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
- ARCASSystems/FounderOStheir own version, first seen Oct 24, 2026
- alumpe/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 11, 2026
- nawazxz/20-claude-skills-for-businesstheir own version, first seen Aug 12, 2026
- Ootto-AI/claude-support-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 12, 2026
- emd-ai/trades-claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 1, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- ARCASSystems/FounderOS★ 7same name
- emd-ai/trades-claude-skills★ 2same name
- Ootto-AI/claude-support-skills★ 1same name
- alumpe/skills★ 0same name
- nawazxz/20-claude-skills-for-business★ 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 repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- cold-email-personalizerSkill
- google-business-profile-optimizerSkill
- invoice-chaserSkill
- landing-page-critiqueSkill
- local-seo-auditSkill
- midwest-modeSkill
- missed-call-textbackSkill
- proposal-writerSkill
- service-page-writerSkill
- viral-hooksSkill
- website-conversion-auditSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Write review replies that sound like the owner typed them between jobs — because to future customers, the reply matters more than the …
- Distinctive: line 12
Ask for the review text, star rating, platform, and what actually happened (the owner's side).
- Distinctive: line 22
Never draft until you know whether the reviewer was actually a customer and what the owner's side is.
- Distinctive: line 29
Never open two replies in a row the same way.
- Distinctive: line 30
No coupons, discounts, or refunds in public replies — it teaches people that complaining publicly pays.
- Distinctive: line 31
Write for the next 100 readers, not the one reviewer.
- Distinctive: line 41
Keep it 3–5 sentences. Longer reads as defensive.
- Distinctive: line 61
If the review exposes a real operational problem (chronic lateness, a rude employee, quality slip), say so in "Also do." The reply is …
- Distinctive: line 65
Don't reply while the owner is still angry.
- Distinctive: line 66
Don't argue point-by-point.
- Distinctive: line 67
Don't stuff keywords ("Best plumber in Des Moines thanks you!") — reads as spam to humans, does nothing for rankings.
- Distinctive: line 68
Don't ignore star-only reviews with no text — a one-line reply still shows future readers the owner is present.
- Distinctive: line 69
Don't use the reviewer's full name in medical or sensitive service contexts.
“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.
Files
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:
| Type | Signals | Goal of the reply |
| Positive (4–5★) | Real detail, named staff | Reinforce the detail, invite back |
| Negative, legitimate | Specific complaint the owner recognizes | Own it, fix it, move it offline |
| Negative, vague | 1★, little or no text | Show readers you care, ask for specifics |
| Fake / wrong business | No record of the customer, wrong details | Calmly flag it for readers, report it |
| Real customer, false claims | Recognizable job, distorted story | Correct 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):
- Name the specific issue. Banned: "we regret any inconvenience" and every phrase shaped like it.
- Own your share plainly: "We were late. That's on us."
- Say what changed or what you'll do about it.
- Move it offline with a direct line: "Call me at [number] and I'll make it right."
- 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
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.

