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.

77

Quality

96%

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

92%

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

A strong, dense, actionable playbook for app-review rejection recovery with clear sequencing, templates, and checklists. Its main weakness is progressive disclosure: a large single file with reference-style taxonomy tables that could be split into bundle files to keep SKILL.md a lean overview.

Suggestions

Move the Apple and Google rejection taxonomy tables into reference files (e.g. references/apple-guidelines.md, references/google-policies.md) and summarize the classify-then-fix flow inline, so SKILL.md stays a lean overview pointing one level deep.

Add a short 'Quick start' section at the top (paste rejection → classify guideline → apply playbook → send Resolution Center response) so the core loop is scannable before the detailed tables.

Externalize the Resolution Center and Output templates into a references/templates.md file, referencing them by link, to further reduce inline bulk while keeping them copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Lean, domain-specific instruction with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section (taxonomy tables, fix playbooks, response/output templates, checklists) earns its tokens; matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor.

3 / 3

Actionability

Highly concrete guidance for an instruction-only skill: per-guideline numbered fix steps, a copy-paste Resolution Center response template, a named output template, and named forms (Expedited Request, App Review Board, Special Permissions Declaration form); fully actionable rather than abstract.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequenced flow (initial assessment questions → classify before fixing → playbook fixes → response → resubmission checklist → post-resubmission escalation) with an explicit checkbox checklist and an 'if rejected again' feedback loop; not 2 because validation checkpoints and escalation are present rather than implicit.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized with clear sections and one-level cross-skill handoffs, but it is a ~200-line single file with large inline reference tables (Apple 16-row, Google 10-row taxonomies) that could be externalized into reference files; matches the 'some structure; content that should be separate is inline' anchor rather than the well-split 3 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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: third-person voice, concrete actions, exhaustive natural trigger terms, explicit 'Use when' guidance, and clear cross-skill disambiguation. It both defines a distinct niche and steers away from adjacent skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions in third person ("diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast") tied to a specific domain, matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor; not the 2 anchor because it pairs named actions with a precise domain rather than naming the domain alone.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("diagnose why, fix it, and resubmit fast") and when ("Use when the user mentions...") with explicit triggers, matching the 3 anchor; not 2 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Densely packed natural phrases users would actually say ("app rejected", "guideline 4.3", "Resolution Center", "Play Store suspension", "expedited review"); this is broad coverage of natural terms rather than the partial coverage of the 2 anchor.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (app-review rejection recovery) with guideline-number-specific triggers plus explicit disambiguation ("For pre-submission listing health, see aso-audit. For metadata-only fixes, see metadata-optimization."), unlikely to fire for the wrong skill.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

12

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.