review-reply

---
name: review-reply
description: Turns a good review into a reply that sells the next booking to the person reading it. It finds the one fact the reviewer did not know, writes a short reply in the owner's voice, strips out the promotion, the reviewer's personal details and the quoted third parties that get management responses rejected, and keeps a log of what was answered and what was not. Use when you have four and five star reviews sitting unanswered.
---

# The reply that books the next table, written for the stranger reading it

You give this one review, the name of the person signing the reply, and what has changed at the venue since that visit. You get back a reply of under seventy words that thanks nobody generically, tells the next reader one useful thing they cannot find on the menu, carries no offer and no discount, names nobody, and passes the platform's own management response rules. It also tells you when the right answer is to write nothing at all.

## What it does

1. **Read the review for the one specific thing in it, and build the reply on that.** Not the star rating, not the adjectives, the detail: they came for a birthday, they mention the dog, they name the Sunday roast, they say they nearly did not find the door. That detail is the only part of the review the next reader will believe, and it is the only part your reply can be specific about. Write it down before drafting. A reply that could be pasted under any review on the page is worth less than no reply, because it tells the reader the venue is running software.

2. **Decide whether this review needs a reply at all, and apply the same rule to every review.** Google's own advice is blunt: "Respond if necessary: Reply when you have new or relevant info to share. Each response can reach many customers, so you don't need to thank every reviewer publicly." So the rule is a rule about information, not about sentiment. Write it down, one line, and hold to it. A venue that answers every five star review and none of the three star ones has a reply policy the page can see, and the CMA's guidance treats selectively promoting positive over negative as a species of the same problem as suppressing them.

3. **Find the fact the reviewer did not know, because that is the entire commercial value of the reply.** The reviewer has already been. The reader has not. Google puts it as: "Be a friend, not a salesperson: Your reviewers are already customers, so there's no need to offer deals or promotions. Share new details or facts about your business that they might not know from their first visit." So a review praising the roast earns a reply saying the roast runs from noon until it goes, usually about four, and the back room takes eight. That is a booking argument dressed as good manners, and it is true, which is the only reason it works.

4. **Take the promotion out, including the friendly one.** Tripadvisor's management response rules are explicit: "Non-Commercial: Please don't include commercial or promotional content of any kind. Responses that are offering personal gain, such as gifts, services, or money, will be removed. We do not allow responses that contain links, unless relevant to the review." A drink on the house next time is personal gain offered in public under a review, and it also reads to everybody else as payment for a good review, which is the thing Google prohibits merchants from offering "in exchange for posting any review or revision or removal of a negative review". Cut the offer, keep the fact.

5. **Name nobody, and confirm nothing about the visit.** Tripadvisor rejects responses that speculate about who the reviewer is: "No speculation as to the identity of the reviewer. Personal information that may be used to identify an individual is prohibited, including but not limited to names, addresses, and phone numbers." Google's content policy is the same in principle and warns that personal information posted without consent is removed. There is a UK data protection point sitting underneath it too: a reply saying it was lovely to have the Hendersons in room 12 on the 4th confirms, to the entire internet, that a named family stayed at a named hotel on a named date. Write the reply as though the reviewer's employer will read it, because they might.

6. **Do not quote anybody, including the reviewer.** Tripadvisor's first management response rule is "Original: Please do not include correspondence from guests or third parties, or snippets of traveler reviews." So no "you said the lamb was the best you had had", no pasting an email the guest sent afterwards, no quoting what another table said. Say the thing in your own words, in the first person plural or the first person, and let the review sit above the reply doing its own work.

7. **Keep it short, sign it, and write it like a person.** Google's guidance: "Keep it short and simple: Customers appreciate genuine and helpful replies, but long ones might overwhelm them" and "Personalise your reply: Sign your reply with your name or initials. This helps your response feel more authentic." Tripadvisor rejects formatting that will not render, "lists, bullets or other formatting that will not appear in owner responses", and rejects "machine translated management responses that are unreadable or incomprehensible". Under seventy words, one paragraph, no bullet points, a real name at the end, and if it goes out in the chef's name the chef sees it first.

8. **Expect the reply to be moderated and the reviewer to be told.** Google says replies are checked before they appear: "Google reviews your replies: This makes sure that they follow Google's content policies. If your reply isn't approved to be posted, you'll be asked to edit it. Replies usually take up to 10 minutes to review, but sometimes a review can take up to 30 days." It also warns that "The customer is notified" and "Customers can still change their review after reading your reply". Tripadvisor's own timing is that a compliant response "will typically be published within forty-eight hours". So write the reply you would be happy for the reviewer to receive as a notification, and do not treat publication as instant.

9. **If you want that review on your own website, stop and treat it as advertising, because it is.** A review quoted on your homepage is a testimonial in a marketing communication, and different rules apply. The ASA's current guidance states that marketers must hold documentary evidence that a testimonial is genuine and must also hold contact details for the person who gives it, under CAP Code rule 3.47, with permission required under rule 3.50. The consequence of getting this wrong is a published ruling in the venue's own name. In its ruling on Tonic Nutrition Ltd, published 16 July 2025, the ASA found that where identical wording appeared twice under two customer names, "the duplicated reviews created the misleading impression that more customers had independently submitted similar positive feedback than was actually the case", and upheld the complaint even though the advertiser said it was a technical error that had been fixed.

