review-insights
Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
When the user wants to understand what users say about an app using ASOScan (overall review sentiment plus the top topics, feature requests, and bugs mentioned, and the raw reviews behind them). Also use when the user mentions "what are users saying", "review sentiment", "top complaints", "what features are people asking for", "what bugs are mentioned", or "summarize my reviews". Also use to draft a reply to a review and, after the user approves the exact text, post it ("reply to this review", "write a reply"). Works for your app or a tracked competitor.
- Reads credentials
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- everyinfra/analysis-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- EJRyan89/coding-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- khadinakbarlabs/vibelocaltheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- EJRyan89/coding-agent-skills★ 2same name
- everyinfra/analysis-skills★ 0same name
- khadinakbarlabs/vibelocal★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- aso-fundamentalsSkill
- asoscan-routerSkill
- asoscan-setupSkill
- competitor-analysisSkill
- keyword-intelligenceSkill
- keyword-opportunitiesSkill
- keyword-spySkill
- metadata-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 85
Use this when the user wants a reply written or posted for one of their reviews.
- Distinctive: line 91
Never post a reply the user has not approved word for word, and never post several replies from one yes.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Review Insights
Turn ASOScan's analyzed review stream into the few things that matter: how users feel, what they keep asking for, and what's breaking.
When to use
- "What are users saying about my app?"
- "Top complaints / feature requests / bugs."
- "Summarize the latest reviews." (also for a tracked competitor)
Getting the data (two modes)
Pick the first mode that applies, then follow the steps below.
- ASOScan tools are connected (the ASOScan plugin or connector in ChatGPT or Claude, or any MCP client): use the tool named in the table. Do not ask for an API key and do not run
curl. Tool results have the same fields as the API responses below, and a list comes back insideitems. If a tool answers with a message instead of data (reconnect, credits used up, plan limit, "preparing"), pass that message on and stop. - No tools, but you can run shell commands and
ASOSCAN_API_KEYis set: make the API call in the table. Basehttps://asoscan.com/api/public/v1, headerAuthorization: Bearer $ASOSCAN_API_KEY, JSON with camelCase fields. Never print the key. Capture the HTTP status and handle errors as described at the bottom. - Neither: hand off to asoscan-setup. It explains how to connect ASOScan in ChatGPT or Claude, or how to create an API key.
ASOScan only sees the apps in the user's own account and the competitors they track. Every call uses API credits (failed calls are free). Before a call that costs more than 2 API credits, or one that uses AI, tell the user the cost and wait for a yes. Before any call that changes data, ask first.
| Step | Tool (connected) | API call (key) | API credits |
| Find the app | list_my_apps | GET /apps | free |
| Insights | get_review_insights | GET /apps/{id}/reviews/insights | free |
| Raw reviews | get_reviews | GET /apps/{id}/reviews?page=1&pageSize=20&rating=&sort=newest | free |
| Saved reply templates | list_reply_templates | GET /apps/{id}/reviews/reply-templates | free |
| Draft a reply (AI) | draft_review_reply | POST /apps/{id}/reviews/{reviewId}/reply-draft with { "instructions": "...", "autoSelectKeyword": true } | 2 + 1 AI credit, say the cost first |
| Post a reply (goes to the store) | post_review_reply | POST /apps/{id}/reviews/{reviewId}/reply with { "text": "..." } | 2, exact text and a clear yes first |
Steps
- Find the app —
GET /apps→ use theid. For a rival, it must be a tracked competitor first (see competitor-analysis). - Insights —
GET /apps/{id}/reviews/insights(free) →{ totalAnalyzed, totalPending, sentiment{ positive, neutral, negative, averageScore }, topTopics[]{ label, count }, topFeatureRequests[]{ label, count }, topBugs[]{ label, count } }. - Raw reviews (for evidence) —
GET /apps/{id}/reviews?page=1&pageSize=20&rating=&sort=newest(free; pageSize 1–100;rating=1..5to isolate detractors/promoters) →{ items[]{ id, author, rating, title, body, version, country, postedAt, developerResponse, developerResponseAt }, page, pageSize, totalCount, totalPages }.
Lead with insights; pull raw reviews only to quote real examples. If totalPending
is high, note that more reviews are still being analyzed.
How to analyze
- Sentiment — the positive/neutral/negative split +
averageScore(pair with the rating trajectory from competitor-analysis for trend).averageScoreruns −1.00 (very negative) to +1.00 (very positive), 0 being neutral. Always print it with that range — a bare "0.38" reads as a bad score when it is in fact mildly positive. - Themes — cluster
topTopics/topFeatureRequests/topBugsinto love, friction, and requests, ranked bycount. - Actionability — for the top 3, name the concrete response: bugs → engineering; recurring confusion → onboarding/screenshots; frequent requests → roadmap or "What's New".
- Quote real reviews verbatim from
body— never invent or paraphrase into something the user didn't write.
Output template
### Review insights — {App} · credits left: {remaining}
**Sentiment:** {positive}/{neutral}/{negative} (avg {averageScore} on −1 to +1) · {totalAnalyzed} analyzed
**Love** | **Friction** | **Most-requested**
- {topic} ({count}) | - {bug} ({count}) | - {request} ({count})
**Top 3 to act on:** 1) {theme} → {response} 2) …
**Evidence:** > "{verbatim review body}" — {rating}★Replying to a review
Use this when the user wants a reply written or posted for one of their reviews.
- Get the review id from the raw reviews call. If the user has saved templates, read them and offer one as a starting point.
- Draft: tell the user the draft costs 2 API credits and 1 AI credit, then draft. The draft is saved in ASOScan only. Nothing goes to the store. The answer has
replyText(andkeywordUsedwhen the draft uses one of their keywords). - Show the full reply text and let the user edit it.
- Post only after the user says yes to that exact text. Send exactly the approved text. If the answer says the app has no store connection, tell the user to connect App Store Connect or Google Play Console in ASOScan (the answer includes the link) and stop.
- Never post a reply the user has not approved word for word, and never post several replies from one yes.
Replies help users and show the app is cared for. They are not a search-ranking signal, so never present them as a way to rank higher.
Errors, credits & honesty
401→ asoscan-setup ·403no API access ·402out of credits ·404not tracked ·503not enabled yet. Reads here are free; drafting or posting a reply costs credits.- Never fabricate reviews. Replying to reviews builds trust/retention but is not a search-ranking signal — don't frame replies as an ASO lever.
- Full reference: https://asoscan.com/api/developers
Related
- competitor-analysis — rating trajectory + compare sentiment across rivals.
- metadata-audit — turn recurring confusion into clearer copy/screenshots.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

