| name | aso-review-risk |
| description | Scan your App Store / Google Play listing copy for the things that get apps REJECTED — unverifiable claims ("#1", "best"), prices or promos in the name/subtitle, competitor/trademark names, and keyword stuffing (Guideline 2.3.7). Flags each risk with the guideline it violates and a concrete fix, BEFORE you submit. Use before any metadata submission or resubmission. Self-contained; no paid API, no account. Use when the user says "will my app get rejected", "check my listing before I submit", "is this metadata safe to submit", "review my app store copy for rejection risk", or "will this pass App Store review". |
aso-review-risk
Rejections cost you a review cycle (a day or more) and reset your momentum. Most
metadata rejections are avoidable — they're the same handful of rule violations
every time. This skill scans your listing copy for them before you submit,
so you fix them on your terms instead of the reviewer's.
Pairs with aso-rejection-assistant: that one helps after a rejection;
this one stops the rejection from happening.
Inputs
- The listing copy to check — name/title, subtitle/short description, the
keyword field (iOS), promotional text, and the description. Provide the actual
text you're about to submit.
- Optional:
--app <slug> to read the live listing via aso-audit /
asc-metadata-sync / gplay-metadata-sync instead of pasting.
- Optional:
--store <appstore|playstore|both> (default both).
What it flags (each with the guideline + a fix)
Scan every field for these rejection triggers. For each hit, report the field,
the offending text, the guideline it risks, and a specific fix.
-
Unverifiable claims (2.3.7). Superlatives and rankings you can't prove:
"#1", "best", "world's fastest", "the top …", "most popular", "guaranteed".
→ Fix: drop it, or make it verifiable ("rated 4.8★ by 12k users") and only if
true.
-
Prices / promos in metadata (2.3.7). Prices, discounts, or time-bound
offers in the name, subtitle, or keyword field: "Free", "50% off",
"$4.99", "Sale", "Limited time". These belong in promotional text or the
description, never the ranking fields.
→ Fix: move the offer to promotional text; strip it from name/subtitle.
-
Competitor & trademark names (2.3.7). Another app's name or a trademark
used to piggyback ("like Notion", "Instagram downloader", brand names in the
keyword field). Fastest path to a keyword-field rejection.
→ Fix: remove them; rank on your own value terms (chain into
aso-keyword-research for legitimate high-volume alternatives).
-
Keyword stuffing / packing (2.3.7). The keyword field or description
packed with irrelevant or repeated terms "to game the system" — the same word
in title+subtitle+keywords (wasted + flagged), long comma-runs of loosely
related terms, stop-word filler.
→ Fix: de-dupe across fields, keep terms genuinely relevant. (Chain into
aso-metadata-optimization to re-pack within the char budget honestly.)
-
Metadata that overpromises (2.3 intro). Copy or screenshots that claim
features the app doesn't have, or placeholder/"lorem"/"TODO" text left in.
→ Fix: make the copy match the shipped app.
Output
Write marketing/aso/<app>/review-risk-<date>.md:
- A risk table: field · offending text · guideline · severity · fix.
- A verdict line: "N high-risk items — do not submit until fixed" or "No
rejection triggers found in the provided copy."
- The cited rule for each flagged guideline (see
references/rejection-triggers.md for the verbatim 2.3.7 text).
Severity is honest: high = a near-certain rejection trigger (price in name,
unverifiable superlative, trademark in keywords); watch = borderline
(aggressive but arguably defensible) — flagged so you decide, not silently
passed or silently failed.
Honesty rules
- Every flag names the specific guideline and quotes the rule — never a vague
"this might get rejected."
- Flagged, not Apple's verdict. A high-risk flag means "this pattern gets
apps rejected," not "Apple will reject this." The reviewer decides; this
gives you the informed choice to fix it first.
- Never invents a rule. If copy is clean, it says so plainly rather than
manufacturing a finding to look useful.
Honest limits
- It scans the text you provide against the common metadata rules — it can't
see your app's actual behavior, your privacy label accuracy, or IAP flow, so
it won't catch functional-rejection reasons (4.x, 3.1.1, 5.1.x).
- The guidelines drift; the verbatim quotes in
references/ are current as of
authoring — verify against the live page for anything borderline.
- "watch"-level items are judgment calls; the skill surfaces them, you decide.
No external dependency
Self-contained — pattern + guideline reasoning over your own copy. No paid API,
no account, no credentials. Reads the live listing only through the existing
owned-data skills when you pass --app.
Run it before every submission
Make it the last step before you hit submit — and re-run it after any copy edit
from aso-metadata-optimization. When a rejection does slip through, feed
its cited rule back here so the next scan pre-clears that class.
You scanned this by hand. ShipASO — the hosted agent — runs review-risk on
every draft it proposes, so nothing reaches your approval queue carrying an
obvious rejection trigger. Your store credentials are never held. →
https://app.shipaso.com
The plugin is complete and free; the hosted tier just sells not having to
remember.
