UGC Moderation Assistant
Overview
This skill provides a structured moderation framework for user-generated content (UGC) across e-commerce platforms — product reviews, ratings, Q&A, community forums, and user-submitted photos/videos. It balances brand protection with authentic consumer voice, applying regulatory, legal, and brand-safety filters while preserving genuine feedback that drives conversion.
Authentic reviews increase conversion rates by 15-30%. The goal is not to suppress negative feedback but to ensure all published content is genuine, compliant, and safe.
When to Use
- Processing incoming product reviews before publication on DTC or marketplace storefronts.
- Moderating Q&A submissions on product detail pages.
- Screening user-submitted photos and videos for brand safety.
- Auditing existing review corpuses for policy violations or fake review patterns.
- Generating moderation reports for brand and legal teams.
- Responding to or flagging reviews that require brand intervention.
Required Inputs
| Input |
Description |
Example |
ugc_content |
The user-generated text, rating, and metadata |
{ "text": "...", "rating": 4, "author": "...", "date": "..." } |
product_info |
Associated product name, category, and claims |
Product record |
moderation_policy |
Brand-specific moderation rules and thresholds |
Policy document |
channel |
Platform where UGC will appear |
"DTC Shopify", "Amazon Vine", "Bazaarvoice" |
media_attachments |
URLs to any user-uploaded images or videos |
List of URLs |
escalation_contacts |
Contacts for legal, PR, and customer service escalation |
Email/Slack channels |
historical_patterns |
Known fake review patterns or repeat offenders |
Pattern library |
Methodology
Step 1 — Content Classification
Classify each piece of UGC into a moderation category:
| Category |
Definition |
Default Action |
| Approved |
Genuine, policy-compliant, and relevant |
Publish |
| Approved with Edit |
Minor issues (PII, formatting) that can be auto-corrected |
Publish after edit |
| Flagged for Review |
Ambiguous content requiring human judgment |
Queue for manual review |
| Rejected — Policy |
Violates moderation policy (profanity, hate speech, threats) |
Block with reason code |
| Rejected — Compliance |
Contains regulated claims or legal risk |
Block and escalate |
| Rejected — Authenticity |
Suspected fake, incentivized, or competitor-planted review |
Block and log |
Step 2 — Authenticity Assessment
Apply the Review Authenticity Scorecard to detect inauthentic content:
| Signal |
Weight |
Indicators |
| Linguistic Analysis |
25% |
Generic language, excessive superlatives, template patterns, lack of product-specific detail |
| Behavioral Patterns |
25% |
Review velocity (multiple reviews in minutes), reviewer history, geographic anomalies |
| Purchase Verification |
20% |
Verified purchase flag, order-to-review timing (< 24hrs suspicious, > 90 days stale) |
| Sentiment-Rating Alignment |
15% |
5-star rating with negative text, or vice versa — indicates manipulation |
| Duplicate Detection |
15% |
Near-duplicate text across products, accounts, or time periods |
Authenticity Score: 0-100. Content below 40 is auto-rejected. 40-65 is flagged for human review. Above 65 passes authenticity gate.
Step 3 — Safety & Compliance Screening
Screen content against multiple safety layers:
Legal Safety:
- PII detection: email addresses, phone numbers, full names of non-public individuals, addresses.
- Defamation risk: false statements of fact about competitors or individuals.
- Intellectual property: copyrighted text, trademarked terms used inappropriately.
Regulatory Compliance:
- Health/medical claims in reviews: "This cured my diabetes" — flag for disclaimer or removal.
- Off-label use descriptions for regulated products.
- Adverse event reports (FDA-reportable for supplements, OTC drugs, cosmetics).
Brand Safety:
- Profanity and hate speech (zero tolerance).
- Violent or sexually explicit content.
- Competitor promotion or spam links.
- Politically divisive or discriminatory language.
Step 4 — Adverse Event Detection (CPG-Specific)
For FDA-regulated categories (supplements, OTC, cosmetics, food), identify potential adverse event reports:
- Scan for medical terminology: "allergic reaction," "rash," "hospitalized," "side effect."
- Classify severity: mild (discomfort), moderate (required medical attention), serious (hospitalization, life-threatening).
- Serious adverse events trigger mandatory escalation to regulatory affairs within 24 hours.
