asc-release-flow

rudrankriyam/app-store-connect-cli-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/rudrankriyam/app-store-connect-cli-skills --skill asc-release-flow
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

End-to-end release workflows for TestFlight and App Store distribution.

  • 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
skill.md

Release flow (readiness-first)

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.

Preconditions

  • Ensure credentials are set (asc auth login or ASC_* env vars).
  • Resolve app ID, version string, and build ID up front.
  • For lower-level or first-time flows, also be ready to resolve VERSION_ID, SUBMISSION_ID, DETAIL_ID, GROUP_ID, SUB_ID, IAP_ID, and related resource IDs. Use asc-id-resolver when needed.
  • Have a metadata directory ready if you plan to use asc release stage or asc release run.
  • If you use experimental web-session commands, use a user-owned Apple Account session and treat those commands as optional escape hatches, not the default path.

How to answer

When using this skill, answer readiness questions in this order:

  1. Is the app ready right now, or not yet?
  2. What are the blocking issues?
  3. Which blockers are API-fixable vs web-session-fixable?
  4. What exact command should run next?

Group blockers like this:

  • API-fixable: build validity, metadata, screenshots, review details, content rights, encryption, version/build attachment, IAP readiness, Game Center version and review-submission setup.
  • Web-session-fixable: initial app availability bootstrap, first-review subscription attachment, App Privacy publish state.
  • Manual fallback: first-time IAP selection from the app-version screen when no CLI attach flow exists, or any flow the user does not want to run through experimental web-session commands.

Canonical path

1. Fast readiness check

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.

2. Real staging pass without submit

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.

3. Full-pipeline dry run

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:

  1. ensuring or creating the version
  2. applying metadata and localizations
  3. attaching the build
  4. running readiness checks
  5. confirming the submission path is coherent

Add --strict-validate when you want warnings treated as blockers.

4. Deep API readiness audit

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.

5. Actual submit

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

First-time submission blockers

1. Initial app availability does not exist yet

Symptoms:

  • asc pricing availability view --app "APP_ID" reports no availability
  • asc pricing availability edit ... fails because it only updates existing availability

Check:

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

2. Subscriptions are READY_TO_SUBMIT but not attached to first review

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.

3. In-App Purchases need review readiness or first-version inclusion

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:

  • prepare the IAP with asc validate iap, pricing, localization, and review screenshot data first
  • then select the IAP from the app version’s “In-App Purchases and Subscriptions” section in App Store Connect before submitting the app version

Also make sure the app’s privacy policy URL is populated when the app sells IAPs.

4. Game Center is enabled but the app version or review submission is incomplete

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.

5. App Privacy is still unpublished

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

6. Review details are incomplete

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.

Practical readiness checklist

An app is effectively ready to submit when:

  • asc submit preflight --app "APP_ID" --version "VERSION" reports no blocking issues
  • asc validate --app "APP_ID" --version "VERSION" is clean or only contains understood non-blocking warnings
  • asc release stage --confirm successfully prepared the target version when you want a real pre-submit checkpoint
  • asc release run ... --dry-run produces the expected plan
  • the build is VALID and attached to the target version
  • metadata, screenshots, and localizations are complete
  • content rights and encryption requirements are resolved
  • review details are present
  • app availability exists
  • if the app has IAPs or subscriptions, the privacy policy URL is present
  • if the app has IAPs, they have localization/pricing/review screenshots and first-time IAPs are selected with the app version
  • subscriptions, if any, are attached for first review or already submitted through the supported review path
  • if the app uses Game Center, the app version is Game Center-enabled and any required Game Center component versions are in the same review submission
  • any App Privacy advisory has been resolved through asc web privacy ... or
how to use asc-release-flow

How to use asc-release-flow on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add asc-release-flow
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/rudrankriyam/app-store-connect-cli-skills --skill asc-release-flow

The skills CLI fetches asc-release-flow from GitHub repository rudrankriyam/app-store-connect-cli-skills and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/asc-release-flow

Reload or restart Cursor to activate asc-release-flow. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /asc-release-flow) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

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 development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

User Story & Requirements Generation

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

Competitive Analysis

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

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

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

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This

✓ 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.

Learning Path

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.650 reviews
  • James Ramirez· Dec 28, 2024

    Registry listing for asc-release-flow matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

  • James Huang· Dec 28, 2024

    Useful defaults in asc-release-flow — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Pratham Ware· Dec 24, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: asc-release-flow is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Dev Nasser· Dec 24, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: asc-release-flow is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Kwame Reddy· Dec 24, 2024

    I recommend asc-release-flow for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Harper Rahman· Dec 16, 2024

    asc-release-flow reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Chaitanya Patil· Dec 8, 2024

    asc-release-flow fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Piyush G· Nov 27, 2024

    asc-release-flow is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Diego Taylor· Nov 19, 2024

    Useful defaults in asc-release-flow — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.

  • Emma Bhatia· Nov 19, 2024

    Registry listing for asc-release-flow matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.

showing 1-10 of 50

1 / 5