Review-Response & Reputation AI Agent

What this agent does

A draft, and a person who publishes it

Ingestion of the review, the platform's own reply rules and the stay it can be matched to.

Normalisation of ratings, languages and platform fields, each carried with its own source.

Reason

One solicitation trigger, applied to departing guests without a sentiment or score pre-screen.

A drafted reply built from what the reviewer wrote, and from nothing the reviewer withheld.

Flags on any factual assertion about a named guest, before a person reads a word of the draft.

Decide

A human read of translated replies before they go out, since platforms reject unreadable output.

A hold on publication for the named person whose account and signature carry the response.

Out

Retention of the review, the draft, the flags, the edits and the words actually published.

Execution of write actions only inside the approval boundaries agreed during implementation.

→ Product statement

The agent drafts a response; the named brand or property owner publishes it, and the business answers for every claim inside it.

Example workflow

One review, arrival to publication

AgentHuman

1Review receivedPlatform feed, reputation tool, survey response or a direct submission

2Context assembledThe review text, the platform's response rules and the stay it can be matched to

3Response draftedDraft response, its flags, confidence

4Controls appliedDisclosure limits, assertion flags, translation review and confidence threshold

No human action required

Stages 1 to 4 run unaided, and nothing is published at any of them — the agent is drafting, and the owner's lane opens at the confidence gate.

5DecisionBranches at the confidence threshold

High confidence

Goes to the named owner to publish.

Low confidence

Adds a brand-team read first.

Owner publishes

The draft is held with the review, its flagged lines and the confidence.

Publish · Edit · Send to brand review

Published — under a person's name▼

6Reputation systems updatedOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

7Outcome evaluatedEdit distance, flagged-line outcomes, platform acceptance and post-publication removals

Edits

Every owner edit is counted in the evaluation.

What should not run autonomously

Human approval stays in control

Outside the boundary — human approval required8 items

Publishing a response to a review on any platform.

Asserting anything factual about a named guest.

Confirming that a reviewer stayed at the hotel.

Deciding which guests are asked to leave a review.

Automation boundaryAgent acts unaided

✓Draft a reply from the review text and the platform's rules.

✓Ask on the same trigger, with any incentive free of sentiment.

✓Mark every insider relationship the guides require to be shown.

✓Flag what a person must weigh, and hold the draft for them.

Any write happens inside the boundaries agreed at implementation, never ahead of approval.

Filtering the property's own on-site review display.

Writing anything to be posted under a guest's name.

Threatening a reviewer, or demanding a removal.

Changes to solicitation, disclosure or response rules.

Example output

One response, annotated

Everything the agent drafts is attached to the review it was written against.

Review response output · single reviewIllustrative example

Review

Drafted line

Rating given

Source of record

Confidence

Attribution

Two-star, English

Thanked the reviewer and offered a direct contact, disclosing nothing

2 of 5

The review text itself

93%

Brand name and job title

As receivedTaken from the review as published and the platform's reply rules — nothing on this side is written by the agent.

Records used The review as posted Platform reply rules Approved reply library

Why this wordingIt answers what the reviewer wrote and confirms nothing they did not.

ActionPublishEditSend to brand review

What the score decidesBelow the configured threshold the draft picks up a brand read before it reaches the owner.

Value

Where AI adds value

The same four claims, placed at the point in the workflow where each one applies.

Where the value landsValue 01 – 04

Every reviewFrom the review itself

03Drafting

Draft from the review

Draw on what the reviewer actually wrote, the platform's reply rules and your approved reply library.

01Approved path

Ask everyone, or ask no one

Routine replies reach the owner already drafted and already checked against platform rules.

02Human review

Send review to what a reply asserts

Any draft asserting a fact about a guest is marked for a person. Ordering your own review display is not suppression; filtering it by rating is.

04Build an evidence trail

The response, the stay it refers to and the person who published it stay on the review record.

Integrations

Typical integrations

Five system groups connect to the same agent. Which of them are in scope is decided in discovery.

Reputation platformsTripadvisor · Google
Booking.com · Expedia

Reputation toolingRevinate · Medallia
TrustYou · Reputation.com

Property and stay dataOpera Cloud · Mews
Cloudbeds · Apaleo

Agent

Review response & reputation

Reads the review
Drafts the reply
Holds for publication

Guest messagingBraze · Salesforce
Survey and CRM tools

Observability & evaluationOpenTelemetry · Langfuse
Supported monitoring/evaluation sources

Integration availability depends on the client's existing systems and API access.