- Log all adverse event mentions in the pharmacovigilance tracking system.
Step 5 — Sentiment Analysis & Brand Intelligence
Extract actionable intelligence from approved UGC:
- Sentiment Distribution: Positive / neutral / negative ratio by product and time period.
- Topic Clustering: Group reviews by theme (packaging, taste, efficacy, value, shipping).
- Emerging Issues: Detect sudden spikes in negative sentiment on specific topics.
- Competitive Mentions: Track competitor name mentions and comparative sentiment.
- Feature Requests: Identify recurring requests for product improvements.
Step 6 — Response Prioritization
Rank reviews requiring brand response by urgency:
| Priority |
Criteria |
Response SLA |
| P0 — Crisis |
Safety issue, viral potential, adverse event |
2 hours |
| P1 — Urgent |
1-star verified purchase with specific product defect |
24 hours |
| P2 — Important |
Detailed negative review with actionable feedback |
48 hours |
| P3 — Standard |
Positive review warranting thank-you response |
72 hours |
| P4 — Monitor |
Neutral review, no action needed |
No response required |
Output Specification
output:
moderation_decision: string # "approved" | "approved_with_edit" | "flagged" | "rejected"
rejection_reason: string # Policy code if rejected
authenticity_score: float # 0-100
safety_flags: list[string] # Specific safety issues found
adverse_event_detected: boolean
adverse_event_severity: string # "mild" | "moderate" | "serious" | null
sentiment: string # "positive" | "neutral" | "negative"
topics: list[string] # Extracted themes
response_priority: string # P0-P4
suggested_response: string # Draft brand response if P0-P3
edits_applied: list[string] # Auto-corrections made (PII redaction, etc.)
pii_redacted: boolean
Analysis Framework
UGC Health Dashboard Metrics (aggregate across all moderated content):
| Metric |
Healthy Range |
Alert Threshold |
| Approval Rate |
85-95% |
< 75% (overly restrictive) or > 98% (under-moderated) |
| Fake Review Rate |
< 5% |
> 10% |
| Avg Authenticity Score |
> 75 |
< 60 |
| Adverse Event Rate |
< 0.1% |
> 0.5% (potential product issue) |
| Avg Response Time (P0/P1) |
< 12 hrs |
> 24 hrs |
| Sentiment Trend |
Stable or improving |
3+ consecutive weeks declining |
Examples
Input Review: "TERRIBLE product!! Gave me a horrible rash all over my arms. Called my doctor and he said it was a chemical burn. DO NOT BUY. Contact me at jane.smith@email.com to join the lawsuit."
Analysis:
- Moderation Decision: Rejected — Compliance
- Authenticity Score: 78 (genuine language, specific details)
- Safety Flags: PII detected (email), potential legal threat
- Adverse Event: Detected — Severity: Moderate (required medical attention)
- Response Priority: P0 — Crisis
- Actions: (1) Redact email address. (2) Escalate adverse event to regulatory affairs immediately. (3) Escalate legal threat to legal team. (4) Draft empathetic response with customer service contact.
Guidelines
- Never suppress genuine negative reviews — they build trust and provide product intelligence.
- Adverse event detection is a legal obligation for FDA-regulated products. Err on the side of over-reporting.
- PII must be redacted before publication, never after.
- Incentivized reviews (samples, discounts) must be disclosed per FTC guidelines.
- Maintain consistent moderation standards regardless of rating — do not apply stricter standards to negative reviews.
- All moderation decisions must be logged with timestamps and rationale for audit trails.
