Keyword Mining on Search Terms

Orphex Keyword Mining on Search Terms

Use this skill to identify observed queries that could justify a keyword test or a more deliberate ad-group mapping. Analyze search terms from the Orphex connection below when it reaches them, and user-supplied exports and documents otherwise. Produce candidates and checks; do not add keywords or change campaigns.

With an Orphex connection

If an Orphex connector is available, check it before asking for exports. Run capability_search with platform orphex and limit 100; use a read only if that search returns its id, and ask which workspace to use when several are bound. Read controller.catalog then controller.fetch at levels search_term and keyword for queries and existing keyword coverage. If playbook.catalog lists the keyword cannibalization playbook, run it with playbook.run. Then list guides with skill_catalog (kind guide, topic search_terms) and follow a matching one through skill_read; choose by title, never by a stored id.

If a read is not returned, this connection cannot reach that Orphex data for the workspace: say so, then use the live platform reads it offers or the supplied exports. An absent, refused or empty read is not evidence of zero, none or healthy. Describe each read with capability_describe before run_read, keep date_end no later than yesterday, disclose request adjustments, and name each number's source, workspace and window. This skill's evidence rules still govern any guide, insight or playbook label, and no read authorizes account changes. Ask the user only for what is still missing.

Minimum evidence and fallback

Request a Search terms export with dates and timezone, currency, campaign/ad-group identifiers, query, matched keyword, reported match type, impressions, clicks, cost, conversions and value where available. For coverage review, also request the current keyword inventory with configured match type, status, scope, final URL or landing page, negatives and relevant campaign eligibility settings. Ask for the business goal, target regions/languages, approved product names, conversion definition, attribution window and expected conversion lag.

Without the keyword inventory, label all coverage conclusions “unverified” and present only observed query candidates. Without conversion or lag context, describe intent from the query text and available engagement, not as proven business value. Search term reports can omit low-activity queries for privacy, and conversion totals can shift while attribution settles. A visible list is evidence of reported queries, not a complete map of demand. Google's Search terms report guide explains the report's keyword and match-type columns and its visibility limits.

Test coverage semantically, not by string lookup

Group repeated rows by normalized query while preserving the original query, date, network, and entity. Keep brand and nonbrand separate when the user supplied a reliable brand definition. Rank evidence using observed conversions/value, cost, click volume, query intent against the supplied offer, recency, and repeat occurrence. Do not invent a numeric score or call a candidate “high intent” from lexical resemblance alone. State which evidence makes each candidate stronger or weaker.

Compare each query with eligible existing keywords and the reported triggering keyword. Search matching can include close variants and meaning-based matching, so a phrase not literally present in a keyword is not necessarily uncovered. The report's match type may describe a narrower relationship than the configured keyword type. Check active/paused status, campaign and ad-group scope, negative keywords, geography/language, network, landing-page relevance, and any supplied budget or policy limits. If eligibility details are missing, report “served through existing matching” or “coverage unknown,” not “uncovered.” Review keyword matching options and close variants for current positive-match behavior.

Recommend a candidate and test shape

Prefer a candidate when the observed query shows business-relevant conversions or value and the current mapping is unclear, weakly aligned, or not intentionally managed. Consider exact match for a deliberate mapping of observed business-relevant demand; positive exact also matches close variants and same-intent queries, so it does not isolate the literal query. Monitor the actual search terms and their outcomes, including variants, under any proposed match type. Use phrase or broad for an accepted exploration with that query-review plan. This is a test design, not a universal rule. Suggest an ad group only when its theme and landing page align with the query; otherwise state what destination or structure needs review first. Include negative conflicts and potential duplication with current coverage.

For every recommendation, preserve observed counts and denominators: conversions per query, cost per conversion only when conversions are nonzero and comparable, and conversion value/cost only when both definitions and currency match. Do not project future clicks, conversion volume, or savings from the historical row. A single query's average outcome does not establish incremental lift from adding a keyword.

Output and authorization

Start with scope, date range, currency, conversion definition, lag status, and missing eligibility evidence. Use a table with candidate query; evidence and source rows; matched keyword and reported type; current coverage assessment; negative/eligibility conflicts; suggested keyword text and match type; proposed ad group/landing page; observed metrics; risk; confidence; and next review. Distinguish “candidate,” “already covered,” “coverage uncertain,” and “do not add.” Include a short validation plan using query-level delivery and business outcomes after the conversion window.

Fictional example: “industrial hose inspection service” produced three leads in a supplied 60-day export, but the visible matched keyword is a broad “hose repair” term. If the campaign inventory and negatives confirm the candidate is eligible but not deliberately mapped, propose a reviewed exact-match test in the matching service ad group. Three historic leads support investigation; they do not forecast future leads or prove incremental demand.

Adding, pausing, or editing keywords requires explicit authorization for the account and exact campaign action; installation and exports grant none.

Portable inputs and examples

• Read the input contract when mapping a new export or checking the example's scope and definitions. Copy the header-only CSV template when preparing data; equivalent supplied exports remain acceptable.
• Read the reusable business context only for business facts or constraints this task needs. Reuse user-supplied facts with their source/date; the template contains no default targets.
• Inspect the complete fictional input with its example output when learning the output and calculation boundaries. Never use fictional values for a real account.

State whether the result is complete, partial, or blocked for the requested decision. Link material findings to actual supplied rows/sources and separate observed metrics, hypotheses, and estimates. Lead with a short business conclusion, then evidence, uncertainty, and the next measurable check. A data export or installed skill does not authorize account changes.

For the supported arithmetic only, optionally run the bundled calculator with Python 3: python3 scripts/marketing_math.py weighted-ratio < calculation.json. Read its input mapping in the input contract before preparing JSON. It reads JSON, not CSV directly. If Python or the requested method is unavailable, show a reproducible alternative calculation or mark it unsupported; do not report an uncomputed result as verified.