# ASO Scoring Criteria

Score each dimension 0-10 using the rubrics below.
**Apply brand maturity tier adjustments** from Phase 1.5 of the main skill.

---

## Brand Maturity Adjustments (apply to all dimensions)

Before scoring, determine the app's tier: **Dominant**, **Established**, or **Challenger**.

**Dominant apps (Instagram, Uber, Spotify, WhatsApp, Netflix):**

- Brand-only titles score 8+ (the brand IS the keyword)
- Lifestyle/brand screenshots score same as captioned UI screenshots
- Generic What's New at weekly+ cadence scores 8+
- Missing in-app events for utility apps is not a penalty
- Description scored on conversion quality only, not keyword presence
- Localization scored relative to actual market footprint
- Missing preview video is acceptable if brand awareness is near-universal

**Established apps (Duolingo, Strava, Notion, Calm, Cash App):**

- Brand-first titles with 1-2 keywords score normally
- Strategic description/visual choices get benefit of the doubt
- All other dimensions scored normally

**Challenger apps (most apps):**

- Scored strictly against textbook ASO — every character and feature matters

**Key principle:** Before docking points, ask: "Is this a mistake or a data-informed
choice by a team with more information than I have?"

---

## 1. Title & Subtitle (Weight: 20%)

**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:**

- Characters used vs limit (title: 30, subtitle/short desc: 30/80). "Near max" = within 3 chars of the limit (27+/30, 77+/80)
- Primary keyword in title
- Keyword duplication between title and subtitle
- Whether app purpose is immediately clear
- Unnecessary words (articles, prepositions) consuming space
- Special characters or claims ("#1", "best") that risk rejection (Apple)

---

## 2. Description (Weight: 15%)

### Apple App Store

| 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                                                                                                                                          |

### Google Play

| 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:**

- First 3 lines quality (visible before "Read More")
- Feature-benefit framing (not just feature lists)
- Social proof (downloads, awards, press mentions)
- Call to action
- Keyword density (Google Play only - count target keywords / total words)
- HTML formatting usage (Google Play)
- Promotional text presence and quality (Apple)

---

## 3. Visual Assets (Weight: 25%)

| 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:**

- Screenshot count (minimum 5, ideal 8-10)
- Caption/overlay text on screenshots (one message per screen, 5-7 words max)
- First 3 screenshots (highest conversion impact on Apple)
- Preview video presence and quality
- Icon distinctiveness (no text in icon, bold shapes, stands out)
- Feature graphic presence (Google Play - mandatory for featured placements)
- Screenshot storytelling flow (do they tell a coherent story?)
- Localized visual assets (for non-English markets)
- Caption keywords (Apple - indexed since June 2025)

---

## 4. Ratings & Reviews (Weight: 20%)

| 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:**

- Average rating (target: 4.0+ minimum, 4.5+ ideal)
- Total rating count
- Recent review sentiment (last 5-10 visible reviews)
- Common complaint themes (bugs, crashes, pricing, UX)
- Developer response presence and quality
- Rating trend (improving or declining, if visible)
- Review recency (fresh reviews signal active user base)

---

## 5. Metadata & Freshness (Weight: 10%)

| 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:**

- Last update date and recency
- Number of supported languages/localizations
- Category selection (is it the best fit? less competitive alternative?)
- In-app events (Apple) or promotional content (Google) presence
- Data safety / privacy nutrition label completeness
- Age rating appropriateness
- Version history quality (do release notes communicate value?)
- What's New text quality

---

## 6. Conversion Signals (Weight: 10%)

| 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:**

- Price transparency (free, freemium, paid - is it clear?)
- In-app purchase list quality (do IAP names communicate value?)
- Download range (Google Play - 10K+, 100K+, 1M+ signals trust)
- Developer name/brand recognition
- "Editors' Choice" or featured badges
- Press mentions or awards in description
- Related apps from same developer (portfolio trust signal)
- Privacy practices transparency

---

## Calculating Final Score

```
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
```