Validation Checklist
1---2name: ugc-moderation-assistant3description: Screen, classify, and moderate user-generated content including product reviews, Q&A submissions, community posts, and uploaded media for CPG and retail e-commerce platforms.45metadata:6 display_name: "Ugc Moderation Assistant"7 short_description: "Moderate user-generated reviews and product content"8 default_prompt: "Help me with ugc moderation and give clear next steps"9 version: "1.0.1"10 tags:11 - cpg-retail12 icon_path: "assets/icon.png"13---1415# UGC Moderation Assistant1617## Overview1819This skill provides a structured moderation framework for user-generated content (UGC) across e-commerce platforms — product reviews, ratings, Q&A, community forums, and user-submitted photos/videos. It balances brand protection with authentic consumer voice, applying regulatory, legal, and brand-safety filters while preserving genuine feedback that drives conversion.2021Authentic reviews increase conversion rates by 15-30%. The goal is not to suppress negative feedback but to ensure all published content is genuine, compliant, and safe.2223## When to Use2425- Processing incoming product reviews before publication on DTC or marketplace storefronts.26- Moderating Q&A submissions on product detail pages.27- Screening user-submitted photos and videos for brand safety.28- Auditing existing review corpuses for policy violations or fake review patterns.29- Generating moderation reports for brand and legal teams.30- Responding to or flagging reviews that require brand intervention.3132## Required Inputs3334| Input | Description | Example |35|---|---|---|36| `ugc_content` | The user-generated text, rating, and metadata | `{ "text": "...", "rating": 4, "author": "...", "date": "..." }` |37| `product_info` | Associated product name, category, and claims | Product record |38| `moderation_policy` | Brand-specific moderation rules and thresholds | Policy document |39| `channel` | Platform where UGC will appear | "DTC Shopify", "Amazon Vine", "Bazaarvoice" |40| `media_attachments` | URLs to any user-uploaded images or videos | List of URLs |41| `escalation_contacts` | Contacts for legal, PR, and customer service escalation | Email/Slack channels |42| `historical_patterns` | Known fake review patterns or repeat offenders | Pattern library |4344## Methodology4546### Step 1 — Content Classification4748Classify each piece of UGC into a moderation category:4950| Category | Definition | Default Action |51|---|---|---|52| **Approved** | Genuine, policy-compliant, and relevant | Publish |53| **Approved with Edit** | Minor issues (PII, formatting) that can be auto-corrected | Publish after edit |54| **Flagged for Review** | Ambiguous content requiring human judgment | Queue for manual review |55| **Rejected — Policy** | Violates moderation policy (profanity, hate speech, threats) | Block with reason code |56| **Rejected — Compliance** | Contains regulated claims or legal risk | Block and escalate |57| **Rejected — Authenticity** | Suspected fake, incentivized, or competitor-planted review | Block and log |5859### Step 2 — Authenticity Assessment6061Apply the **Review Authenticity Scorecard** to detect inauthentic content:6263| Signal | Weight | Indicators |64|---|---|---|65| Linguistic Analysis | 25% | Generic language, excessive superlatives, template patterns, lack of product-specific detail |66| Behavioral Patterns | 25% | Review velocity (multiple reviews in minutes), reviewer history, geographic anomalies |67| Purchase Verification | 20% | Verified purchase flag, order-to-review timing (< 24hrs suspicious, > 90 days stale) |68| Sentiment-Rating Alignment | 15% | 5-star rating with negative text, or vice versa — indicates manipulation |69| Duplicate Detection | 15% | Near-duplicate text across products, accounts, or time periods |7071**Authenticity Score**: 0-100. Content below 40 is auto-rejected. 40-65 is flagged for human review. Above 65 passes authenticity gate.7273### Step 3 — Safety & Compliance Screening7475Screen content against multiple safety layers:7677**Legal Safety**:78- PII detection: email addresses, phone numbers, full names of non-public individuals, addresses.79- Defamation risk: false statements of fact about competitors or individuals.80- Intellectual property: copyrighted text, trademarked terms used inappropriately.8182**Regulatory Compliance**:83- Health/medical claims in reviews: "This cured my diabetes" — flag for disclaimer or removal.84- Off-label use descriptions for regulated products.85- Adverse event reports (FDA-reportable for supplements, OTC drugs, cosmetics).8687**Brand Safety**:88- Profanity and hate speech (zero tolerance).89- Violent or sexually explicit content.90- Competitor promotion or spam links.91- Politically divisive or discriminatory language.9293### Step 4 — Adverse Event Detection (CPG-Specific)9495For FDA-regulated categories (supplements, OTC, cosmetics, food), identify