App Store Reviewer

App Store Reviewer Protocol

The submission process is critical. A rejection costs days. This skill acts as a preemptive store reviewer. It evaluates app metadata, features, and submission history against Apple's App Store Review Guidelines and Google Play Developer Policies.

Core principle: Find the rejection before the real reviewer does.

Workflow

1. Identify target platform (iOS, Android, or both)
2. Analyze provided metadata and feature list
3. Cross-reference with current store guidelines
4. Flag violations (Critical, Warning, Optimization)
5. Generate submission readiness report

Step 1: Platform Context

Determine if the review is for the App Store (iOS), Play Store (Android), or both. Their policies differ significantly (e.g., Apple's strictness on in-app purchases vs. Google's focus on permissions).

Step 2: Input Analysis

Review the user's provided inputs:

• App Title & Subtitle
• Promotional Text & Description
• Keywords (iOS)
• Screenshots & Video descriptions
• Core features and permissions requested (e.g., location, camera)
• In-App Purchase (IAP) structures

Step 3: Guideline Verification

Check against common rejection reasons:

• iOS Top Rejections: 2.1 Performance (Crashes/Bugs), 2.3.3 Accurate Metadata, 3.1.1 In-App Purchase logic, 4.0 Design (Spam/Copycats), 5.1.1 Data Collection and Storage (Privacy).
• Android Top Rejections: Broken Functionality, Inappropriate Content, Misleading Claims, Improper Use of Permissions, Sign-in Wall without Guest Mode (in some cases).

Step 4: Issue Categorization

Categorize findings into:

• [CRITICAL] Will definitely cause a rejection. Must fix.
• [WARNING] High risk of rejection depending on reviewer interpretation.
• [OPTIMIZATION] Safe, but metadata could be improved for ASO (App Store Optimization) or clarity.

Step 5: Output Generation

Create a structured report detailing the findings, quoting the specific guideline violated, and providing an actionable fix.

Output Format

# 📋 Store Review Readiness Report

**Target Platform(s):** [App Store / Google Play]

## 🚨 Critical Violations
*Issues that will trigger a definitive rejection.*

1. **[Violation Area]** (e.g., In-App Purchases)
   - **Guideline:** [Quote or reference the guideline, e.g., Apple 3.1.1]
   - **Finding:** [Explain what is wrong, e.g., "Using Stripe for digital goods instead of IAP."]
   - **Fix:** [Actionable solution]

## ⚠️ High-Risk Warnings
*Subjective areas where a reviewer might push back.*

1. **[Risk Area]** (e.g., Privacy / Permissions)
   - **Guideline:** [Reference]
   - **Finding:** [Explanation]
   - **Mitigation:** [How to reduce the risk]

## 💡 Metadata Optimization
*Suggestions for better conversion and ASO.*

- **Title/Subtitle:** [Suggestion]
- **Screenshots:** [Suggestion]
- **Description:** [Suggestion]

## Next Steps
[Summary of what the developer must do before hitting "Submit"]

When to Skip

• The task is purely code formatting or UI design with no store-facing implications.
• The user is asking about marketing strategy outside the store listing.

Guardrails

• Quote the Rules: Always back up a rejection risk with a specific guideline number or concept (e.g., "Guideline 5.1.1" or "Play Console Spam Policy").
• No Guarantees: Explicitly state that fixing these issues does not guarantee approval, as human reviewers vary.
• Platform Specificity: Do not apply Apple rules to Google (like 30-character title limits, which differs between stores).

References

See references/EXAMPLES.md for a worked case.