Turn completed visits into review invitations.
Happy families are rarely asked for feedback.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Marketing & Reputation · Restaurants
Draft thoughtful replies to guest reviews.
Managers repeat the same public responses.
For: General managers and the team responsible for marketing & reputation in restaurants.
01 · The outcome
What good looks like.
The team has a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints, with source evidence and an explicit approval before any external action. Track reviews answered within the target window against a baseline; do not assume automation improves it.
A connected workflow that uses review text and approved response guidelines to draft a factual reply without admitting unverified incidents or exposing guest details. It produces a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints.
Where AI helps, and where a person decides.
AI can draft a factual reply without admitting unverified incidents or exposing guest details. It drafts and organizes; it does not authorize spending, commitments, clinical decisions or customer communication. The general manager verifies the source facts and approves the final action.
General manager is accountable. People approve customer-facing, sensitive, financial, and legally binding actions.
- General manager: Capture the source and scope
- General manager: Review the proposed outcome
- General manager: Release only the approved version
- General manager: Check the result and exceptions
A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
02 · The handoffs
How the work moves.
Every handoff has an owner. Select a step to open or close its detail.
Start when: A new public review arrives. Connect only review text and approved response guidelines. The general manager confirms the request is authorized and in scope.
Ready when: The source reference, permissions and accountable owner are recorded.
Use the authorized records to draft a factual reply without admitting unverified incidents or exposing guest details. Preserve the original language alongside the draft and label uncertain fields.
Ready when: Each proposed fact links back to a source, and missing information is visible.
Check a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints against the original records and current policy. Correct errors and escalate exceptions to the qualified specialist; do not auto-approve.
Ready when: General manager has recorded approval or a reason to hold the item.
After explicit approval, save a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints in the system of record. Send only approved messages to verified recipients. Record the version and prevent duplicate delivery.
Ready when: The approved record is saved; any delivery is confirmed or placed in the retry queue.
Review reviews answered within the target window each week, sample completed records for quality, and resolve held items. Change the rules only after reviewing actual errors and staff feedback.
Ready when: Exceptions have owners, the metric has a baseline, and corrective actions are assigned.
Sample record.
$ david run --workflow=restaurant-review-replies
ILLUSTRATIVE RECORD / NOT LIVE CUSTOMER DATA
- Example
- Illustrative only — not a real client record
- Reference
- RESTAURANT-REVIEW-REPLIE-DEMO-001
- Trigger
- A new public review arrives.
- Owner
- General manager
- Prepared output
- a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints
- Review status
- Awaiting human approval — no external action taken
- Missing information
- Owner to verify source completeness
- Measure
- Reviews answered within the target window
Start with your tools.
Connect POS, Google Business Profile, Google Workspace through approved APIs or controlled exports. Map record identifiers first; test permissions and field updates in a sandbox. Vendor names describe possible connections, not a guarantee of an available integration or license.
When things go wrong.
- A named person approves customer-facing messages, spending, record changes and binding commitments before release. Pre-approved scripts are versioned; exceptions stop for review.
- Use only authorized sources and role-based access. Keep an audit trail of source records, drafts, approvals and delivery status; deduplicate retries.
- If an integration fails, a source is missing or confidence is low, pause the action and assign the original request to the accountable owner.
Try this week / no DAVID required
A useful first step.
This week, have your general manager time five examples of this work. Use redacted copies of review text and approved response guidelines to make a reviewed public response with escalation for serious complaints manually, then list which fields required judgment.
What to measure.
- Reviews answered within the target window
- Minutes of human handling per completed item
- Drafts needing substantive correction
- Exceptions unresolved beyond the agreed review window
Estimate your time back.
20.8
$11,232
03 · More workflows to consider
Related workflows.
Draft practice posts without exposing patients.
Marketing drafts accidentally contain clinical details.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Check practice articles before publication.
Draft articles can imply guarantees or reveal client facts.
Est. deploy 4–6 weeksSee the walkthrough
Want this running in your business in 2–4 weeks?
Free 30-minute call. We'll tell you honestly whether AI fits, and where.