CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

app-store-review

Use when reviewing iOS or iPadOS apps for App Store submission, TestFlight readiness, rejection recovery, Resolution Center replies, Guideline 4.3 similarity, or product craft. Includes iOS 27 compatibility, SDK and deployment gates, scene lifecycle, iPhone Duo, Apple Intelligence, Foundation Models, Siri/App Intents, privacy, subscriptions, accessibility, new App Store assets, and Apple design and Human Interface Guidelines audits of native interaction, motion, gestures, materials, haptics, and iPad adaptation. Applies to Xcode, Expo, React Native, and Flutter projects, supplied rejections or metadata, and requests such as "review my app" or "will Apple approve this".

1.39x
Quality

95%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

99%

1.39x

Average score across 7 eval scenarios

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

The canonical home for this skill is maj-labs/app-store-review

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

88%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A highly disciplined, action-heavy skill body: exact commands, literal output contracts, sequenced workflow with read-only-first approval checkpoints, and a well-routed one-level reference bundle. Its weaknesses are redundancy (gate requirements restated across sections) and one orphaned bundle script with no usage guidance.

Suggestions

State each output contract once: the Mode C six-line contract and Mode A header requirements currently appear in 'Output gates', the mode table, and the mode sections — define them in one place and cross-reference to trim roughly 15-20 lines.

Add a workflow step or load condition for scripts/ios_platform_review.py (when to run it, its inputs and outputs) or drop it from Packaged resources, since it is currently unreachable from the body's navigation.

Consolidate the repeated 'Read and follow references/X completely' phrasing into a single instruction near the mode table, letting per-mode sections name only the file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and almost entirely skill-specific policy Claude would not know (no explanations of iOS, Xcode, or PDF-like general concepts), but it repeats itself: the Mode C six-line contract requirements appear in 'Output gates', in the mode table, and again in the Mode C section, and the 'Read and follow references/X completely' pattern recurs six times. This fits anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed') rather than 5, and is not 3 because the tightening needed is deduplication, not removal of unnecessary explanation.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact scanner invocations with flags ('python3 scripts/app_store_review_scan.py <project-path> --format all --output-dir <report-directory>', '--compare-root', '--archive', '--metadata'), the render command, exact literal output blocks (the Mode A/B/C contract lines, the Markdown/JSON/HTML/Verification handoff), a defined severity taxonomy, and specific verification URLs. It matches the anchor-5 'copy-paste ready' standard for an instruction skill.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The process is explicitly sequenced (Discover → Establish review scope → Review iOS 27) with strong validation checkpoints: 'Run the first pass read-only. After reporting, offer a grouped fix plan and wait for approval', the literal 'Output gates' checklist verified before saving, the three-verdict taxonomy, do-not-claim-passed-without-execution rules, and post-render verification at desktop/mobile widths. It meets anchor 5's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops; checklists' standard.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is strong: a mode table routes triggers to specific files, all 11 referenced reference files exist in the bundle, and references are one level deep and clearly signaled. However, 'scripts/ios_platform_review.py' is listed in Packaged resources but never invoked or explained anywhere in the body — a minor navigation gap that fits anchor 4 ('references mostly clear; minor organization gaps') rather than anchor 5's 'easy navigation'.

4 / 5

Total

18

/

20

Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

An exemplary description: it states what the skill does and when to use it with concrete, naturally-spoken trigger phrases including quoted user requests, and it is unmistakably distinct from other skills. The enumeration is dense but every term is load-bearing for triggering rather than filler.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions — 'reviewing iOS or iPadOS apps for App Store submission, TestFlight readiness, rejection recovery, Resolution Center replies, Guideline 4.3 similarity, or product craft' plus design/HIG audits — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope. It exceeds anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') because no capability area is obviously missing.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (App Store review audits, rejection recovery, Resolution Center replies, design/HIG audits) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when reviewing...' clause with concrete trigger phrases and quoted example requests) are clearly and explicitly answered. It matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasing is comprehensively covered, including literal quoted requests 'review my app' and 'will Apple approve this', plus terms users would actually say: App Store submission, TestFlight, rejection, Resolution Center, Guideline 4.3, Xcode, Expo, React Native, Flutter. It is not anchor 4 because even synonyms and framework variants are present.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — Apple App Store review — with distinct triggers (TestFlight, Resolution Center, Guideline 4.3) that no generic skill would claim. It is not anchor 4 because there is no meaningful overlap risk with closely related skills; the triggers are unambiguous.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository

ElxMaj/app-store-review-skill

Path

copilot-plugin/skills/app-store-review/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.