## Then it checks

1. The reply names one specific detail taken from this review, and that detail appears nowhere in any other reply in the set.
2. The reply contains one fact about the venue that a reader could act on, stated in terms the owner has confirmed is currently true, with the date it was confirmed.
3. The reply contains no offer, discount, voucher, free item, loyalty scheme, invitation to return on terms, or link that is not directly relevant to the review.
4. The reply contains no name, no room or table number, no date of stay, no booking reference, no contact detail belonging to the reviewer, and no guess at who the reviewer is.
5. The reply quotes nothing: no words from the review, no email from the guest, no words attributed to another guest or to a third party.
6. The reply is under seventy words, is one paragraph with no bullets or lists, carries the name or initials of the person it goes out as, and that person has seen it.

Any check fails: name it, redo that step once. Failed twice: say what is wrong and stop.

## Rules
- Public information only.
- Never invent a fact, a number or a quote.
- Anything sent in someone's name says whose name it is. A reply signed by the head chef goes to the head chef before it is posted.
- It will refuse to write a reply that offers the reviewer anything, that guesses at or confirms who the reviewer is, or that quotes the review back at them. Each of those is prohibited by name in the platform's published response rules, and the reply will be rejected or removed rather than merely criticised.
- Never state a fact about the venue in a reply that the owner has not confirmed is true today. Opening hours, dish availability, parking and dog policies change, and the reply outlives the season it was written in.
- Never reply to a review the venue paid for, incentivised or asked a member of staff to write. Answering it in public compounds it, and the reply becomes evidence.
- Never thank a reviewer for the rating. Thank them for the visit if you thank them at all. The distinction matters because a reply that celebrates five stars reads as a business managing a score, and the next reader is deciding whether to trust the score.
- Never state a conversion rate, a booking uplift, a percentage of customers who read replies, or any figure about what replying is worth. No such figure exists for a single independent UK venue, and every number in circulation comes from a company selling reputation software.
- This output is a working document prepared for the owner to check against their own current opening hours, menu and policies before posting, and for their solicitor or trade body to check where a reply touches a named individual, a complaint, or the reuse of a review in the venue's own advertising. It applies published platform rules and advertising rules to draft copy; it is not confirmation that a reply complies.

## Built from
- Google, "Tips to get more reviews", Google Business Profile Help, https://support.google.com/business/answer/3474122, no publication date shown on the page, read 16 September 2026: the reply when you have information rule in step 2, the friend not a salesperson passage in step 3, and the keep it short and sign it guidance in step 7.
- Google, "Manage customer reviews", Google Business Profile Help, https://support.google.com/business/answer/3474050, no publication date shown on the page, read 16 September 2026: the moderation of replies, the up to 30 days window, the reviewer notification and the fact that a review can be changed afterwards, all in step 8.
- Tripadvisor, "Management Response Guidelines", https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Trust-lpgT1CmsfQ3E.html, no publication date shown on the page, read 16 September 2026: the non-commercial rule in step 4, the privacy rule in step 5, the originality rule in step 6, the formatting and machine translation rules in step 7, and the forty-eight hour publication expectation in step 8.
- Google, "Prohibited and restricted content", Maps User Contributed Content Policy, https://support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114, no publication date shown on the page, read 16 September 2026: the prohibition on offering incentives in exchange for a review or its revision, used in step 4, and the personal information rule used in step 5.
- Advertising Standards Authority, "ASA Ruling on Tonic Nutrition Ltd t/a Tonic Health", complaint ref A24-1269415, https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/tonic-nutrition-ltd-a24-1269415-tonic-nutrition-ltd.html, published 16 July 2025, read 16 September 2026: the duplicated testimonial finding quoted in step 9.
- Committee of Advertising Practice, "Testimonials and endorsements", AdviceOnline, https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/testimonials-and-endorsements.html, 31 July 2026, read 16 September 2026: the documentary evidence and contact details requirement at rule 3.47 and the permission requirement at rule 3.50, in step 9.
- Competition and Markets Authority, "Fake reviews" (CMA208), https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67eeb64fe9c76fa33048c790/CMA208_-_Fake_reviews_guidance.pdf, published 4 April 2025, read 16 September 2026: paragraph 4.3 on selectively promoting positive or negative reviews, which is why step 2 requires one reply rule applied to everything.

# review-reply

## You are given
An export of the venue's reviews from one platform, one row per review, carrying at minimum the review identifier, the date, the rating, the reviewer's display name, the review text and whether a management response already exists. The venue's written reply rule, one sentence, stating which reviews get answered and on what basis. The draft replies already written by Claude, one per review selected, each with the specific detail it was built on, the fact it states about the venue, the date that fact was confirmed with the owner, and the name it goes out as. A current facts list from the owner: opening hours, service times, dish availability, parking, accessibility and dog policy, each with the date confirmed. The platform's published management response rules with the URL and the date read. A list of any reviews the venue knows were solicited with an incentive or written by a member of staff. Any previous reply log.

