gradient-boosted trees. Training on billions of impressions.
When to Use
Trigger conditions:
- Building or improving an ad ranking system
- Predicting click probability for bid optimization
- Evaluating ad creative effectiveness from feature analysis
When NOT to use:
- When predicting post-click conversions (use conversion rate model)
- When setting bid amounts (use bidding strategy skill)
Algorithm
IRON LAW: A CTR Model Must Be CALIBRATED
Predicting relative ranking is insufficient. The predicted probability
must MATCH actual click frequency (e.g., predicted 5% → 5 clicks per
100 impressions). Without calibration, bid optimization breaks:
Expected Value = Bid × pCTR × pConversion
If pCTR is off by 2x, bids are wrong by 2x.
Phase 1: Input Validation
Collect impression logs with: user features, ad features, query features, position, click label (0/1). Handle class imbalance (CTR typically 1-5%). Gate: Sufficient volume (100K+ impressions), click labels verified, no data leakage from position.
Phase 2: Core Algorithm
- Feature engineering: user demographics, ad category, query-ad match, historical CTR, time/device features
- Train model: logistic regression (interpretable) or GBDT (higher accuracy)
- Calibrate predictions: Platt scaling or isotonic regression on holdout set
- Evaluate: log-loss (calibration) + AUC (ranking quality)
Phase 3: Verification
Check calibration: bucket predictions into deciles, compare predicted vs actual CTR per bucket. Plot reliability diagram. Gate: Calibration curve close to diagonal, AUC > 0.70.
Phase 4: Output
Return predicted CTR with confidence interval and top contributing features.
Output Format
{
"prediction": {"ctr": 0.035, "confidence_interval": [0.028, 0.042]},
"top_features": [{"feature": "query_ad_match", "importance": 0.32}],
"metadata": {"model": "gbdt", "auc": 0.78, "log_loss": 0.21, "calibration_error": 0.008}
}
Examples
Sample I/O
Input: Trained logistic regression with 3 features and these coefficients:
intercept: -3.0
position_1: 0.8
query_ad_match: 1.5
user_is_mobile: 0.3
Features for current request: position_1=1, query_ad_match=1, user_is_mobile=1
Expected: logit = -3.0 + 0.8 + 1.5 + 0.3 = -0.4 pCTR = sigmoid(-0.4) = 1/(1 + e^0.4) ≈ 0.401 → 40.1%
Verify: for features all 0 (baseline), pCTR = sigmoid(-3.0) ≈ 0.047 (4.7%). Calibration is checked by bucketing predictions and comparing to actual CTR in each bucket.
Edge Cases
| Input | Expected | Why |
|---|---|---|
| New ad, no history | Use ad category average | Cold start for features |
| Position 1 vs position 4 | Different CTR, same relevance | Position bias inflates top-slot CTR |
| Very rare query | Low confidence | Insufficient training data for that query |
Gotchas
- Position bias: Ads in position 1 get more clicks regardless of relevance. Train on position-debiased data or include position as a feature and normalize at inference.
- Data freshness: CTR patterns change rapidly (seasonality, trends). Retrain daily or use online learning.
- Feature leakage: Including click-derived features (e.g., historical CTR of this exact ad-query pair) creates leakage if not handled carefully with time-based splits.
- Class imbalance: 97% no-click, 3% click. Use proper evaluation metrics (log-loss, AUC), not accuracy. Consider downsampling negatives during training.
- Multi-task learning: CTR and conversion rate are related but different. Joint models can improve both by sharing lower layers.
References
- For feature engineering best practices, see
references/feature-engineering.md - For position debiasing techniques, see
references/position-debiasing.md