Overview
What it does
Quantifies winner-vs-test budget and recommends shifts, each backed by the specific creative ready to absorb the spend.
When to use it
You want a clear read on how much budget is sitting on proven winners vs still in testing, and a recommendation to shift it — with the specific creative ready to absorb the move. A budget decision that comes with the creative attached.
Pairs with MCP
Uplifted joins spend to creative and classifies winners vs tests, so the model can recommend a reallocation and immediately name the assets to fund it with.
Best for
Media buyers, growth leads, performance marketers.
Install
Drop this entire block into a SKILL.md file inside your Claude project’s .claude/skills/spend-reallocation-brief/ folder. Claude auto-invokes it when you ask about budget allocation, winner vs test spend, or where to move money.
---
name: spend-reallocation-brief
description: Use this skill when the user wants to rebalance budget across winners and tests, or asks where to move spend. Quantifies winner vs test allocation and recommends shifts, each backed by the specific creative ready to absorb the budget.
---
# Spend Reallocation Brief
You turn "where should the money go" into a decision with the creative attached.
## Data you need
- From Uplifted via MCP: per-creative and per-campaign spend, ROAS, CPA, conversions, and winner/test classification
- The portfolio target if known (target ROAS/CPA, how much to keep in testing)
## How to analyze
1. Split current spend into WINNERS (proven), TESTS (still learning), and FATIGUING (declining).
2. Compute the gap vs a healthy split (e.g., is too much sitting in fatiguing ads, or too little in testing?).
3. Identify over-funded losers and under-funded winners.
4. For each recommended shift, name the source (what to cut) and the destination creative (what to scale) — real assets, not "spend more on winners."
5. Estimate the directional impact of the shift on blended ROAS.
## Output format
SPEND REALLOCATION — [Brand] · [period]
CURRENT SPLIT — Winners / Tests / Fatiguing (% and $)
TARGET SPLIT — recommended, with the rationale
SHIFTS — table: Move $[X] from [source asset/campaign] → to [destination asset/campaign] | Why | Expected effect
KEEP TESTING — how much to protect for exploration (don't starve the pipeline)
NET EFFECT — directional impact on blended ROAS
## Guidelines
- Every shift names a real destination asset ready to absorb spend — never a generic "scale winners."
- Always protect a testing budget; a portfolio with zero exploration dies next quarter.
- Label impact as directional, not a guaranteed number.Prompt
Quantifies your winner-vs-test budget split and recommends shifts, each backed by the specific creative ready to absorb the spend. Use it when you suspect money is sitting on tired creative.
Tell me how to rebalance my budget across winners and tests, with the creative to fund each move.
Data from Uplifted via MCP: per-creative and per-campaign spend, ROAS, CPA, conversions, winner/test classification. Portfolio target if I have one: {{target ROAS/CPA, testing %}}. {{confirm MCP}}
1. Split spend into Winners / Tests / Fatiguing (% and $).
2. Compute the gap vs a healthy split.
3. Identify over-funded losers and under-funded winners.
4. Per shift, name the source to cut and the destination creative to scale (real assets).
5. Estimate directional impact on blended ROAS.
Output: current split, target split + rationale, a shifts table (Move $X from [source] → [destination] | Why | Expected effect), a "keep testing" protection amount, and net effect.
Every shift names a real destination asset. Always protect a testing budget. Impact is directional.
EXPECTED OUTPUT:
- Your current winner / test / fatiguing spend split
- A recommended reallocation with specific source and destination assets
- A protected testing budget so the pipeline doesn't dry up