plugins/digital-marketing/skills/reply-to-customer-review/SKILL.md
Generate professional, empathetic, on-brand responses to online customer reviews. Analyzes sentiment, detects severity, adapts tone, and provides operational suggestions. Supports hospitality (Airbnb, Booking, Tripadvisor) and e-commerce/app (Amazon, App Store, Trustpilot) with sector-specific patterns. TRIGGER WHEN: review, recensione, reply to review, respond to review, risposta recensione, customer review, negative review, bad review, rispondere alla recensione, gestione recensioni, review response. DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: the task is outside the specific scope of this component.
npx skillsauth add acaprino/alfio-claude-plugins reply-to-customer-reviewInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
4 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Generate a professional, empathetic response to a customer review. Analyze the review, craft an adaptive response, and provide operational suggestions.
The user pastes a customer review (or invokes via /reply-to-customer-review). Optional parameters:
If invoked without arguments, prompt the user to paste a review.
Execute all three steps inline. Do NOT spawn subagents.
Analyze the review and determine:
Language -- identify the review language. For mixed-language reviews, identify the dominant language and note secondary languages.
Sentiment -- classify as one of:
Key Points -- extract the specific topics mentioned (e.g., cleanliness, shipping speed, product quality, staff attitude, app stability, price, location).
Severity (negative/mixed reviews only) -- assess as one of:
Sector -- auto-detect from vocabulary and context:
Load the appropriate reference file: references/hospitality-patterns.md or references/ecommerce-patterns.md. If generic, use general best practices.
Craft the response following these rules:
Tone: Use the user-specified tone or default to professional-empathetic. The tone scale:
formal -- corporate, third-person, measured languagefriendly -- warm, first-person, conversational but professional (this is the professional-empathetic default)casual -- relaxed, direct, uses contractions and informal phrasingLanguage: Respond in the same language as the review unless --lang overrides.
Brand: If --brand is provided, sign off with the brand name. If not, use a generic professional sign-off.
Adaptive strategy for negative reviews:
| Severity | Strategy | Key Elements | |----------|----------|-------------| | UNFOUNDED | Diplomatic-defensive | Acknowledge feelings, provide factual context, invite private contact | | MINOR | Empathetic-proactive | Thank for feedback, acknowledge the issue, describe corrective action taken, invite return | | MAJOR | Empathetic-proactive (urgent) | Sincere apology, take full responsibility, describe immediate corrective action, offer compensation, provide direct contact for follow-up | | ABUSIVE | Minimal/No response | If responding: brief, professional, offer private channel. May recommend not responding and reporting to platform instead |
For positive reviews: Thank sincerely, reference specific points mentioned, reinforce the positive experience, invite return/continued use. Keep it genuine -- avoid sounding templated.
For neutral reviews: Thank for taking the time, address any suggestions, invite further engagement.
Response length guidelines:
Before presenting the response, self-check against these rules. The response must sound like a real person wrote it -- not a chatbot or corporate template.
Avoiding AI patterns is half the job. Soulless "clean" writing is just as obvious.
"testament", "pivotal", "landscape", "delve", "foster", "underscore", "showcase", "showcases", "vibrant", "crucial", "enhance", "garner", "interplay", "tapestry", "endeavor", "embark", "paramount", "comprehensive", "furthermore", "henceforth", "additionally", "noteworthy", "commendable", "invaluable", "exceptional"
Content: no inflated significance ("This truly reflects..."), no promotional tone (reply as a person, not a brochure), no vague attributions ("many guests say..."), no formulaic "challenges and future" framing.
Language: no copula avoidance ("serves as" -- just use "is"), no -ing fillers at sentence start ("Highlighting..."), no negative parallelisms ("not only... but also"), no forced rule of three, no elegant variation / synonym cycling (pick one word and reuse it -- don't rotate "stay/sojourn/visit/experience"), no false ranges.
Style: no excessive em dashes, no bold text or emoji, no curly quotation marks.
