Prompt Workshop
Why it is written this way
Tap a block to see its paragraph
You are a customer communications specialist managing online reputation for small businesses. You understand that a single review reply can make or break bookings from future prospective guests.
I run {{store name}}. We just received a low-rating review. Here are the facts I have verified internally: {{factual relation}}
Write a public reply to the review below. Keep in mind that the primary audience reading this reply is not just the original reviewer, but potential future customers who search for our business.
Format: Exactly four sentences. ① An apology for the inconvenience experienced ② One sentence stating the verified facts ③ Actionable measures we are taking now ④ An invitation to visit again. The measures I can offer are: {{available action measure}}.
Do not argue with the review or include defensive excuses such as "We had our reasons." For any points in the facts that are noted as unverified, do not make definitive statements; instead, use phrasing like "We are looking into this." Do not invent compensations beyond what is listed in the measures, and do not repeat personal details shared by the customer in your reply.
After drafting, self-verify each of the four conditions above, correct any discrepancies, and provide only the finalized reply.
Review Content: """ {{review content}} """
- Role Who answers ×1
- Material What the AI needs to know ×2
- Work What to do, and how ×2
- Output What comes back, in what shape ×2
Most failed replies to negative reviews suffer from a single flaw: letting frustration slip through. Copying generic apology templates often feels disconnected from the specific situation, while writing manually tends to inject raw emotion. This prompt explicitly establishes the premise that the true audience is the next potential customer browsing the page.
Read the full explanation · 4 paragraphs
Setting the role as an online reputation specialist shifts the recipient of the message. When asked simply for an "apology reply," AI focuses on appeasing a single reviewer. A reputation specialist, however, writes for the broader public. The context paragraph collects internal facts separately for the same reason—without it, the AI blindly assumes all customer claims are absolute truth and offers excessive, ungrounded apologies.
Structuring the format into four clear sentences (Apology → Fact → Action → Re-invitation) prevents emotional defensiveness. It starts with a concise one-sentence apology and immediately pivots to actionable steps that future diners want to see. The constraints block defensive arguments, prevent making unauthorized compensation promises, and ensure private customer details are not exposed in a public forum.
Finally, the self-evaluation prompt asks the model to review its own output against all four requirements before finalizing. Wrapping the raw review in """ delimiters ensures any hostile language in the review is treated strictly as data rather than prompt instructions.
Once posted, replies rarely notify reviewers when edited. Before posting, do a quick visual check to ensure the promised actions are feasible and no sensitive customer details were repeated.
Unfamiliar terms? See Aha AI: role-prompting, prompt-injection
Compared with a bad example
Please write an apology reply to this review.
(Paste review)
Without providing verified facts or available measures, the AI will invent unrealistic promises like "We will fix this immediately" or "We will issue a full refund." Lacking length constraints, the apology drags on for five sentences, burying the practical actions prospective diners actually care about.
Variations
Short Reply for Delivery Apps
Delivery app interfaces often display only the first two lines of a merchant reply. Skipping generic intros ensures both the apology and the action measure remain visible without truncation.
Show prompt
Write a reply to a delivery review received for {{store name}}. The verified facts are {{factual relation}}, and what we can offer is {{available action measure}}.
Write exactly two sentences: one sentence for an apology and one sentence for our action measure. Skip generic pleasantries like "Thank you for your valuable feedback" and start directly with the main point.
Review Content: """ {{review content}} """
Addressing Inaccurate or Misleading Claims
Listing discrepancies first allows the business owner to review factual gaps clearly. The response itself avoids direct confrontation, ensuring the tone remains calm and professional rather than argumentative.
Show prompt
Write a reply to the following review posted for {{store name}}. The verified facts are {{factual relation}}.
First, list the points in the review that do not match our verified facts. Next, write a four-sentence reply that addresses the facts calmly without sounding confrontational. Avoid phrases like "That is incorrect" or "You are mistaken," and instead objectively explain our standard operating procedures.
Review Content: """ {{review content}} """
Last updated 2026-09-02 · Found a mistake? Let us know