Review process: test accounts, remarks, iterations

1. A high-level look at the review process

Publishing a ChatGPT App in the Store is not “uploaded a link and forgot about it” — it’s a living cycle. In simplified form it looks like this: you prepare the App, submit it for review, reviewers run it through their checklists, you receive remarks, iterate, and resubmit. And you repeat this several times until everyone is satisfied.

It’s easiest to consider this as a small workflow:

flowchart TD
  A[Dev Mode / Internal beta] --> B[Submit to Store]
  B --> C[Under review]
  C -->|Approved| D[Published]
  C -->|Changes requested| E[Fixes & Iteration]
  E --> B
  D --> F[Updates]
  F --> C
  D --> G[Paused / Unpublished]

In the early stages (Dev Mode, internal beta testing) you catch technical and UX issues. When you hit “Submit to Store,” a more formal review begins: they look at content policy compliance, permissions, stability, and what’s written in the listing and legal documents.

It’s helpful to adopt the philosophy that review is not an exam where you either “pass” and never return or “fail.” It’s a continuous feedback channel between you and the platform. The Store wants your App to be safe, clear, and stable; you want access to users without being taken down a week later. Surprise: your interests actually align.

2. What you submit for review

Before anyone on the platform side opens your App, you fill out a fairly standard set of items:

1. App metadata: name, subtitle, category, icon.
2. Listing description: short and full description, example scenarios.
3. Links to Privacy Policy, Terms, Support/Contact.
4. Permission settings: what access the App requests (for example, OAuth, external APIs, payment modes, etc.).
5. Sometimes — a description of test scenarios and reviewer accounts.
6. The App itself: MCP server, UI bundle, system prompt, and tool descriptions that the platform already knows from Dev Mode/production URL.

Technically, by this point you have already deployed the production version (usually on Vercel or similar), which the Store will hit. So the “Submit” button is not about deploying code but about changing its status: “this code is already live in your production; now please review it and allow users in.”

To tie all the pieces together, it’s often convenient to have a small config in the repository where you explicitly fix what is included in the ‘candidate for review’ version. For example, a simple TypeScript structure:

// config/release-candidate.ts
export const releaseCandidate = {
  version: "1.0.0",
  apiBaseUrl: process.env.API_BASE_URL,
  enableCommerce: true,
  privacyPolicyUrl: "https://example.com/legal/privacy",
  termsUrl: "https://example.com/legal/terms",
  supportUrl: "https://example.com/support",
};

Such a file does not replace the Store form itself, but it helps your team understand what exactly you are “selling” to reviewers and users right now.

3. How reviewers look at your App

So, you filled out the forms, prepared the links, and clicked Submit. What happens on the Store’s side? Imagine you are the reviewer. You haven’t seen the code, you don’t know the project’s history, but you have a checklist and limited time. Usually, the App is examined from several angles.

First, they check compliance with content policy and brand. You cannot deliver prohibited categories or violate rules in medicine, law, or finance without the right disclaimers and a “human in the loop.” You cannot impersonate OpenAI or use their brand as if this were their official product.

Second, they analyse permissions. If you request access to something sensitive (user profiles, payments, a third-party account via OAuth), you will be asked: is this truly needed? And is it clear to the user from the description and App behavior? The ideal case is when permissions are minimal and strictly match the described scenarios.

Third, they assess UX and stability. The App must not take over the entire ChatGPT screen: if it keeps opening fullscreen for any reason without a clear explanation, that’s a minus. If the backend regularly throws errors and tools break every other time, trust won’t be there either.

Finally, they look at the honesty of the listing: does the App description match what the reviewer actually sees in the chat? If you promise “lightning-fast selection of the perfect gift and instant checkout,” but in reality the App fails three times at search and can’t place orders, the review will end quickly and sadly.

To make things easier for reviewers, it makes sense to prepare a “route” in advance: a list of steps worth trying and the expected results. This will also be useful for your own regression.

The simplest example of such a description in code is a structure with test scenarios that you can reference in internal documentation:

// test/review-scenarios.ts
export const reviewScenarios = [
  {
    id: "gift-basic",
    title: "Gift selection without purchase",
    steps: [
      "Ask: Pick a gift for a friend who loves board games, budget $50",
      "Ensure the App suggests options and does not require login",
    ],
  },
  {
    id: "gift-checkout",
    title: "Gift selection with test checkout",
    steps: [
      "Choose any gift from the list",
      "Proceed to checkout using a test card",
    ],
  },
];

This structure does not go to the Store directly, but it disciplines your team and later helps update the description for reviewers and support.

4. Test accounts and data: without them, review won’t fly

As soon as money, personal data, or external accounts are involved, reviewers expect you to provide a safe way to go through the entire scenario without using their real card, personal email, or a real Slack/Google/anything account.

Broadly, there are two large types of test entities.

