CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

maj-labs/app-store-review

Full-lifecycle Apple App Store review for iOS and iPadOS apps. Use for pre-submission audits, rejection diagnosis and Resolution Center replies, Guideline 4.3 spam or similarity recovery, human-craft and low-effort audits, App Review Notes, privacy manifests, Info.plist permission strings, subscriptions, Sign in with Apple, account deletion, UGC, third-party AI consent, TestFlight or App Store readiness, and vague requests such as "review my app" or "will Apple approve this" when an Xcode, Expo, React Native, or Flutter project is present. Produces evidence-tagged Markdown, JSON, and a self-contained visual HTML report, runs a read-only deterministic scan first, and only offers grouped fixes after the report.

97

2.08x
Quality

97%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

98%

2.08x

Average score across 4 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Evaluation results

100%

100%

Guideline 2.3.7 rejection recovery

Anonymized Guideline 2.3.7 rejection recovery for a proven subtitle price claim requiring localized metadata correction and a factual Resolution Center reply

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Verbatim opening and one classification

0%

100%

Proven FIX under 2.3.7

0%

100%

Every live subtitle localization

0%

100%

Fallback metadata and assets

0%

100%

Description remains contextual

0%

100%

Conditional same-build guidance

0%

100%

Factual verified reply

0%

100%

No appeal or invented work

0%

100%

100%

Help Petra Respond to the Nimbus Weather Rejection

4.3(b) rejection recovery for weather app

Criteria
Baseline
With context

4.3(b) vs 4.3(a) distinction

100%

100%

Response classification

100%

100%

Exact rejection message preserved

100%

100%

Resolution Center reply present

100%

100%

Build number placeholder or reference

100%

100%

Attachments listed

100%

100%

No code obfuscation recommendation

100%

100%

No unsupported provenance claim

100%

100%

Fast review timeline not mischaracterized

100%

100%

Evidence confidence labels

100%

100%

No invented evidence

100%

100%

No AI-detection claim

100%

100%

100%

55%

Is ShareFlow Ready to Submit?

Expo app full pre-launch review with extension targets

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Mode A declared first

0%

100%

Mode C declared

0%

100%

Expo config cited as evidence

87%

100%

Fix targets app.json or plugin

87%

100%

Share extension reviewed separately

87%

100%

MANUAL CHECK for absent ios/ directory

25%

100%

Missing camera purpose string identified

0%

100%

Policy verification date recorded

57%

100%

ITMS-91053 absent

100%

100%

Five Mode C interventions

0%

100%

All five Mode C dimensions graded

0%

100%

No files modified

100%

100%

Fix plan section present

44%

100%

92%

47%

Should FocusNest Be Submitted?

Guideline 4.3(b) human-craft audit for a template-derived focus timer

Criteria
Baseline
With context

Exact Mode C contract

0%

60%

All dimensions use allowed grades

0%

100%

Grades match supplied evidence

30%

100%

Current 4.3(b) position

87%

100%

4.3(a) kept distinct

100%

100%

Template provenance handled accurately

85%

100%

Product change leads

90%

100%

Exactly five interventions

50%

100%

Interventions are verifiable

42%

100%

Unverified surfaces preserved

50%

100%

No evasion or fake probability

100%

100%

No supplied files modified

100%

100%

Evaluated
Agent
Claude Code
Model
Claude Sonnet 4.6

Table of Contents