Agent controls

Six layers between the model and the platform

The layers nest, and each says what it does not catch. The map below carries the rest.

L6 · Outermost — last line of defenceInward → L1 · closest to the model

L6Rollback / safe modeFall back to drafting for review when evaluation or production signals degrade.Roll back

L5Version monitoringTrack model, prompt, reply-library and platform-rule configuration changes.Track

L4TraceabilityRecord the review, the draft, the flags, the edits and the publication time.Record

L3Owner publishesHold drafts for the named owner; it governs publication, not whether a published reply is right.Gate

L2Policy guardrailsTest drafts against configured disclosure, assertion and platform rules; a failure returns the draft.Restrict

L1Confidence thresholdsRoute low-confidence drafts to a brand read before the owner sees them.Require review

Model coreDraft produced — the reply, its flagged assertions and confidence

L1 – L2Test whether a reply may stand

L3Puts publication in an owner's hands

L4 – L5Keep the response and the stay behind it

L6Reverts to drafting for review when signals degrade

How Nestack evaluates it

Evaluate the responding workflow — not only the paragraph that goes out.

Coverage runs the whole depth of the workflow, and every layer is cut by slice.

Surface — the reply the public reads

Depth of coverage ▼

E1Final-output evaluationDid the reply disclose anything the reviewer had not already said?

E2Step-level evaluationDid the agent read the right review, platform rules and reply library?

E3Tool evaluationDid it read and write the correct review on the correct platform?

E4Confidence calibrationDo low-confidence drafts actually attract more owner edits?

E5Slice evaluationHow does performance change across specific review types?

E6Business outcomeHow many replies needed an edit or a removal after publication?

Floor — the claim the business answers for

Failure modes

Where each failure originates in the agent

Seven failure modes, placed at the stage each one originates.

Agent lifecycleDirection of processing →

01 · Retrieval1 mode

CX-03

Wrong stay matched

A review is matched to a stay that is not the reviewer's.

Stage gathersReviews, platform rules and the reply library

02 · Reasoning2 modes

CX-04

Assertion about a guest

A reply states something about the reviewer as fact.

CX-06

Stay detail disclosed

A reply confirms a date, a rate or a room number.

Stage proposesThe reply the owner publishes in public

03 · Tool / write2 modes

CX-02

Reply posted unreviewed

A response reaches a platform with no owner behind it.

CX-05

Solicitation screened by score

A request goes only to guests who rated the stay well.

Stage writesOnly where write access and approval policy allow it

04 · Output1 mode

CX-01

Unreadable translation

A translated reply goes out in language a platform rejects.

Stage returnsThe reply the owner publishes and the market reads

05 · Change / Version1 mode

CX-07

Silent disclosure regression

A model or rule change widens what a reply will confirm.

Stage tracksModel, prompt, reply library and platform config

Sev-1 · a reply published unreviewed Sev-2 · a wrong claim reaches the public Sev-3 · review data degrades, draft to review

See the complete Travel & Hospitality failure-mode catalogue →

Affected slices

Overall quality can hide one bad cohort

The slice that hides is the reply that asserts something about the guest — a small share of responses, and the only ones that can turn into a claim against the business. Nestack reports the owner-edit rate by slice, not only in total.

Slice performance — reported separately, not only in aggregateIllustrative example

Slice	Failure rate	Lift	Status
Replies asserting a fact	6.8%	3.9×	Review
Machine-translated replies	4.0%	2.3×	Review
One and two-star reviews	2.8%	1.6×	Watch
Plain positive reviews	1.6%	0.9×	Normal

Bar: owner-edit-rate lift vs. plain-positive baseline · scale 0–4.0× · tick marks the 2.0× review threshold 2 of 4 slices over threshold

Evidence-linked improvement

Each cycle closes by adding a case

Nothing closes on a review meeting. It closes on a case the next release has to pass, and that suite is what the next response published is measured against.

Improvement cycle · five stagesSwitchback — the path turns at Improve and returns at Learn

01Detect

Owner-edit rate rises in a response slice.

02Diagnose

Which slice, and what did those replies assert? The drafts and the reviews behind them are read until the cause narrows to one.

