Low-star review brief - Example Upsell App - week of 2026-10-05
Triaged 5 rows supplied: 1 incident risk, 1 repeated friction, 1 pricing confusion, 1 feature request, 1 needs human read. This is a first pass and has not been human-checked.
Scope: Example Upsell App, no competitors watched, 5 rows supplied, no review dates supplied. The brief covers only the rows supplied and makes no claim of exhaustive coverage. Reviews are customer reports, not verified defects. Items marked "first pass" are unverified keyword matches.
I read the leading numbers (1 to 5) as star ratings, as the skill specifies for the three-field form. If they were row IDs, the ratings are unknown, so please tell me.
P0 - Incident risk
- Example Upsell App - blank cart drawer, checkout stopped working (1 star, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Reviewer reports: "The cart drawer shows a blank screen and checkout stopped working after the update."
- Matched keywords:
blank screen,stopped working,checkout. The evidence is more than the word "checkout" alone. - Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Reproduced: not yet attempted
- Next action: try to reproduce on a development store today, on the version that shipped just before the review. Check the error tracker and support inbox for matching signals. If confirmed, treat it as an incident. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.
P1 - Repeated friction
- Example Upsell App - setup and finding settings (3 stars, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Reviewer reports: setup was confusing and they had to contact support to find the settings.
- Matched keywords:
confusing,had to contact support. This is one row, so there is no repetition and no escalation. - Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Next action: log it against the matching support theme. Check whether other setup-related tickets exist. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.
P2 - Pricing confusion
- Example Upsell App - double charge and unexplained free plan limit (2 stars, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Expected vs. actual: the reviewer reports being charged twice on the billing page and says the free plan limit was not explained.
- Matched keywords:
charged,billing,free plan. - Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Next action: compare the listing's pricing section and in-app upgrade prompts with what the reviewer describes. Clarify the free plan limit copy where they diverge. A double charge could be a billing defect rather than a copy issue, so have a person check the billing records. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.
P3 - Feature requests
- Example Upsell App - option to hide the widget on certain collections (4 stars, date not captured, source: not captured). Log it in the feature-request log. If collection-level visibility already exists, reply with where to find it.
Needs human read
- Example Upsell App (5 stars, date not captured, source: not captured). No keyword matched ("Nice app."). There is no detail to act on, so a person should read it and file it manually.
Competitor watch
- None supplied.
Decisions this week
- Reproduce row 1 first, since it is the only candidate that may affect the purchase path. Rows 1 and 2 both involve money flow, so the double-charge report in row 2 is worth a billing-records check at the same time.
Limits and notes
- Every item is a keyword match. Nothing has been reproduced or human-checked.
- No source links, dates, or owners were supplied. Send the five-field form (
rating | app | date | reviews URL | text) and I can fill in sources and dates. - Keyword matching is English-only and misses sarcasm and context.
- Nothing was sent, posted, or published. This is a draft for your team.
Real run in an isolated folder with only this skill installed. Only the Skill and Read tools were enabled, so nothing was fetched from the web and no file was written. The example is fictional. The reviews are invented.
Qué hace
Clasifica el texto de reseñas públicas de la tienda de apps en cinco categorías: riesgo de incidente (P0), fricción repetida (P1), confusión de precios (P2), solicitudes de funciones (P3) y requiere lectura humana. Cada reseña recibe una categoría principal, las coincidencias adicionales se anotan como secundarias, y el resultado es un único informe donde cada elemento incluye un responsable, una acción siguiente y un enlace a la fuente o un explícito "source: not captured".
Cómo funciona
- Pegas filas como la calificación, el nombre de la app, la fecha, la URL de reseñas públicas y el texto de la reseña.
- El modelo aplica una rúbrica de palabras clave publicada con reglas de desempate: gana la categoría más grave, la repetición en tres o más reseñas en aproximadamente 60 días escala un elemento, las reseñas antiguas son contexto, y el incidente de un competidor nunca se convierte en tu P0.
- Etiqueta todo como "first pass - not human-checked" y pide a una persona que lea la reseña original e intente reproducir los candidatos a P0 antes de promocionarlos.
Ideal para
Equipos y agencias independientes de apps de Shopify que necesitan decidir qué corregir primero a partir de reseñas dispersas con pocas estrellas.
Razonamiento puro sobre las filas que pegas: sin scripts, sin acceso a la red, sin cuentas ni claves. Solo acepta texto de reseñas públicas, rechaza datos privados como tickets de soporte o correos electrónicos de comerciantes, nunca inventa una reseña, calificación o enlace, y nunca contacta a nadie ni publica una respuesta; devuelve un borrador. La coincidencia de palabras clave es solo en inglés, no detecta el sarcasmo y puede clasificar mal una reseña, por lo que cada elemento es una clasificación de primera pasada que una persona debe verificar. Es independiente de Shopify y no está respaldado por Shopify.