# Conversation-Derived Claude Skill Pack Compiled the corrected refund exchange into a directly usable Claude skill that acknowledges the request, explains review, avoids unsupported completion claims, and promises only an update. # Canonical SKILL.md ```text --- name: refund-review-reply description: Writes warm, concise first replies to unresolved refund requests without confirming an outcome. Use when a support agent must acknowledge the request, explain that it is under review, and promise only a later update. --- # Refund Review Reply ## Outcome Create one concise support reply that acknowledges a refund request while the outcome is still unresolved. ## When to Use Use for an initial response to a customer asking for a refund before approval or completion has been confirmed. Do not use for a confirmed refund notice, a refund-policy document, or a chargeback dispute. ## Inputs Required: - the customer request or concern. Use when supplied: - customer name; - order or product detail; - a factual update timeline. ## Process 1. Acknowledge the refund request and the customer’s concern. 2. State that the request will be reviewed. 3. Do not say the refund is approved, processed, issued, or complete. 4. Promise only that the customer will receive an update. 5. Keep the reply warm, concise, and free of invented policy details. ## Output Contract Return one send-ready paragraph. Use the customer name only when supplied. Do not add a subject line, policy citation, refund amount, or timeline unless the user provides it. ## Failure Handling If the user asks for a confirmed-outcome notice but supplies no confirmation, state that the outcome cannot be represented as complete and write an unresolved-review reply instead. ## Validation - The request is acknowledged. - Review is stated. - No refund outcome is confirmed. - Only an update is promised. - No unsupported policy, amount, or timeline is invented. ``` # Trigger Matrix | Intent | Trigger | Reason | |---|---|---| | Refund request before a decision | Trigger | Core unresolved-review use case | | Customer asks whether a refund is approved | Trigger | The outcome is not confirmed | | Agent needs an initial refund reply | Trigger | Requires safe acknowledgment and review language | | Confirmed refund completion notice | Do not trigger | The outcome is already known | | Refund policy drafting | Do not trigger | This is policy work, not a customer reply | | Chargeback dispute response | Do not trigger | It follows a different process and risk boundary | # Regression Checks 1. Given an unresolved request, the reply says the request will be reviewed. 2. The reply never states that the refund is complete, approved, processed, or issued. 3. The only forward promise is an update. 4. The tone remains warm and concise without adding policy facts. # Transparent Checks - Source-grounded rule: acknowledge the request. - Source-grounded rule: explain review. - Source-grounded prohibition: never confirm the refund. - Source-grounded promise boundary: promise only an update. - Conservative default: no subject line, timeline, amount, or policy detail was added. - Canonical SKILL.md is directly usable. - Every material correction is preserved. - Corrected mistakes are excluded. - Trigger and exclusion coverage is present. - Regression checks protect the learned behavior. - No unfinished marker or hidden dependency remains. - No unsupported runtime claim appears.