03Improve

Every change ships against a version with the responses attached.

04Verify

The release is blocked while an affected case fails.

05Learn

The case becomes permanent, and the response rules are re-tested.

Learn → DetectThe return edge. The next detection meets a suite one case longer.

Typical build scope

Twelve workstreams across six weeks

The build scope read against the delivery timeline. Week structure follows the six-week plan — discovery, sources, responding workflow, evaluation, integration, then production validation and handover.

Workstream Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6

01Review and response workflow discovery and boundaries.

02Platform and reputation source assessment.

03Solicitation, disclosure and platform reply-rule mapping.

04Review ingestion and normalisation.

05Drafting logic and review binding.

06Confidence scoring and assertion routing.

07Owner publication workflow.

08Reputation-platform integration.

09Solicitation and disclosure cases.

10Guardrails and publication controls.

11Response-trail instrumentation.

12Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover.

12 workstreams · 6 weeks · bar shows the weeks a workstream is active — several run in parallel Final scope and sequence confirmed in discovery

Engagement tiers

What each tier includes

Rows are the capabilities named in each tier's scope. Higher tiers include everything below them.

Capability✓ in scope · — not at this tier PilotOne property, one platform ProductionProduction reputation systems AdvancedMultiple brands / platforms

Introduced at Pilot

Drafting from the review itself✓✓✓

Owner publication✓✓✓

Response-quality baseline✓✓✓

Introduced at Production

Reporting by property and platform—✓✓

Approval workflow in your systems—✓✓

Approved write-back—✓✓

Reputation-platform integration—✓✓

Introduced at Advanced

Multi-platform reply rules——✓

Multi-stage brand approvals——✓

High review volume——✓

Multi-brand response controls——✓

Build price From $5,000 From $8,000 Custom quote

Final build priceConfirmed after discovery based on integrations, workflow complexity, transaction volume, approval controls and deployment requirements.

Separate from buildBuild pricing is separate from recurring Agent Care, which covers managed monitoring, evaluations, incidents and verified improvements after launch.

What we need from you

What you bring, and what we build with it

Each input maps to a piece of build scope and a week in the delivery timeline.

You bringWe build with it

01Your platforms and their response rules → Review ingestion and platform-rule mappingWeek 1

02Responses you have already published → Drafting baseline, tone extraction and review bindingWeek 2

03Your solicitation trigger and who publishes → Solicitation, disclosure and platform reply-rule mappingWeek 1

04Access to relevant APIs, feeds or exports → Platform, reputation and property assessment, then integration setupWeek 2

05Responses you would not want published → Solicitation cases and failure-mode testingWeek 4

06What a response may never disclose → Confidence scoring, assertion routing, guardrails and publication controlsWeek 3

07Named owners to publish responses → Publication workflow, then pilot and production validationWeeks 5–6

Nothing else is required Deployment, documentation and Agent Care handover are ours.

Delivery timeline

Four phases across six weeks

The bands sit on the weeks the work occupies, so the fifth carries evaluation and launch together.

Phase W1W2W3W4W5W6

Discovery W1

Build W2 – W3

Evaluate W4 – W5

Pilot & Launch W5 – W6

Week focus W1Response workflow discovery, disclosure mapping and the automation boundary W2Source integration and the drafting baseline W3Responding workflow, confidence logic and publication controls W4Solicitation cases, disclosure guardrails and failure-mode testing W5Reputation-platform integration, pilot replies and targeted corrections W6One review cycle answered under the brand team, then handover

Reading the bandA band spans only the weeks its work is named in. Week 5 carries two because that is how it runs.

At the end of W6The cycle closes validation and Agent Care picks up monitoring.

DurationSix-week plan shown · typical delivery 4–6 weeks depending on scope confirmed in discovery.

Next step · Travel & Hospitality AI agent

Build a review-response agent that drafts, and never publishes.

The rule everyone quotes does not actually ban review gating — the regulator's own guidance says there is no specific prohibition, only that the practice can be deceptive. So the question comes back to you: which of your guests never get asked, and what would you say if someone asked you why? Show us your platforms, your solicitation trigger and who signs a published reply, and the boundary is built around those three.

Discuss this agent →

Nestack Agents · Review responseAGT-TH-11 · Agent Care available after launch