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.
它做什麼
把公開的應用商店評價文字分成五類:事故風險(P0)、反覆出現的摩擦(P1)、定價困惑(P2)、功能請求(P3)與需要人工閱讀。每則評價只歸入一個主分類,其餘命中的記為次要分類,最終得到一份簡報,每個項目都有負責人、下一步行動與來源連結,沒有來源的明確寫「source: not captured」。
運作方式
- 你貼上若干行資料:評分、應用名稱、日期、公開評價連結與評價內文。
- 模型依一套已公開的關鍵字規則分類,並遵守判定規則:取最嚴重的分類;約 60 天內有三則或更多評價反覆出現同一問題則升一級;超過一年的評價只作背景;競品的事故不會變成你的 P0。
- 所有結果都標註「first pass - not human-checked」(初篩,未經人工核對),並要求由人閱讀原評價、對 P0 候選嘗試重現後再提升級別。
適合什麼場景
獨立 Shopify 應用團隊與代營運機構,需要從分散的低分評價中判斷該先修什麼。
依你貼上的資料做純推理:沒有腳本,不連網,不需要帳號或金鑰。它只接受公開的評價文字,拒絕工單、商家電子郵件等私有資料,絕不捏造評價、評分或連結,也絕不聯絡任何人或發布回覆,只交還草稿。關鍵字比對只支援英文,辨識不了諷刺,也可能歸錯類,所以每個項目都只是初篩,必須由人核對。與 Shopify 無關聯,也未獲其背書。