End-to-end release workflows for TestFlight and App Store distribution.
Works with
Supports iOS, macOS, visionOS, and tvOS with platform-specific build formats ( .ipa for iOS/visionOS/tvOS, .pkg for macOS)
One-command publishing via asc publish testflight or asc publish appstore , or manual multi-step workflows for granular control
Includes build upload, version attachment, TestFlight group distribution, and App Store submission with optional polling and confirmation
Requires valid credentia
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionasc-release-flowExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches asc-release-flow from rudrankriyam/app-store-connect-cli-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate asc-release-flow. Access via /asc-release-flow in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
0
total installs
0
this week
708
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
708
stars
Use this skill when the real question is "Can my app be ready to submit?" and then guide the user through the shortest path to a clean App Store submission, especially for first-time releases.
asc auth login or ASC_* env vars).VERSION_ID, SUBMISSION_ID, DETAIL_ID, GROUP_ID, SUB_ID, IAP_ID, and related resource IDs. Use asc-id-resolver when needed.asc release stage or asc release run.When using this skill, answer readiness questions in this order:
Group blockers like this:
Run this first when the user wants the quickest answer to "can I submit now?":
asc submit preflight --app "APP_ID" --version "1.2.3" --platform IOS
This is the fastest high-signal readiness check and prints fix guidance without mutating anything.
Run this when the user wants the version prepared in App Store Connect but wants a manual checkpoint before creating a review submission:
asc release stage \
--app "APP_ID" \
--version "1.2.3" \
--build "BUILD_ID" \
--metadata-dir "./metadata/version/1.2.3" \
--confirm
Use --copy-metadata-from "1.2.2" instead of --metadata-dir when you want to carry metadata forward from an existing version. asc release stage requires exactly one metadata source and stops before submit.
Run this when the user wants one command that approximates the whole release path:
asc release run \
--app "APP_ID" \
--version "1.2.3" \
--build "BUILD_ID" \
--metadata-dir "./metadata/version/1.2.3" \
--dry-run \
--output table
This is the best single-command rehearsal for:
Add --strict-validate when you want warnings treated as blockers.
Run this when the user needs a fuller version-level checklist than submit preflight:
asc validate --app "APP_ID" --version "1.2.3" --platform IOS --output table
Prefer the version string form here so it stays aligned with asc submit preflight and asc release run. Switch to VERSION_ID only for lower-level commands that explicitly require it.
If the app sells digital goods, also run:
asc validate iap --app "APP_ID" --output table
asc validate subscriptions --app "APP_ID" --output table
In current asc, asc validate subscriptions expands MISSING_METADATA into per-subscription diagnostics. Use it to pinpoint missing review screenshots, promotional images, pricing or availability coverage, offer readiness, and app/build evidence before you retry submission or attach-group.
When territory coverage is wrong, the newest diagnostics name the exact missing territories instead of only reporting count mismatches. Use --output json --pretty when you want machine-readable diagnostics.
When the dry run looks clean:
asc release run \
--app "APP_ID" \
--version "1.2.3" \
--build "BUILD_ID" \
--metadata-dir "./metadata/version/1.2.3" \
--confirm
Symptoms:
asc pricing availability view --app "APP_ID" reports no availabilityasc pricing availability edit ... fails because it only updates existing availabilityCheck:
asc pricing availability view --app "APP_ID"
Bootstrap the first availability record with the experimental web-session flow:
asc web apps availability create \
--app "APP_ID" \
--territory "USA,GBR" \
--available-in-new-territories true
After bootstrap, use the normal public API command for ongoing updates:
asc pricing availability edit \
--app "APP_ID" \
--territory "USA,GBR" \
--available true \
--available-in-new-territories true
For apps with subscriptions, check readiness explicitly:
asc validate subscriptions --app "APP_ID" --output table
If the validator shows MISSING_METADATA, read the row-level diagnostics literally. The newest CLI surfaces missing promotional images, review screenshots, pricing or availability coverage, offer readiness, and app/build evidence in one matrix, which is the quickest way to understand why first-review attach still fails.
List current first-review subscription state:
asc web review subscriptions list --app "APP_ID"
If the app is going through its first review and the group needs attaching:
asc web review subscriptions attach-group \
--app "APP_ID" \
--group-id "GROUP_ID" \
--confirm
If attach-group still returns MISSING_METADATA, fix the validator-reported prerequisites first. The most common misses are broad pricing coverage and a subscription promotional image.
