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.
하는 일
공개된 앱 스토어 리뷰 텍스트를 다섯 가지로 나눕니다. 장애 위험(P0), 반복되는 불편(P1), 요금 혼란(P2), 기능 요청(P3), 사람이 읽어야 하는 항목. 리뷰마다 주 분류를 하나만 정하고 나머지 일치 항목은 보조 분류로 기록하며, 모든 항목에 담당자, 다음 조치, 출처 링크(없으면 명시적으로 "source: not captured")가 붙은 브리프 하나를 만듭니다.
동작 방식
- 평점, 앱 이름, 날짜, 공개 리뷰 URL, 리뷰 본문 같은 행을 붙여넣습니다.
- 모델이 공개된 키워드 기준으로 분류하며 판정 규칙을 따릅니다. 가장 심각한 분류를 택하고, 약 60일 안에 세 건 이상 같은 문제가 나오면 한 단계 올리고, 1년 넘은 리뷰는 배경으로만 쓰고, 경쟁사의 장애는 우리 P0가 되지 않습니다.
- 모든 항목에 "first pass - not human-checked"(1차 분류, 사람 확인 전)를 붙이고, 승격하기 전에 사람이 원문 리뷰를 읽고 P0 후보는 재현을 시도하도록 요청합니다.
이런 때 좋습니다
흩어진 저평점 리뷰에서 무엇을 먼저 고칠지 정해야 하는 소규모 Shopify 앱 팀과 대행사.
붙여넣은 데이터에 대한 추론만 합니다. 스크립트가 없고 네트워크 접속, 계정, 키가 필요 없습니다. 공개 리뷰 텍스트만 받으며 지원 티켓이나 판매자 이메일 같은 비공개 데이터는 거부합니다. 리뷰, 평점, 링크를 지어내지 않고, 누구에게 연락하거나 답글을 게시하지도 않으며 초안만 돌려줍니다. 키워드 매칭은 영어만 지원하고 비꼬는 표현을 구분하지 못하며 잘못 분류할 수 있으므로 모든 항목은 1차 분류이고 사람의 확인이 필요합니다. Shopify와 무관하며 승인을 받은 것도 아닙니다.