potential adverse event reports:96971. Scan for medical terminology: "allergic reaction," "rash," "hospitalized," "side effect."982. Classify severity: mild (discomfort), moderate (required medical attention), serious (hospitalization, life-threatening).993. Serious adverse events trigger **mandatory escalation** to regulatory affairs within 24 hours.1004. Log all adverse event mentions in the pharmacovigilance tracking system.101102### Step 5 — Sentiment Analysis & Brand Intelligence103104Extract actionable intelligence from approved UGC:105106- **Sentiment Distribution**: Positive / neutral / negative ratio by product and time period.107- **Topic Clustering**: Group reviews by theme (packaging, taste, efficacy, value, shipping).108- **Emerging Issues**: Detect sudden spikes in negative sentiment on specific topics.109- **Competitive Mentions**: Track competitor name mentions and comparative sentiment.110- **Feature Requests**: Identify recurring requests for product improvements.111112### Step 6 — Response Prioritization113114Rank reviews requiring brand response by urgency:115116| Priority | Criteria | Response SLA |117|---|---|---|118| **P0 — Crisis** | Safety issue, viral potential, adverse event | 2 hours |119| **P1 — Urgent** | 1-star verified purchase with specific product defect | 24 hours |120| **P2 — Important** | Detailed negative review with actionable feedback | 48 hours |121| **P3 — Standard** | Positive review warranting thank-you response | 72 hours |122| **P4 — Monitor** | Neutral review, no action needed | No response required |123124## Output Specification125126```yaml127output:128 moderation_decision: string # "approved" | "approved_with_edit" | "flagged" | "rejected"129 rejection_reason: string # Policy code if rejected130 authenticity_score: float # 0-100131 safety_flags: list[string] # Specific safety issues found132 adverse_event_detected: boolean133 adverse_event_severity: string # "mild" | "moderate" | "serious" | null134 sentiment: string # "positive" | "neutral" | "negative"135 topics: list[string] # Extracted themes136 response_priority: string # P0-P4137 suggested_response: string # Draft brand response if P0-P3138 edits_applied: list[string] # Auto-corrections made (PII redaction, etc.)139 pii_redacted: boolean140```141142## Analysis Framework143144**UGC Health Dashboard Metrics** (aggregate across all moderated content):145146| Metric | Healthy Range | Alert Threshold |147|---|---|---|148| Approval Rate | 85-95% | < 75% (overly restrictive) or > 98% (under-moderated) |149| Fake Review Rate | < 5% | > 10% |150| Avg Authenticity Score | > 75 | < 60 |151| Adverse Event Rate | < 0.1% | > 0.5% (potential product issue) |152| Avg Response Time (P0/P1) | < 12 hrs | > 24 hrs |153| Sentiment Trend | Stable or improving | 3+ consecutive weeks declining |154155## Examples156157**Input Review**: "TERRIBLE product!! Gave me a horrible rash all over my arms. Called my doctor and he said it was a chemical burn. DO NOT BUY. Contact me at jane.smith@email.com to join the lawsuit."158159**Analysis**:160- **Moderation Decision**: Rejected — Compliance161- **Authenticity Score**: 78 (genuine language, specific details)162- **Safety Flags**: PII detected (email), potential legal threat163- **Adverse Event**: Detected — Severity: Moderate (required medical attention)164- **Response Priority**: P0 — Crisis165- **Actions**: (1) Redact email address. (2) Escalate adverse event to regulatory affairs immediately. (3) Escalate legal threat to legal team. (4) Draft empathetic response with customer service contact.166167## Guidelines168169- Never suppress genuine negative reviews — they build trust and provide product intelligence.170- Adverse event detection is a legal obligation for FDA-regulated products. Err on the side of over-reporting.171- PII must be redacted before publication, never after.172- Incentivized reviews (samples, discounts) must be disclosed per FTC guidelines.173- Maintain consistent moderation standards regardless of rating — do not apply stricter standards to negative reviews.174- All moderation decisions must be logged with timestamps and rationale for audit trails.175176## Validation Checklist177178- [ ] Content is classified into the correct moderation category.179- [ ] Authenticity score is calculated using all five signal dimensions.180- [ ] PII is detected and redacted before any publication decision.181- [ ] Adverse events are identified, classified by severity, and escalated per protocol.182- [ ] Safety screening covers legal, regulatory, and brand-safety layers.183- [ ] Response priority is assigned based on urgency criteria.184- [ ] Suggested brand response is drafted for P0-P3 reviews.185- [ ] Moderation decision is logged with full audit trail.186- [ ] Fake review patterns are cross-referenced against historical data.187- [ ] Aggregate moderation metrics fall within healthy ranges.