For one subscription instead of a whole group:
asc web review subscriptions attach \
--app "APP_ID" \
--subscription-id "SUB_ID" \
--confirm
For later reviews, use the normal submission path:
asc subscriptions review submit --subscription-id "SUB_ID" --confirm
If review artifacts are missing, upload them before submission:
asc subscriptions review screenshots create --subscription-id "SUB_ID" --file "./screenshot.png"
asc subscriptions images create --subscription-id "SUB_ID" --file "./image.png"
Also make sure the app’s privacy policy URL is populated when the app sells subscriptions.
For apps with one-time purchases, consumables, or non-consumables, check readiness explicitly:
asc validate iap --app "APP_ID" --output table
If the IAP is missing its App Review screenshot:
asc iap review-screenshots create --iap-id "IAP_ID" --file "./review.png"
For IAPs on a published app, submit them directly:
asc iap submit --iap-id "IAP_ID" --confirm
If this is the first IAP for the app, or the first time adding a new IAP type, Apple requires it to be included with a new app version. Current asc commands can validate and submit published-app IAPs, but there is no equivalent first-review attach flow like the subscription web commands yet. In that case:
asc validate iap, pricing, localization, and review screenshot data firstAlso make sure the app’s privacy policy URL is populated when the app sells IAPs.
If the app uses Game Center, make sure the App Store version is Game Center-enabled:
asc game-center app-versions list --app "APP_ID"
asc game-center app-versions create --app-store-version-id "VERSION_ID"
If you are adding Game Center components for the first time, include them in the same submission as the app version. Resolve component version IDs first:
asc game-center achievements v2 versions list --achievement-id "ACH_ID"
asc game-center leaderboards v2 versions list --leaderboard-id "LEADERBOARD_ID"
asc game-center challenges versions list --challenge-id "CHALLENGE_ID"
asc game-center activities versions list --activity-id "ACTIVITY_ID"
Then use the review-submission flow so you can add the app version and the Game Center component versions to the same submission:
asc review submissions-create --app "APP_ID" --platform IOS
asc review items-add --submission "SUBMISSION_ID" --item-type appStoreVersions --item-id "VERSION_ID"
asc review items-add --submission "SUBMISSION_ID" --item-type gameCenterLeaderboardVersions --item-id "GC_LEADERBOARD_VERSION_ID"
asc review submissions-submit --id "SUBMISSION_ID" --confirm
asc review items-add also supports gameCenterAchievementVersions, gameCenterActivityVersions, gameCenterChallengeVersions, and gameCenterLeaderboardSetVersions.
If Game Center component versions need to ship with the app version, prefer the explicit asc review submissions-* flow over asc release run --confirm, because you need a chance to add all submission items before final submit.
The public API can warn about App Privacy readiness but cannot fully verify publish state.
If asc submit preflight, asc validate, or asc release run surfaces an App Privacy advisory, reconcile it with:
asc web privacy pull --app "APP_ID" --out "./privacy.json"
asc web privacy plan --app "APP_ID" --file "./privacy.json"
asc web privacy apply --app "APP_ID" --file "./privacy.json"
asc web privacy publish --app "APP_ID" --confirm
If the user does not want the experimental web-session flow, confirm App Privacy manually in App Store Connect:
https://appstoreconnect.apple.com/apps/APP_ID/appPrivacy
Check whether the version already has review details:
asc review details-for-version --version-id "VERSION_ID"
If needed, create or update them:
asc review details-create \
--version-id "VERSION_ID" \
--contact-first-name "Dev" \
--contact-last-name "Support" \
--contact-email "[email protected]" \
--contact-phone "+1 555 0100" \
--notes "Explain the reviewer access path here."
asc review details-update \
--id "DETAIL_ID" \
--notes "Updated reviewer instructions."
Only set --demo-account-required=true when App Review truly needs demo credentials.
An app is effectively ready to submit when:
asc submit preflight --app "APP_ID" --version "VERSION" reports no blocking issuesasc validate --app "APP_ID" --version "VERSION" is clean or only contains understood non-blocking warningsasc release stage --confirm successfully prepared the target version when you want a real pre-submit checkpointasc release run ... --dry-run produces the expected planVALID and attached to the target versionasc web privacy ... orMake data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
pproenca/dot-skills
mattpocock/skills
Registry listing for asc-release-flow matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Useful defaults in asc-release-flow — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: asc-release-flow is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: asc-release-flow is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
I recommend asc-release-flow for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
asc-release-flow reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
asc-release-flow fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
asc-release-flow is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
Useful defaults in asc-release-flow — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
Registry listing for asc-release-flow matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
showing 1-10 of 50