Reply to negative review
Public response to a review in cards, on the marketplace or on social networks. It is written for those who will read it later, and not to argue with the author.
A public response to a review is written not to the author, but to dozens of people who will read it when choosing. Therefore, argument and excuses always lose, even when you are essentially right. The tool sorts out what to acknowledge, what to clarify and what to suggest, and gives three answer options with varying degrees of formality.
AI answers are free, but limited by the overall site limit. If the limit is reached, come back later: repeated clicks will not speed up the response.
The answer is read by those who are still choosing
When responding to a negative review, it’s easy to start a conversation with the author: explain, argue, show that he is wrong. This is natural and almost always a losing proposition, because the author has already made a decision and left, and the answer will be read by dozens of people who are now choosing between you and the next card.
For these readers, the content of the dispute is irrelevant. They look at something else: does the company acknowledge the problem, does it respond substantively, and what does it do next? An answer that wins on facts, but is written in a defensive tone, loses on impression.
Therefore, in the analysis there is a section “what is better to remain silent about.” Some of the arguments are technically correct and at the same time work against you: mentioning that the client himself was mistaken reads as shifting responsibility, even when this is true.
And a separate rule, which is more important than tone: in a public response you cannot disclose order details, contacts or any personal data of the author. This is both a legal risk and an immediate loss of reader trust.
What the tool intentionally doesn't do
Does not insert numbers, deadlines, benchmarks and names of companies that did not exist in your input. If the output requires a number that you did not provide, in the answer will be marked “to clarify” rather than a plausible number. This limitation is worth in the system prompt and works against the main property of language models: It’s difficult to complete what’s missing.
The request text is sent to the AI provider, and the response is returned to the browser. The site does not save these texts in the database. To limit expenses separately the number of requests and the anonymized connection identifier are taken into account. If the free limit is reached, the tool will offer to come back later.