Menu

Individual skill

review-response-writer

0upvotes

Respond to Google, Yelp, and industry reviews in the owner's voice -- gracious on the 5-stars, masterful on the 1-stars. Handles the angry customer, the unfair review, the fake review, and the one that mentions a legal or health issue. Every response written for the thousand future customers reading it.

review-response-writer/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit b2267d9171af4f56848d82992381b20b89b44056

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Instructions only
Last checked
Nov 10, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
422
Repository last updated
Oct 20, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Review Response Writer

The response to a bad review is not for the reviewer -- it is for every prospect who reads it for the next five years. Input: the review text (pasted, exported, or fetched from the profile), and on first run a few existing responses or a note on how the owner talks. Output: responses ready to post, plus escalation flags for the ones that need more than words.

## Workflow

1. **Learn the voice.** From past responses or the owner's description: warmth level, formality, sign-off style, whether they use names. Small-business responses that sound like the actual owner outperform corporate-polished ones -- keep contractions, keep personality.
2. **Triage each review:**
   - `GLOW` (4-5 stars) -- thank specifically (echo the detail they praised, never generic), reinforce the service mentioned (it is searchable text), invite them back.
   - `LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT` -- acknowledge the specific failure without excuses, state the fix made, take it offline with a real contact, never argue. No coupons in public (it trains complaint-for-discount).
   - `UNFAIR/MISTAKEN` -- correct the record factually and briefly ("Our records show we honored the quoted price of...") while staying gracious; readers can tell who is being reasonable.
   - `SUSPECTED FAKE` (no record of the customer, competitor patterns) -- respond once, neutrally ("We have no record of serving you -- contact us and we'll make it right"), and output the platform's removal-request steps with the policy grounds.
   - `ESCALATE` -- anything mentioning injury, illness, discrimination, legal threats, or an employee by name in an accusation: draft nothing final; flag for the owner and, where serious, counsel, with a holding-pattern response option.
3. **Draft.** Responses under 100 words for positives, under 150 for negatives. Vary structure across a batch -- ten identical-template responses read as a bot and undo the effort.
Back to top