Add AI comment candidates to a new-account review process

AI can help with wording, but you still need to decide whether a comment is appropriate. Review factual accuracy, relevance and the time needed to edit each candidate.

First decide whether you have something useful to add, then treat AI output as a draft. Check facts, tone and consistency with your real identity. Selecting a professional persona does not grant those qualifications.

Skip a post when a reply is unnecessary. Use manual candidates when every message needs approval rather than enabling automatic workflow posting. Recording why candidates were accepted or rejected is more useful for quality than counting generations.

Put drafts into a real review process

Choose a post you have already read and write down the question or addition you actually intend. Evaluate candidates against that purpose rather than sending fluent text automatically.

• Verify that any I bought/I used statement reflects your experience.
• Check sources and qualifications for professional advice; a persona is not a credential.
• Remove questions already answered in the source.
• Edit suffixes that change meaning or add unrelated promotion.

Record a useful trial

Record why candidates were accepted, revised or rejected and include review time. A valid outcome is that only one candidate became usable after editing, not a claim of perfect naturalness. Stories involving other users need original evidence and grounds for display; do not label a hypothetical scenario a real case.

Product reference

Product steps were checked against extension 3.5.3. See the related guide for instructions and pricing for access. Report behavior that differs through feedback, including the version and a redacted error.