agentleFS
buildwithreefbuildwithreef/claude-skills/skills/review-responder/SKILL.md

review-responder

Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

Writes owner responses to Google, Yelp, and Facebook reviews — positive, negative, or fake — in an authentic local-business voice. Use when the user wants to reply to a customer review, handle a bad review, deal with a fake or wrong-business review, or says things like "how should I respond to this review", "we got a 1-star", or "write a reply to this Google review".

5 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

13 rules. 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 4 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 13

    Distinctive

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Write review replies that sound like the owner typed them between jobs — because to future customers, the reply matters more than the …

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask for the review text, star rating, platform, and what actually happened (the owner's side).

    line 12
  3. Distinctive:

    Never draft until you know whether the reviewer was actually a customer and what the owner's side is.

    line 22
  4. Distinctive:

    Never open two replies in a row the same way.

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    No coupons, discounts, or refunds in public replies — it teaches people that complaining publicly pays.

    line 30
  6. Distinctive:

    Write for the next 100 readers, not the one reviewer.

    line 31
  7. Distinctive:

    Keep it 3–5 sentences. Longer reads as defensive.

    line 41
  8. Distinctive:

    If the review exposes a real operational problem (chronic lateness, a rude employee, quality slip), say so in "Also do." The reply is …

    line 61
  9. Distinctive:

    Don't reply while the owner is still angry.

    line 65
  10. Distinctive:

    Don't argue point-by-point.

    line 66
  11. Distinctive:

    Don't stuff keywords ("Best plumber in Des Moines thanks you!") — reads as spam to humans, does nothing for rankings.

    line 67
  12. Distinctive:

    Don't ignore star-only reviews with no text — a one-line reply still shows future readers the owner is present.

    line 68
  13. Distinctive:

    Don't use the reviewer's full name in medical or sensitive service contexts.

    line 69

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 4 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Review Responder

Write review replies that sound like the owner typed them between jobs — because to future customers, the reply matters more than the review.

Step 1 — Read the review, then classify it

Ask for the review text, star rating, platform, and what actually happened (the owner's side). Then classify:

TypeSignalsGoal of the reply
Positive (4–5★)Real detail, named staffReinforce the detail, invite back
Negative, legitimateSpecific complaint the owner recognizesOwn it, fix it, move it offline
Negative, vague1★, little or no textShow readers you care, ask for specifics
Fake / wrong businessNo record of the customer, wrong detailsCalmly flag it for readers, report it
Real customer, false claimsRecognizable job, distorted storyCorrect facts once, no fighting

Never draft until you know whether the reviewer was actually a customer and what the owner's side is. If the user just pastes a review, ask those two things first.

Step 2 — Apply the voice rules

  • Sign with the owner's first name. Replies from "The Management Team" convince no one.
  • Echo one specific detail from the review. It proves a human read it.
  • Positive replies: 1–3 sentences. Gushing at a 5-star review reads as desperate.
  • Never open two replies in a row the same way. Vary the opener or skip the thank-you.
  • No coupons, discounts, or refunds in public replies — it teaches people that complaining publicly pays.
  • Write for the next 100 readers, not the one reviewer. They are the real audience.
  • Medical, dental, legal, and financial businesses: never confirm the person was a patient or client (HIPAA / confidentiality). Reply in generalities: "Privacy rules mean I can't discuss who we do or don't treat here, but anyone with a concern can reach me directly at [number]."

Step 3 — Structure by type

Negative, legitimate (the one that matters most):

  1. Name the specific issue. Banned: "we regret any inconvenience" and every phrase shaped like it.
  2. Own your share plainly: "We were late. That's on us."
  3. Say what changed or what you'll do about it.
  4. Move it offline with a direct line: "Call me at [number] and I'll make it right."
  5. Keep it 3–5 sentences. Longer reads as defensive.

Fake or wrong business: reply for the audience, not the reviewer — "I've checked our records and can't find any customer matching this review. If you have us mixed up with another business, no hard feelings — but if you believe this is us, call me directly at [number]." Then report it (Google: flag as "not a real experience"; Yelp: Report Review) and tell the owner removal takes days to weeks — the reply is what readers see in the meantime.

Real customer, false claims: correct the record once with facts and dates, no adjectives — "Our records show we quoted $450 on March 3 and the final invoice was $450." — then the offline invitation. Never trade blows in a thread.

Worked examples across industries (salon, restaurant, HVAC, dentist, auto shop) are in references/playbook.md. Load it before drafting.

Step 4 — Deliver

**Type:** Negative, legitimate — 2★ on Google
**Reply:**

[reply text]

**Why this works:** [1–2 bullets]
**Also do:** [report/flag step, or the operational fix the review exposed]

If the review exposes a real operational problem (chronic lateness, a rude employee, quality slip), say so in "Also do." The reply is damage control; the fix is the actual work.

What not to do

  • Don't reply while the owner is still angry. If the situation is hot, draft it and recommend posting after 24 hours.
  • Don't argue point-by-point. One factual correction maximum.
  • Don't stuff keywords ("Best plumber in Des Moines thanks you!") — reads as spam to humans, does nothing for rankings.
  • Don't ignore star-only reviews with no text — a one-line reply still shows future readers the owner is present.
  • Don't use the reviewer's full name in medical or sensitive service contexts.

Built by Reef — AI systems for small business → https://buildwithreef.com

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.