The first type is test users/organizations in your system. For example, for GiftGenius you can create a special “review organization” with a pre-populated demo catalog and attached test payment methods in the payment provider’s sandbox mode. It’s important that the reviewer does not go through a complicated onboarding: ideally, they get a login/password or a magic link and immediately land in a ready-made sandbox.

The second type is test data from external providers. Payments typically have a sandbox mode (test cards, test accounts). If your App delegates payment through ACP/Instant Checkout, you must ensure it uses the test environment during review and nobody is paying real money. This touches the architecture of the commerce part, but the idea is simple: add a backend flag for “review/test mode.”

In code terms, this can look like a simple environment flag and config:

// config/env.ts
export const env = {
  nodeEnv: process.env.NODE_ENV,
  reviewMode: process.env.REVIEW_MODE === "true",
  paymentProviderEnv: process.env.REVIEW_MODE === "true" ? "sandbox" : "production",
};

And where you initialize the payment system client:

// lib/payments/client.ts
import { env } from "@/config/env";

export const paymentClient = createPaymentClient({
  environment: env.paymentProviderEnv, // "sandbox" or "production"
  apiKey: process.env.PAYMENT_API_KEY!,
});

This small thing makes life much easier: you can run the App in a mode as close to production as possible, while reviewers do not touch real money.

Separately think through test scenarios for integrations like Gmail, Slack, Notion, etc. Where OAuth is used, review often expects either a shared demo account or a very simple instruction on how to create a test workspace. Try to avoid scenarios like “write to support and we’ll flip something on manually” — review is often automated and time-limited, and nobody will wait for your email.

5. Typical reviewer remarks and how to respond

Now, possibly an unpleasant truth: the likelihood that your first pass through review will be perfect is close to the likelihood that a programmer wrote bug-free code on the first try — roughly zero. And that’s normal.

Remarks most often fall into several predictable categories.

The first category is permissions and privacy. For example, you request access to the user’s email but do not explain why in the listing. Or your Privacy Policy says you “do not store chat data” while the MCP server logs happily write the entire request including PII. The reviewer may ask you to clarify documents, change the App behavior, or both.

The second category is UX and behavior in chat. The App may “take over” the conversation: aggressively opening fullscreen where inline would suffice, not leaving a text summary after actions, or not giving the user a clear way to “return to chat.” In such cases you’ll likely be asked to simplify the UX and respect ChatGPT’s primary conversational interface.

The third category is stability and errors. If in typical scenarios the App regularly shows “Error talking to app” or internal 500s, review may stop until you demonstrate that this is an outlier, not the norm. Here they expect not only bug fixes but also minimal observability: logs, health checks, sensible timeouts.

The fourth category is honesty of the listing and marketing promises. If your description promises more than you can actually do, reviewers usually notice quickly, especially if you promise “guaranteed results” in sensitive domains. The fix here is twofold: either reduce promises or increase implementation (usually the former).

How should you respond to remarks? The main rule is to treat review as a partnership, not “malicious moderators.” In your response, it helps to:

1. Clearly acknowledge the issue: “Yes, in the current version the App does X, while the description says Y.”
2. Describe what you have already changed: “We adjusted the listing and updated the Privacy Policy to clarify that…”
3. When possible, attach a short test scenario where the reviewer can see the fix.

If you do not clearly understand why you received a remark, it’s better to ask a clarifying question rather than guess. For example: “Do we understand correctly that the main problem is the App automatically expanding to fullscreen without an explicit user request?”

6. Internal checklist before submitting for review

To reduce the number of iterations, it’s useful to create your own “pre-flight checklist” inspired by modules 7, 15–17. This is not a “tick-the-box” list but a practical tool you actually go through before every submission.

Technically, you can even bake this checklist into the repository as a small JSON/TS module and run it in the README or pipeline.

The simplest TypeScript variant might look like this:

// tools/review-checklist.ts
export interface ChecklistItem {
  id: string;
  description: string;
  done: boolean;
}

export const reviewChecklist: ChecklistItem[] = [
  {
    id: "ux-inline-first",
    description: "The App’s primary flows work in inline mode; fullscreen only where it’s truly justified.",
    done: false,
  },
  {
    id: "privacy-links",
    description: "Links to Privacy Policy, Terms, and Support are valid and open without authentication.",
    done: false,
  },
  {
    id: "permissions-minimal",
    description: "Only minimally necessary permissions are requested; each is described in the listing.",
    done: false,
  },
];

And in your internal tools or simply in the console you can output this list and mark progress. This is not mandatory automation, but developers traditionally get along better with code than with Google Docs, so why not use a familiar tool.

7. Iterations and versioning: life after the first publication

Surprise number two: even after your App passes review and becomes available to users, the process doesn’t end. Any significant update can trigger another review, especially if you change permissions, add new sensitive scenarios, or radically redesign the UX.

Therefore, treat your ChatGPT App as a living product with a normal release process, not as a “last shot.”

A reasonable minimum is this: you have a version in code (semver), a changelog, and an understanding of which releases require another review and which do not. For example, fixing typos in the UI that do not affect App behavior or permissions may pass quietly, while moving from “recommendations only” to “full checkout with payments” will definitely require new attention.

