shopify-review-triage – skill Lập trình cho agent AI

Shopify Review Triage — public low-star reviews to a P0–P3 brief

Overview

Takes rows of public Shopify App Store review text and produces one prioritized brief a

product or support owner can act on: what kind of problem each review describes, how badly it

can hurt, what to do first, and where the original wording came from.

It is built for independent Shopify app teams and the agencies that run their support — the

case where low-star reviews arrive scattered across several listings plus a few watched

competitors, and the failure mode is treating them all as equally urgent.

The rubric below is not invented here. It is the published rule set behind a free review triage

worksheet and manual triage guide (links under [Additional Resources](#additional-resources)),

reproduced so a manual pass, the worksheet, and this skill sort the same row the same way.

This skill needs no network access, no scripts, and no system packages. The person you are

helping supplies the review text.

When to Use This Skill

• Use when someone wants app store reviews, low-star reviews, or merchant feedback triaged,

prioritized, or clustered — even when they never say "triage", "severity", or "P0".

• Use when a new 1–3-star review lands on a Shopify app listing and the team has to decide

whether it is an incident, a UX problem, a pricing copy problem, or a feature request.

• Use when a weekly product or support brief is needed across a portfolio of apps plus a few

watched competitors.

• Do not use it to gather reviews, contact reviewers, or publish replies — see the hard

rules below.

Hard Rules

These are not style preferences. Breaking one makes the output worse than nothing.

1. Public review text only. Never accept, request, or copy support tickets, merchant emails,

order data, personal contact details, internal telemetry, or anything else not already public

on a listing page. If such data appears in the input, stop, say which rows are affected, and

ask for them to be removed before continuing.

2. Never invent evidence. Do not write a review, a rating, a date, an app name, or a source

URL that was not supplied. A row with no link gets source: not captured — never a guessed one.

3. Keyword output is a sort, not a verdict. Everything produced by the rubric alone is

labeled *first pass — not human-checked*. Only a person who read the review and checked it

against their own systems may relabel an item *human-checked*.

4. Reviews are customer reports, not verified defects. Write "the reviewer reports the editor

showed a blank screen", never "the editor is broken". The distinction survives into the brief.

5. No coverage claims. The brief covers exactly the rows supplied and says so. Make no claim

of exhaustive coverage of a listing, a period, or an app.

6. No promises. No revenue impact, no outcome, no ranking effect, no legal or compliance

advice. Suggest actions; do not predict results.

7. Draft only — never contact anyone. Do not send email, post a developer reply, open a

support ticket, message a reviewer, or publish anything. Hand the draft back to the team and

let a person decide what to send.

8. Reviewers are people. Refer to "the reviewer". Do not name, profile, or speculate about them.

How It Works

Step 1: Collect the rows

First ask which app names the team owns. Before any row is classified, ask for two lists of

app names, spelled exactly as they appear in the rows:

owned: Example Popup App, Example Currency App
competitors: Rival Popup App, Rival Currency App

Use ownership already supplied in the conversation; ask only for missing names. This is what makes tie-break 4 (*a competitor's incident never becomes your P0*)

applicable, so collect it first. It stays public data: app names as published on their listings,

nothing about accounts, merchants, org structure, or internal identifiers. Do not ask for more

than the names, and do not infer ownership from the review text, the first-person voice in a

review, or which app appears most often.

If an app name in a row appears in neither list, its ownership is unknown. Classify the row's

content normally, then file it under needs human read with ownership: not supplied instead

of placing it in a priority bucket or in competitor watch — a guessed owner is exactly the kind

of invented evidence hard rule 2 forbids.

Then ask for one review per line. The full form keeps the source link, which the brief needs:

rating | app name | review date | public reviews URL | review text

The shorter form used by the free worksheet is also fine — treat field 1 as the rating when it

is a bare 1–5 (optionally followed by star/stars/★), otherwise as the app name:

rating | app name | review text

Rules for this step:

• Lines starting with # are comments. Blank lines are skipped.
• If a row lacks a source URL, carry source: not captured through to the brief. Do not drop

the row and do not fabricate a link.

• Do not go and fetch anything yourself. This skill needs no network access; the person you are

helping pastes the public rows they already opened.

• The trigger this rubric is tuned for is a new 1–3-star review. Higher-rated rows still

classify correctly (a 5★ review often lands in feature requests or needs-human-read), so keep

them if they were supplied, but never present them as low-star signal.

Step 2: First pass — apply the rubric

Lower-case the review text and normalize curly apostrophes (’ → ') before matching, so a

pasted "won’t load" still matches won't load.

Five buckets. Each row gets exactly one primary bucket — the first dimension below, in this

order, with any matching keyword. Further matches are recorded as secondary, never as a

second brief item.

P0 · Incident risk

The purchase path, app activation, or merchant data may be at stake right now. Left alone it

costs the merchant money and the team installs.

Suggested action. Try to reproduce on a test store today. If confirmed, treat it as an incident: fix or mitigate first, then reply to the reviewer with what changed.

Signal keywords. won't load, wont load, won't open, wont open, can't close, cannot close, won't close, blank screen, broken, crash, stopped working, not working, doesn't work, does not work, checkout, losing sales, lost sales, error

P1 · Repeated friction

The product works, but the same struggle keeps showing up across reviews or against an open

support theme. Repetition is the signal, not volume of adjectives.

Suggested action. Log it against the matching support theme. If the same complaint repeats across rows, schedule a UX fix ahead of new feature work.

Signal keywords. confusing, unclear, hard to, difficult, complicated, clunky, slow, couldn't figure, could not figure, annoying, had to contact support, setup took, too many steps

P2 · Pricing confusion

What the merchant expected to pay and what happened diverged. Possible causes include listing copy, plan limits, billing defects or platform timing. A keyword match cannot establish which applies.

Suggested action. Compare what the reviewer expected with the listing's pricing section and in-app upgrade prompts; clarify the copy where they diverge.

Signal keywords. pricing, price, charged, charge, billing, billed, expensive, free plan, trial, refund, hidden fee, hidden cost, paywall

P3 · Feature request

The merchant wants something the app does not do, or could not find. Valuable as a log entry,

rarely urgent on its own.

Suggested action. Add it to the feature-request log with a link to the review. If the capability already exists, reply to the reviewer with where to find it.

Signal keywords. wish, would be great, would love, please add, feature request, missing, if only, would like, no option to, needs an option, hope you add, add support for

Needs human read

No keyword matched. Vague frustration, sarcasm, mixed praise, or a story that needs context.

Suggested action. No keyword matched. Read the full review yourself and file it manually — the heuristic makes no guess here.

Priority. The worksheet labels this bucket P2 and sorts it last. Treat that label as

provisional placement in the queue, not as a severity judgment — nothing has been judged yet.

Tie-breaks and escalation

1. Most severe wins. A row naming both a broken checkout and a billing surprise files under

P0 with pricing noted as secondary. Never split one review across two brief items.

2. Repetition escalates. If the same friction or pricing theme appears in three or more

reviews within about 60 days, move it up one level and say how many rows drove the change.

3. Age discounts. A review older than a year is backgrou

… (nội dung đầy đủ có trong gói tải về)