CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

app-rejection-recovery

When the user's app or update was rejected by Apple App Review or Google Play Review and they need to diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast. Use when the user mentions "app rejected", "App Review rejection", "guideline violation", "Apple rejected my app", "Google Play rejected", "Play policy violation", "Resolution Center", "metadata rejection", "binary rejection", "guideline 2.1", "guideline 4.3", "guideline 5.1.1", "Sign in with Apple required", "Apple ID rejection", "Play Store suspension", "appeal", "I need to respond to App Review", or "expedited review". For pre-submission listing health, see aso-audit. For metadata-only fixes, see metadata-optimization.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

High

Do not use without reviewing

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

82%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 well-structured, actionable playbook with copy-paste templates and concrete per-guideline fixes that assumes Claude's competence. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/feedback-loop checkpoint around the risky resubmission step.

Suggestions

Add an explicit pre-resubmission validation gate (e.g., "Run the RESUBMISSION CHECKLIST and only submit once every box is verified; if any item fails, fix and re-check before submitting") to create a validate->fix->retry loop.

Add a brief feedback loop for re-rejection: after the existing "If rejected again" line, specify re-diagnosing against the new guideline and re-running the workflow rather than leaving escalation open-ended.

Tighten the taxonomy tables by collapsing low-frequency rows or moving them to a reference file if the skill grows, to keep the overview scannable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Dense, table-driven body that assumes Claude's domain knowledge with no padding explaining what App Review or a privacy policy is; a few explanatory parentheticals ("First submissions are scrutinized harder") could be trimmed but largely earn their place.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready Resolution Center and output templates, numbered per-guideline fix steps, and concrete specifics (StoreKit, ATT, Info.plist, NSUsageDescription) covering the common rejection cases.

5 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced workflow with an explicit gate ("Do not start writing the fix until you've classified the rejection type") and a resubmission checklist, but lacks an explicit validate-then-fix-then-retry feedback loop for the risky resubmission step.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Self-contained SKILL.md with well-organized sections, tables, and templates, plus clearly signaled cross-skill handoffs (aso-audit, metadata-optimization); no bundle files exist so the structure is appropriately flat, though the single file is fairly long.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

95%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.

A strong, highly specific description with comprehensive natural trigger terms and clear what/when guidance. It carves out a distinct niche and explicitly distinguishes itself from adjacent skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names several concrete actions — "diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast" plus responding/appealing to App Review — covering the core workflow comprehensively, though it stops short of enumerating specific fix types (binary fix, metadata fix, drafting a Resolution Center response).

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (diagnose, fix, resubmit) and when, via a concrete "Use when the user mentions..." clause with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger list including exact user phrasings ("Apple rejected my app", "Google Play rejected", "Resolution Center") plus specific guideline numbers (2.1, 4.3, 5.1.1) and synonyms like "appeal" and "expedited review".

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear post-rejection niche with explicit disambiguation from sibling skills (aso-audit for pre-submission, metadata-optimization for metadata-only fixes), minimizing conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
Eronred/aso-skills
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.