In code this can look like a simple constant and an object with changes:

// config/app-version.ts
export const appVersion = "1.1.0";

export const appChangelog = {
  "1.1.0": [
    "Added sandbox checkout for test users",
    "Clarified permission descriptions in the listing",
  ],
  "1.0.0": ["First public release of GiftGenius without payments"],
};

And yes, it’s great if you sync these notes with what you write in the Store release notes. Then it’s easier for both reviewers and users to understand what happened.

8. Communication with the platform: how not to quarrel with reviewers

Possibly the most underrated skill is communicating normally with reviewers. As a rule, feedback comes as a set of theses: what’s wrong, which policy points you hit, which UX areas raise questions. A good reply is not “You don’t understand anything,” but a calm and concrete message.

Keep a few simple principles in mind.

First, clarity. Don’t write a multi-page essay about how the internal architecture of your MCP server is arranged and why it’s so beautiful. The reviewer primarily cares about user experience and policy compliance. It’s enough to briefly describe what you changed and how to verify it now.

Second, transparency. If the problem is more complex than “we fixed the text” and requires substantial changes, it’s more honest to write: “This remark affects a key part of our checkout flow; we’ll need 1–2 weeks to fix it properly. We will send an updated version as soon as it’s ready.”

Third, memory. Keep review remarks not only in email or your internal tracker, but also as a small “decision” in documentation: what exactly was disallowed and why. This helps new developers and product not step on the same rake. A simple internal note in docs or even a README section like “Store Review Decisions” can help.

9. Relation to architecture and previous modules

It’s useful to view the review process as an “integrated check” of everything you did in previous modules.

Without the modules on security and permissions (7, 15), you will likely have questions about access, handling PII, OAuth, and destructive actions.

Without the modules on stability and observability (16, 17), you won’t be able to clearly explain why the App sometimes fails, sometimes not, and how you monitor it. Metrics and SLO turn from theory into arguments: “we see p95 < 2 seconds for the primary tool and an error rate < 1% over the past N days.”

Without the UX modules (8, 11), the App may simply “break” the chat: fullscreen where it’s not needed, confusing transitions between modes, no text summary. Reviewers spot these things faster than you do because they test many different Apps and have a good feel for when someone is “overdoing it.”

And finally, without today’s understanding of the review process, you risk getting stuck at the stage of “we submitted, they sent it back, we got offended.” It’s better to treat this as yet another iteration cycle, very similar to your internal regression, but with one more interested party — the platform.

In the end, if you have a sane checklist, test accounts and a sandbox mode, basic observability, and normal communication with reviewers, the review process stops being a lottery. It’s just another iterative cycle around your ChatGPT App — as natural as pre-release regression or code review within the team.

10. Common mistakes when going through review

Mistake #1: Submitting the App “as is” without an internal checklist.
Many teams click “Submit” right after the App “works” in Dev Mode. As a result, basic issues surface during review: broken Privacy/Terms links, non-working scenarios, no test accounts. This is fixed by a simple internal checklist that you actually go through before each submission (valid links, minimal permissions, working key scenarios) — we covered an example of such a checklist above in the “Internal checklist before submitting for review” section.

Mistake #2: Ignoring test accounts and sandbox modes.
Submitting an App for review that requires the reviewer’s real credit card is a bad idea. Equally bad is when checkout theoretically exists but the reviewer cannot test it at all. You need to plan test organization/user entities in your system and the payment provider’s sandbox mode tied to a REVIEW_MODE or similar flag in advance.

Mistake #3: Trying to “bargain” for exceptions instead of fixing the issue.
Sometimes developers start arguing with the reviewer: “but competitors do the same” or “this is the platform’s limitation; there’s nothing we can do.” This style rarely helps. It’s much more effective to reframe the scenario, simplify the UX, reduce permissions, and adjust the listing so it honestly reflects the App’s behavior.

Mistake #4: Not documenting remarks and decisions.
If you received a review comment and just “fixed a bug in code” without recording what exactly was disallowed, someone on the team will do the same thing again six months later. It’s better to maintain a small registry of review decisions: “Do not automatically expand to fullscreen without explicit user action,” “do not store full chat texts longer than N days without explicitly stating it in the Policy,” etc.

Mistake #5: “Big releases” without a phased strategy.
Trying to add payments, new permissions, a new UX, and a reworked backend in one release is a good recipe for long review iterations. It’s much calmer to ship in small steps: first recommendations without payments, then a sandbox checkout, then a full payment flow. This reduces risk and gives reviewers fewer reasons to push back.

Mistake #6: Relying on Store acceptance instead of your own QA and observability.
Sometimes a team subconsciously expects reviewers to “test for them.” As a result, review turns into free QA but delays the launch by weeks. It’s much healthier to treat review as a final sanity check of an already fairly mature product with its own tests, logs, metrics, and clear scenarios.