local-review-response-templates

name

local-review-response-templates

description

Generate a reusable review-response TEMPLATE SYSTEM for a local business (Google Business Profile / Yelp) — 3 human, non-robotic variations each for 5-star, 4-star, 3-star, and 1-2-star reviews, with truthful service + neighborhood keyword injection and safe negative-review handling. Pure copy generation, no privileged data, no auto-posting. Use for "review response templates", "reply to Google reviews", "review reply system", "handle negative reviews", or as the Bucket-B deliverable that fixes a low review-response signal found by google-business-profile-public-audit.

Local Review-Response Templates (copy deliverable)

Produce a reusable review-response template system a local business can use to reply to every new review in under a minute — turning owner responses into keyword-rich, location-tagged GBP content and trust signals, while handling negative reviews without getting defensive.

This is the first Bucket B: pure copy generation slice. It needs no logged-in tools, no API keys, and no GBP ownership. It produces an artifact the client applies (or, only with separately-granted GBP manager access, a human/agent applies).

Why this exists

Google has stated that responding to reviews supports local ranking, and owner responses are visible, keyword-eligible, trust-building real estate. Most local businesses either don't respond or paste one generic "Thanks for your review!" on everything — wasting the signal. A template system with real variations lets the client respond consistently and fast, and every 5-star reply that naturally names the service and neighborhood adds durable content to the profile.

This skill composes with google-business-profile-public-audit: that Bucket-A skill measures review velocity and whether the owner responds; a "no responses / thin responses" finding is the trigger to run this skill and deliver the fix.

Scope boundary (read before running)

• Copy generation only. This skill writes templates. It does not post replies to any GBP or Yelp listing. Posting requires the client to paste them, or verified GBP manager access (a separate Bucket-C, human-assisted step) — never fold auto-posting into this skill.
• No privileged data. Business context is user-supplied; optional competitor analysis uses only publicly visible owner responses. No Ahrefs/SEMrush/GSC.
• Truthful, brand-voiced copy. Every template must be true for this business, in its real voice. Use your brand voice guide and the humanizer skill to keep replies human and free of AI slop.
• Feeds, does not replace, your lead-gen pipeline (e.g. the small-business-preview-engine skill). That pipeline owns the outbound product and send QA; this produces a copy deliverable for the SEO/Growth upsell and a case note.

Required inputs

• Business: name, primary + secondary services, brand voice/tone (warm / professional / casual), owner or business first-name to sign as (optional).
• Service-area neighborhoods / cities to weave into replies (e.g. Highland Park, Sarasota, Winter Park).
• 3–5 target keywords / service phrases the business wants associated with it.
• Optional: gbp_audit object from google-business-profile-public-audit (for review-velocity context and competitor review themes), and up to 3 competitor GBP URLs to analyze public owner-response strategy.

Procedure

1. (Optional) Competitor response teardown — public data only. For each competitor GBP, note from publicly visible owner responses: response rate, average length, tone, whether responses name services/locations, and how negative reviews are handled. Use this to calibrate — not copy — the target's style.
2. Generate the template system. Produce 3 distinct variations for each tier:
   • 5-star — warm thanks + naturally names the specific service and one neighborhood/city + soft forward-looking line. This tier carries the keyword/location value.
   • 4-star — thanks + acknowledges the small gap graciously + invites them back.
   • 3-star — takes accountability, thanks for honest feedback, offers to make it right, moves specifics to a private channel.
   • 1–2-star — professional, empathetic, non-defensive; apologizes for the experience, offers a concrete resolution path, provides a direct private contact, never argues facts publicly.
   • Each template 40–80 words, sounds like a real person, and uses {{reviewer_first_name}}, {{specific_detail}}, {{service}}, {{neighborhood}}, {{contact}} placeholders so each reply is quickly personalized, not pasted verbatim.
3. Anti-robotic + truthfulness rules.
   • The 3 variations per tier must differ in structure and opening, not just swap a word — reviewers and Google both notice identical boilerplate.
   • Keyword/location injection must read naturally and be true; never name a service the business doesn't offer or a neighborhood it doesn't serve to chase a keyword.
   • Negative-tier replies: accountability + resolution + move-to-private; never defensive, never disputing the customer's account publicly, never disclosing private customer details.
4. Safety escalation. If a review alleges something legal, safety-related, discriminatory, or potentially defamatory, do not ship an auto-generated public reply — flag it for human review with a suggested private-first approach.
5. Add usage rules + insertion-variable guide so the client can apply the system without you.

