CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

review-management

When the user wants to analyze, respond to, or improve their app reviews and ratings. Also use when the user mentions "reviews", "ratings", "negative reviews", "how to get more reviews", "review response", or "my rating is dropping". For broader ASO audit, see aso-audit. For retention issues causing bad reviews, see retention-optimization.

60

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/review-management/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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

A highly actionable, well-structured reference whose main weaknesses are length, missing validation checkpoints in its workflows, and a monolithic structure with a dangling file reference. Scored 2.3 weighted, 0.65 normalized.

Suggestions

Add a lightweight validation step to the Initial Assessment (e.g. 'Confirm the reported rating trend against fetched reviews before recommending prompt-timing changes') to raise workflow_clarity.

Resolve or remove the 'app-marketing-context.md' reference — the file does not exist in the bundle, so either create it under references/ or drop the reference.

Move the response templates and review-health output format into a separate references file (e.g. RESPONSE_TEMPLATES.md) linked from the body to improve progressive_disclosure and cut inline length.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — table/bullet-driven with no concept filler Claude already knows — but at ~150 lines several sections ('Turning Detractors into Advocates', 'Review Mining for Product Insights') could be tightened, matching anchor 2.

2 / 3

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready response templates with fill-in fields, concrete prompt-timing rules ('3+ times', 'at least 7 days', '3 times per 365-day period'), the HEAR framework, and structured output formats, matching anchor 3.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are clear (Initial Assessment 1–5, Action Plan immediate/week/month) but there are no validation or feedback checkpoints — e.g. no step to verify the rating trend or confirm a bug is reproducible before recommending fixes — matching anchor 2.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

Well sectioned into headers, but it is a monolithic single-file guide with inline content (templates, metrics) that could be split out, and it references 'app-marketing-context.md' which is not present in any bundle directory, matching anchor 2.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

72%

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 well-targeted description with excellent trigger terms and good disambiguation against sibling skills, weakened by a missing standalone capability statement that leaves the 'what' implicit. Scored 2.45 weighted, 0.725 normalized.

Suggestions

Lead with a declarative capability sentence before the triggers, e.g. 'Analyzes, responds to, and improves app store reviews and ratings.' to clearly answer 'what does this do'.

Expand the action list beyond analyze/respond/improve with more concrete capabilities (e.g. 'mine reviews for product insights', 'optimize in-app rating prompts', 'draft review responses').

Keep the existing trigger-term and cross-skill disambiguation clauses — those are already strong.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('app reviews and ratings') and concrete actions ('analyze, respond to, or improve'), but the verbs are generic and embedded in a trigger clause rather than a comprehensive capability list, matching anchor 2.

2 / 3

Completeness

The explicit 'when' trigger guidance is present, but the description opens with 'When the user wants to...' so the 'what' (capability) is only implied inside the trigger clause rather than stated as a clear declarative, capping it below 3.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes a strong set of natural phrases a user would actually say — 'reviews', 'ratings', 'negative reviews', 'how to get more reviews', 'review response', 'my rating is dropping' — giving good coverage matching anchor 3.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (app review/rating management) and actively reduces conflict by redirecting 'broader ASO audit' to aso-audit and 'retention issues' to retention-optimization, matching anchor 3.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.