ZDX: Compare Location Experience
Keywords
compare locations, location experience, office comparison, department comparison, regional performance, site health, location score, office performance, worst office, best practices, optimization, geographic analysis, location ranking
Overview
Compare digital experience across different locations, departments, and geolocations to identify which sites perform best and worst. This skill uses ZDX filtering capabilities to break down application scores, metrics, alerts, and device health by organizational dimensions, enabling proactive optimization and targeted remediation.
Use this skill when: An administrator wants to compare application experience across offices, identify the worst-performing locations, investigate whether an issue is location-specific, or optimize network configuration for underperforming sites.
ZDX Copilot alignment: This skill covers the Analytics and Optimization categories -- comparing performance across organizational dimensions and recommending improvements.
Data Presentation Requirements
All tables are rendered by the HTML template, not by hand. Do not author <table>, <thead>, <tbody>, <tr>, <th>, or <td> markup in your reply or in the report. You produce a JSON payload (see Data Payload Contract) and the template at ./templates/report.html.template turns it into the styled, sortable, exportable tables shown in ./example/report.example.html.
After each table, provide:
- Detailed analysis explaining the performance differences between locations and what they indicate
- Root cause identification for underperforming locations (DNS, ISP, WiFi, device fleet age, etc.)
- Next steps / resolution with site-specific remediation actions prioritized by impact and feasibility
Use color-coded rows based on location ranking:
- Green: Top-performing locations (score 66-100)
- Yellow: Borderline locations (score 34-65)
- Red: Worst-performing locations (score 0-33)
⚠ HTML OUTPUT — READ THIS BEFORE PRODUCING ANY HTML
There is exactly one acceptable way to produce the HTML output:
-
Read the template from disk — do NOT inline a copy in your response. The template lives next to this SKILL.md inside the skill's package, at:
The
./prefix is intentional: this path is relative to the skill folder (the directory containing this SKILL.md), never an absolute path. Most agents that load skills from an uploaded.zipextract the package into a working directory and expose its contents via that relative path — read the file by joining the skill's own root directory with./templates/report.html.template. Do not rewrite this to an absolute path that points at the author's machine. -
Build a single JSON object (
__ZDX_DATA__payload) shaped exactly as documented in the Data Payload Contract section below. Aggregate the responses from the ZDX MCP tool calls (Steps 1–7 of the Workflow) into that object. -
Replace the literal token
__ZDX_DATA__(which appears once, inside<script type="application/json" id="zdx-data">__ZDX_DATA__</script>) with the JSON object. Do not edit any other part of the template. -
Write the result to disk as
location_comparison_report_<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>.htmlnext to the .docx, and give the user acomputer://link to it.
This template already provides: Zscaler header with logo · sticky top bar · scope summary bar · KPI cards with severity-coded top borders · per-table search + filter chips · sortable color-coded tables · per-table CSV export · light/dark theme toggle · top-right language dropdown (EN / ES / PT / FR / JA) · printable PDF view · localStorage prefs · Analysis / Root Cause / Remediation block.
If you find yourself writing <html>, <style>, or <table> in a code-block destined for the user, stop. Read the template instead.
A populated reference rendering ships with this skill at ./example/report.example.html (relative to the skill folder). Open it in a browser to preview the exact layout and depth expected.
Data Payload Contract
The full __ZDX_DATA__ payload is one JSON object. Every field below is required unless marked optional.
Map each row's severity from its tier: top (score ≥ 80) → good, borderline (50–79) → warning, poor (< 50) → critical.
Output Artifacts — MANDATORY
You MUST generate BOTH files below. Both are REQUIRED output for every location comparison.
1. Word Document (.docx) — REQUIRED
Write a Word document to disk named location_comparison_report_<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>.docx containing:
- Executive summary with best/worst performing locations
- Location ranking table (rank, location, score, PFT, DNS, availability, poor users, alerts)
- Per-location analysis for underperforming sites with metric breakdowns
- Root cause analysis for worst performers (DNS, ISP, WiFi, device fleet)
- Cross-location metric comparison for each application
- Site-specific remediation actions prioritized by impact
2. Interactive HTML Web Page (.html) — REQUIRED
Generated by the template-substitution flow described in the HTML OUTPUT section above. Filename: location_comparison_report_<YYYYMMDD-HHMMSS>.html. Do not hand-author HTML or CSS — the template ships everything the report needs.
Workflow
Step 1: List Available Locations and Departments
First, enumerate the organizational dimensions available for comparison.
List locations:


