agentleFS
teachskillofskills-aiteachskillofskills-ai/DigitalMarketingPro-techshu/skills/review-response/SKILL.md

review-response

Skill0 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub

Draft ready-to-post responses to positive, neutral, and negative reviews on any platform (Google, Yelp, G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, Amazon, App Store), with formal and casual variants, brand-voice scoring, escalation recommendations, and a batch mode that varies language across similar reviews to avoid templated-sounding replies. Triggers on \"/digital-marketing-pro:review-response\", \"reply to this 1-star review\", \"write a response to this Google review\", \"we got a nasty Yelp review, what do we say\", \"draft replies for this batch of reviews\". Reads the brand profile, voice-and-tone guidelines, and custom templates; it drafts and scores the responses — posting them to the platform is up to you.

12 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use results-report, daily-coding and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • Galaxy-DawnSkill

    results-report

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "write an experiment report", "summarize experimental results", "do experiment retrospection", "write a results report", "写实验总结报告", "写实验复盘", or mentions turning completed experiment artifacts into a structured, decision-oriented research report. It assumes strict analysis should come from `results-analysis` first.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Clay-HHKSkill

    daily-coding

    Daily coding assistant that auto-triggers when writing/modifying code, providing a core checklist.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • Clay-HHKSkill

    kaggle-learner

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "learn from Kaggle", "study Kaggle solutions", "analyze Kaggle competitions", or mentions Kaggle competition URLs. Provides access to extracted knowledge from winning Kaggle solutions across NLP, CV, time series, tabular, and multimodal domains.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • kharlamenkodevSkill

    bug-detective

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    command-development

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a slash command", "add a command", "write a custom command", "define command arguments", "use command frontmatter", "organize commands", "create command with file references", "interactive command", "use AskUserQuestion in command", or needs guidance on slash command structure, YAML frontmatter fields, dynamic arguments, bash execution in commands, user interaction patterns, or command development best practices for Claude Code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • AnthropicSkill

    hook-development

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "create a hook", "add a PreToolUse/PostToolUse/Stop hook", "validate tool use", "implement prompt-based hooks", "use ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}", "set up event-driven automation", "block dangerous commands", or mentions hook events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, Stop, SubagentStop, SessionStart, SessionEnd, UserPromptSubmit, PreCompact, Notification). Provides comprehensive guidance for creating and implementing Claude Code plugin hooks with focus on advanced prompt-based hooks API.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • +2 more from Clay-HHK
  • +1 more from anthropics

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 10 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    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:

    Batch mode: If responding to multiple reviews, provide them as a set for consistent tone and varied language

    line 22
  2. Distinctive:

    Check brand guidelines for approved response language: Verify the response against any restricted terms, required disclosures, legal …

    line 34
  3. Distinctive:

    Check for common pitfalls: Ensure the response avoids defensiveness, blame-shifting, over-promising, disclosing private information, or …

    line 37
  4. Distinctive:

    Generate batch variations: If responding to multiple similar reviews, vary the language, structure, and opening to avoid templated-sounding …

    line 39
  5. Distinctive:

    Template extraction: If the response is strong, a generalized template version saved for future similar reviews

    line 54

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 10 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

/digital-marketing-pro:review-response

Purpose

Generate professional, brand-aligned review responses for positive, neutral, and negative reviews across any platform. Ensures every response maintains brand voice, addresses the reviewer's specific points, and follows best practices for reputation management and customer recovery.

Input Required

The user must provide (or will be prompted for):

  • Review text: The full text of the review to respond to
  • Rating: Star rating (1-5 stars)
  • Platform: Where the review was posted (Google, Yelp, G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, Amazon, TripAdvisor, App Store, etc.)
  • Reviewer name: Display name of the reviewer (optional — for personalization)
  • Specific issue mentioned: Key complaint, praise, or topic raised in the review (optional — for targeted response)
  • Business context: Any internal context about the situation — was the issue resolved, is there a known product bug, was there a service failure (optional — helps craft an accurate response)
  • Batch mode: If responding to multiple reviews, provide them as a set for consistent tone and varied language
  • Response speed requirement: Whether the review needs an urgent response (crisis situation) or standard turnaround
  • Internal resolution status: Whether the issue has been fixed, is in progress, or is unresolved (for negative reviews — helps determine what to promise)

Process

  1. Load brand context: Read ~/.claude-marketing/brands/_active-brand.json for the active slug, then load ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/profile.json. Apply brand voice, compliance rules for target markets (skills/context-engine/compliance-rules.md), and industry context. Also check for guidelines at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/guidelines/_manifest.json — if present, load restrictions and relevant category files. Check for custom templates at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/templates/. Check for agency SOPs at ~/.claude-marketing/sops/. If no brand exists, ask: "Set up a brand first (/digital-marketing-pro:brand-setup)?" — or proceed with defaults.
  2. Apply brand voice settings: Load voice-and-tone guidelines and any channel-specific style rules for the review platform — review responses often require a warmer, more personal tone than other brand communications
  3. Classify review sentiment and severity: Categorize as positive (4-5 stars), neutral (3 stars), or negative (1-2 stars) — further classify negative reviews by severity level: minor complaint, service failure, product defect, or safety/legal issue
  4. For negative reviews: Acknowledge the specific concern by name, express genuine empathy without generic platitudes, take responsibility where appropriate, offer a concrete resolution path with specifics, and move the conversation offline with a direct contact method (email or phone)
  5. For positive reviews: Express sincere gratitude, reinforce the specific aspect the reviewer praised, add a personal or humanizing touch, and encourage continued engagement — mention related products, services, or referral programs where natural
  6. For neutral reviews: Acknowledge the balanced feedback, address any specific concerns raised with actionable detail, highlight relevant brand strengths without being defensive or dismissive, and invite further dialogue to improve their experience
  7. Check brand guidelines for approved response language: Verify the response against any restricted terms, required disclosures, legal disclaimers, or mandated response elements in the brand guidelines
  8. Apply platform conventions: Adjust response length, formatting, and tone for platform norms — Google (concise), Yelp (conversational), G2 (professional), TripAdvisor (hospitality-focused), etc.
  9. Score response for brand voice alignment: Evaluate the drafted response against brand voice parameters — tone, formality, warmth, and personality — and adjust until the response sounds authentically on-brand
  10. Check for common pitfalls: Ensure the response avoids defensiveness, blame-shifting, over-promising, disclosing private information, or using repetitive language across multiple review responses
  11. Optimize for SEO where applicable: On platforms where responses are indexed (Google, Yelp), naturally incorporate relevant keywords and business name without sounding forced
  12. Generate batch variations: If responding to multiple similar reviews, vary the language, structure, and opening to avoid templated-sounding responses that damage authenticity

Output

A structured review response package containing:

  • Ready-to-post review response: Primary response tailored to the platform's character limits, conventions, and audience expectations
  • Alternative versions: Formal and casual variants for flexibility, plus a shorter version if the primary response exceeds platform norms
  • Response guidelines: Platform-specific best practices applied — recommended length, optimal tone, ideal response timing, and SEO considerations
  • Escalation recommendation: For negative reviews — whether this requires manager involvement, legal review, product team notification, or immediate offline outreach
  • Response quality score: Brand voice alignment rating and checklist of best practices applied
  • Follow-up note: Suggested internal action items if the review reveals a systemic issue worth addressing
  • SEO keywords applied: For indexed platforms, keywords naturally incorporated into the response
  • Tone analysis: Breakdown of the response tone (empathetic, grateful, professional, warm) matched against brand voice settings
  • Response timing recommendation: Optimal window for posting the response based on platform algorithms and customer expectations
  • Template extraction: If the response is strong, a generalized template version saved for future similar reviews

Agents Used

  • content-creator — Response copywriting, tone calibration, personalization, platform-appropriate language, alternative version drafting
  • brand-guardian — Voice consistency enforcement, guideline compliance, restricted language checks, escalation assessment, legal sensitivity review

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.