Low-star review brief - Example Upsell App - week of 2026-10-05

Triaged 5 rows supplied: 1 incident risk, 1 repeated friction, 1 pricing confusion, 1 feature request, 1 needs human read. This is a first pass and has not been human-checked.

Scope: Example Upsell App, no competitors watched, 5 rows supplied, no review dates supplied. The brief covers only the rows supplied and makes no claim of exhaustive coverage. Reviews are customer reports, not verified defects. Items marked "first pass" are unverified keyword matches.

I read the leading numbers (1 to 5) as star ratings, as the skill specifies for the three-field form. If they were row IDs, the ratings are unknown, so please tell me.

P0 - Incident risk

Example Upsell App - blank cart drawer, checkout stopped working (1 star, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Reviewer reports: "The cart drawer shows a blank screen and checkout stopped working after the update."
- Matched keywords: blank screen, stopped working, checkout. The evidence is more than the word "checkout" alone.
- Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Reproduced: not yet attempted
- Next action: try to reproduce on a development store today, on the version that shipped just before the review. Check the error tracker and support inbox for matching signals. If confirmed, treat it as an incident. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.

P1 - Repeated friction

Example Upsell App - setup and finding settings (3 stars, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Reviewer reports: setup was confusing and they had to contact support to find the settings.
- Matched keywords: confusing, had to contact support. This is one row, so there is no repetition and no escalation.
- Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Next action: log it against the matching support theme. Check whether other setup-related tickets exist. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.

P2 - Pricing confusion

Example Upsell App - double charge and unexplained free plan limit (2 stars, date not captured, source: not captured)
- Expected vs. actual: the reviewer reports being charged twice on the billing page and says the free plan limit was not explained.
- Matched keywords: charged, billing, free plan.
- Status: first pass - not human-checked
- Next action: compare the listing's pricing section and in-app upgrade prompts with what the reviewer describes. Clarify the free plan limit copy where they diverge. A double charge could be a billing defect rather than a copy issue, so have a person check the billing records. Owner: unassigned, due: not set.

P3 - Feature requests

Example Upsell App - option to hide the widget on certain collections (4 stars, date not captured, source: not captured). Log it in the feature-request log. If collection-level visibility already exists, reply with where to find it.

Needs human read

Example Upsell App (5 stars, date not captured, source: not captured). No keyword matched ("Nice app."). There is no detail to act on, so a person should read it and file it manually.

Competitor watch

None supplied.

Decisions this week

Reproduce row 1 first, since it is the only candidate that may affect the purchase path. Rows 1 and 2 both involve money flow, so the double-charge report in row 2 is worth a billing-records check at the same time.

Limits and notes

Every item is a keyword match. Nothing has been reproduced or human-checked.
No source links, dates, or owners were supplied. Send the five-field form (rating | app | date | reviews URL | text) and I can fill in sources and dates.
Keyword matching is English-only and misses sarcasm and context.
Nothing was sent, posted, or published. This is a draft for your team.

Real run in an isolated folder with only this skill installed. Only the Skill and Read tools were enabled, so nothing was fetched from the web and no file was written. The example is fictional. The reviews are invented.

What it does

Sorts public app-store review text into five buckets: incident risk (P0), repeated friction (P1), pricing confusion (P2), feature requests (P3) and needs human read. Each review gets one primary bucket, further matches are noted as secondary, and the result is a single brief where every item carries an owner, a next action and a source link or an explicit "source: not captured".

How it works

You paste rows such as rating, app name, date, public reviews URL and review text.
The model applies a published keyword rubric with tie-break rules: the most severe bucket wins, repetition across three or more reviews in about 60 days escalates an item, old reviews are background, and a competitor's incident never becomes your P0.
It labels everything "first pass - not human-checked" and asks a person to read the original review and try to reproduce P0 candidates before promoting them.

Good for

Independent Shopify app teams and agencies that need to decide what to fix first from scattered low-star reviews.

Notes & risks

Pure reasoning over rows you paste: no scripts, no network access, no accounts or keys. It only accepts public review text, refuses private data such as support tickets or merchant emails, never invents a review, rating or link, and never contacts anyone or posts a reply; it hands back a draft. Keyword matching is English-only, misses sarcasm and can misfile a review, so every item is a first-pass sort that a person must check. Independent of, and not endorsed by, Shopify.