A useful rejection analysis quotes the actual reason and ties it to a reproducible app behavior. Avoid claiming that an app was rejected because it used AI unless the evidence says so.

Review message → Relevant behavior → Small correction → Resubmission evidence
  1. 1Review message
  2. 2Relevant behavior
  3. 3Small correction
  4. 4Resubmission evidence

Work through the example

Use the current official guidelines to interpret a real case. Distinguish policy requirements from a maintainer's guess.

Start with a disposable branch and synthetic data. Write the expected outcome before changing the implementation, then keep the first failing result. This prevents a later repair from quietly redefining the task. The procedure below is grounded in the repository reference; its examples must still be checked against your project and installed toolchain.

Implementation reference

The following focused section is adapted from the maintained project guide. It preserves the source’s examples and limitations.

App Metadata

  • [ ] App name finalized (30 character limit, no keyword stuffing)
  • [ ] Subtitle written (30 character limit, descriptive and compelling)
  • [ ] App description written (up to 4000 characters, most important info first)
  • [ ] Promotional text set (170 characters, can be updated without a new build)
  • [ ] Keywords optimized (100 character budget, comma-separated, no spaces after commas)
  • [ ] Primary and secondary categories selected
  • [ ] Support URL provided (must be a working webpage)
  • [ ] Marketing URL provided (optional but recommended)
  • [ ] Copyright field filled (e.g., "2026 Your Company Name")
  • [ ] Version number follows semantic versioning (e.g., 1.0.0)

Acceptance and failure review

Checkpoint What to inspect If it does not match
Review message Confirm the input and environment Preserve the failure and return to this step
Relevant behavior Inspect the intermediate artifact Preserve the failure and return to this step
Small correction Run the focused check Preserve the failure and return to this step
Resubmission evidence Record the observed result Preserve the failure and return to this step

Ask the agent to explain the smallest change that resolves the observed mismatch. Keep unrelated refactors out of the repair. A change that makes a warning disappear is not enough if the behavior or ownership contract has changed. Re-run the same acceptance check so the before and after results are comparable.

Evidence and limits

No sourced rejection case collection has been assembled; no invented rejection stories are presented.

This is an educational guide. Its presence in the series does not certify a completed client-specific lab. The series evidence record separates executed checks from exercises and blocked environments.

Inspect the source used in this lesson.

What to do next

Next: Versioning, changelogs and release notes the agent can draft