Communication: no servile tone ("Great feedback!", "Thank you so much for your kind words!", "We truly appreciate..."), no template phrases ("We are sorry to hear...", "Thank you for taking the time...", "Your feedback is valuable...", "Your satisfaction is our priority..."), no filler phrases ("In order to", "At its core", "It is important to note"), no generic positive conclusions ("we look forward to continuing", "we strive for excellence"), no excessive hedging ("perhaps", "we believe", "we hope" -- be direct), no collaborative artifacts ("Hope this helps!", "Don't hesitate to...").
After drafting, re-read the response and ask: "Would a real B&B owner actually write this?" If any sentence sounds like ChatGPT, rewrite it.
Present three clearly separated sections:
RESPONSE
The ready-to-copy response text (after AI trace removal), formatted for the review platform. No markdown formatting -- plain text that can be pasted directly.
ANALYSIS
| Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Language | [detected language] | | Sentiment | [POSITIVE/NEUTRAL/NEGATIVE/MIXED] | | Severity | [UNFOUNDED/MINOR/MAJOR/ABUSIVE or N/A] | | Sector | [HOSPITALITY/ECOMMERCE/GENERIC] | | Key Points | [comma-separated list] | | Flags | [any concerns requiring attention, or "None"] |
OPERATIONAL SUGGESTIONS
Bulleted list of recommended internal actions based on the review content. Examples:
If the review is positive with no issues, suggest ways to leverage it (e.g., "Consider featuring this review on your website", "Share with the team as positive feedback").
After presenting the output, the user may request adjustments:
Regenerate only the RESPONSE section when adjusting. Keep Analysis and Operational Suggestions unchanged unless the user specifically asks to revise them.
development
Quality gates for multi-reviewer code review pipelines: adversarial verification panel, completeness critic, reviewer pipeline conventions, and the context sharing pattern for parallel reviewers. TRIGGER WHEN: running /senior-review:team-review quality gates; running /senior-review:code-review Steps 4b/4c (adversarial verification and completeness check); consolidating or deduplicating findings from multiple parallel reviewers. DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: single-reviewer style review without a consolidation phase, or generic team coordination (the upstream agent-teams skills cover that).
development
Knowledge base for pure-architecture decisions on when to unify duplicated logic into a shared abstraction versus leave it duplicated. Covers the canonical theory (Rule of Three, DRY/WET/AHA, Wrong Abstraction, Locality of Behaviour, Bounded Contexts, Tidy First options framing, CUPID vs SOLID), 12 essential-duplication patterns that justify unification, 12 wrong-abstraction patterns that justify inlining or decomposition, an operational decision frame, and a verified reading list. TRIGGER WHEN: the user is making an architectural decision about whether to centralize, extract, or remove a layer; reviewing an abstraction for premature generality; auditing scattered cross-cutting concerns; spawned by the abstraction-architect agent during /abstraction-architect:audit or as the Abstraction dimension of /senior-review:team-review or /senior-review:code-review; the user asks "should I extract this into a service" / "is this DRY enough" / "is this wrong abstraction". DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: the task is code formatting and readability cleanup (use clean-code:clean-code), Python-specific refactoring with metrics (use python-development:python-refactor), generic dead-code removal (use senior-review:cleanup-dead-code), security review (use senior-review:security-auditor), or pure pattern-consistency review without an architecture lens (use senior-review:code-auditor).
development
Unified web frontend knowledge base covering CSS architecture, UX psychology, UI components, distinctive aesthetics, and interface design generation. TRIGGER WHEN: working on web styling, design systems, component decisions, responsive strategy, distinctive frontend aesthetics, or exploring multiple interface designs. DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: the task is purely backend or unrelated to web frontend.
development
Stripe payments knowledge base - API patterns, checkout optimization, subscription lifecycle, pricing strategies, webhook reliability, Firebase integration, cost analysis, and revenue modeling. Loaded by stripe-integrator and revenue-optimizer agents; also consumable directly when the user asks for Stripe-specific patterns without needing an agent. TRIGGER WHEN: working with Stripe API (Payment Intents, Customers, Subscriptions, Checkout Sessions, Connect, webhooks, tax, usage-based billing), pricing strategy, or revenue modeling. DO NOT TRIGGER WHEN: payment work is non-Stripe (PayPal, Square, crypto) or the task is generic e-commerce unrelated to payments.