Output contract (review_response_system)

{
  "business": { "name": "", "voice": "", "sign_as": null },
  "insertion_variables": ["{{reviewer_first_name}}", "{{specific_detail}}", "{{service}}", "{{neighborhood}}", "{{contact}}"],
  "templates": {
    "five_star":  [{ "text": "", "keywords_used": [], "neighborhood_used": "" }],
    "four_star":  [{ "text": "" }],
    "three_star": [{ "text": "" }],
    "one_two_star": [{ "text": "", "resolution_offered": true }]
  },
  "usage_rules": [],
  "escalation_note": "When to route a review to a human instead of using a template.",
  "provenance": { "competitor_analysis": "none | public_owner_responses", "generated_by": "", "caveats": [] }
}

How it feeds the product

• Client deliverable: hand review_response_system to the client as the artifact they apply, or (only with granted GBP manager access) a human/agent applies replies — that application step is outside this skill.
• Composition: consume the review-velocity / no-response finding from google-business-profile-public-audit as the trigger and context; if competitor review themes are available, mirror the true service/location phrases customers actually use.
• Case note: save the delivered system as a case note in your lead-gen pipeline's case library (e.g. Cases/<vertical>/<business>.md in your workspace), with provenance and any escalation flags.

Constraints & compliance

• Never post replies from this skill; never impersonate the customer; never disclose private customer information in a public reply.
• Do not offer incentives, discounts, or gifts in exchange for reviews — that violates Google's review policies. (Thanking a reviewer and inviting them back is fine; paying for a rating is not.)
• Do not generate fake reviews or review content — only responses to genuine reviews.
• Keep every template truthful and in the business's real voice; run the humanizer skill to strip AI-isms.

Common pitfalls

• A generic "Thanks for your review!" on every reply wastes the entire signal — the point is real, varied, keyword-and-location-aware copy.
• Keyword-stuffing reads robotic and undercuts trust; inject at most one service + one location per 5-star reply, naturally.
• Three "variations" that are the same sentence with one word changed still read as boilerplate — vary the structure.
• Getting defensive or arguing facts on a 1–2-star reply damages trust more than the original review; take accountability and move to private.
• Fabricating a {{specific_detail}} to sound personal — leave the placeholder and let the client fill the true detail.
• Treating this as a GBP write skill — it produces copy; applying it is a separate, access-gated step.

Verification checklist

• 3 structurally-distinct variations exist for each of the 4 tiers.
• Each template is 40–80 words and reads as human (ran through the humanizer skill / your brand voice guide where voice matters).
• 5-star templates inject one true service + one true neighborhood, naturally.
• Negative-tier templates take accountability, offer a concrete resolution, and move specifics private — never defensive.
• Escalation note tells the client when to route a review to a human instead.
• No incentive-for-review language; no fabricated details; no private info in public replies.
• Delivered as review_response_system + a case note; no reply was auto-posted.

Roadmap (the larger local-SEO capability)

Part of a three-bucket split kept deliberately separate:

• Bucket A — read-only public audits (google-business-profile-public-audit; also NAP/citations, search-intent map, competitor GBP posting patterns). Autonomous-safe; feeds internal targeting.
• Bucket B — pure copy generation (this skill; also GBP post drafts, service/city page copy, review-sentiment→copy, content-gap outlines). Autonomous-safe; client-facing deliverables the client applies.
• Bucket C — writes & paid-tool data (posting these replies to GBP, GBP edits, Ahrefs/SEMrush, Search Console for sites you control). Requires per-client granted access, paid API seats, and recurring billing — human-assisted, not zero-human. Do not fold Bucket-C behavior into Bucket A/B skills.