## Produce
Write into a `./review-reply-output/` folder:

1. `reviews.csv` with these columns in this order: `review_ref`, `platform`, `review_date`, `rating`, `reviewer_display_name`, `review_text_verbatim`, `existing_response`, `selected_for_reply`, `selection_reason`, `specific_detail_used`. `review_ref` is V0001 upward. `selected_for_reply` is `yes` or `no`. `selection_reason` is exactly one of `matches the reply rule`, `no new information to add`, `already answered`, `excluded: solicited or incentivised`, `excluded: written by staff`, `referred to one-star-reply`.
2. `replies.csv` with columns: `review_ref`, `reply_text_verbatim`, `word_count`, `paragraph_count`, `signed_as`, `signer_has_approved`, `specific_detail_used`, `fact_stated`, `fact_confirmed_date`, `fact_source_row`. `signer_has_approved` is `yes` or `no`. `fact_source_row` points at the row of the current facts list that supports `fact_stated`, or is empty, in which case the reply is listed in `gaps.md`.
3. `prohibited-content.csv` with columns: `review_ref`, `trigger`, `text_found_verbatim`, `position`, `rule_cited`, `rule_source_url`. `trigger` is exactly one of `offer or incentive`, `link`, `reviewer name or identity`, `room table or booking reference`, `date of visit`, `contact detail`, `quoted review text`, `quoted correspondence`, `quoted third party`, `bullet or list formatting`, `over the word limit`, `no signature`. Every row carries a rule quotation and the URL it came from.
4. `duplication-check.csv` with columns: `review_ref`, `reply_text_verbatim`, `matches_review_ref`, `match_type`, `overlap_percentage`. `match_type` is exactly one of `identical`, `identical except the name`, `same specific detail reused`, `same fact reused`, `no match`. Any row other than `no match` is listed in `gaps.md`.
5. `reply-rule.md` - exactly two lines: the venue's reply rule copied verbatim, and the count of reviews it selected against the count it did not, by rating band. Written empty if no rule was supplied.
6. `reply-log.csv` with columns: `date_posted`, `platform`, `review_ref`, `review_date`, `rating`, `reply_text_verbatim`, `signed_as`, `fact_stated`, `fact_confirmed_date`, `moderation_outcome`. Appended to any previous log, never overwritten. `moderation_outcome` is left empty until the owner records it.
7. `gaps.md` - a numbered list of: every `prohibited-content.csv` row; every reply whose `fact_source_row` is empty; every fact confirmed more than ninety days before the reply date; every reply not approved by the person it is signed as; every duplication match; every review selected under a reply rule that was not supplied; and any rating band where the proportion answered differs from every other band by more than half.

## Rules
- Codex counts, matches, checks and logs. It never writes a reply, never rewords a supplied one, never shortens one over the word limit, and never decides which reviews deserve an answer. Those judgements arrive with the input.
- Never write, edit or paraphrase the text of a review, and never write a reply to fill a gap where one is missing. A missing reply is recorded as missing.
- Never mark a fact as supported unless a row of the supplied current facts list says so, with a confirmation date. An unsupported fact is a gap, not a rounding error.
- Never remove a prohibited element from a supplied reply. Record it verbatim with its position and the rule it breaks, and let the owner rewrite it.
- Never write a conversion rate, a booking uplift, a percentage of readers, an industry benchmark or any figure about what replying is worth into any file. No such figure exists for a single independent UK venue.
- Word counts, paragraph counts and character positions are counted, never estimated. Text matching for duplication is done on the whole reply and on each sentence, and the percentage is reported rather than a yes or no.
- Every quoted review, reply, rule and fact is copied exactly, including punctuation, capitalisation and any emoji.
- Never post anything, never connect to a review platform's API or management centre, and never edit a live response.
- Reviews excluded because they were solicited, incentivised or written by staff stay in `reviews.csv` with the exclusion recorded. Rows are never deleted, because the excluded rows are the evidence.
- Use British English, GBP and DD Month YYYY dates. No em dashes in any file you write, and any supplied text containing one is recorded verbatim and flagged in `gaps.md`.
- Every file ends with this line: this is a working document prepared for the owner to check against their own current hours, menu and policies before posting, and for their solicitor or trade body to check anything touching a named individual, a complaint, or the reuse of a review in the venue's advertising. It applies supplied rules to draft copy and is not confirmation that a reply complies.

## Return
The absolute path of each file written and the row count of each CSV. The reply rule verbatim. The number of reviews in the export, the number selected and not selected with the count of each `selection_reason`, and the proportion answered in each rating band. Every `prohibited-content.csv` row in full, with its trigger, the text found, its position and the rule quoted. Every reply whose stated fact has no supporting row in the current facts list, and every fact older than ninety days with its confirmation date. Every duplication match with its overlap percentage. The longest and shortest reply by word count, and any reply over seventy words. The number of replies not yet approved by the person they are signed as. The new `reply-log.csv` rows exactly as written, and the `gaps.md` item count.