LearnGrokUse one review sheet to compare your current reply macros with the conversations your team actually handles. You will leave with a macro register that says what to keep, merge, rewrite, retire or create, and who must approve each decision.
This is for support leads and knowledge managers who need consistent queue replies without treating every macro as automatically correct.
Key point
Review macros against real conversations
A macro library is only useful when its wording, promises and placeholders match the cases reaching your queue now.
1. Set the audit boundary
Choose a manageable slice of the queue. Do not begin by reviewing every macro and every ticket. That produces a long list with no decisions.
Collect these items for one product area, language or queue:
- The current macro library, including macro name, shortcut, body text and any internal notes.
- A sample of recent resolved conversations from the same area.
- Your current escalation policy, service commitments and approved policy wording.
- A list of teams that own facts used in replies, such as billing, product, security, operations or legal.
Use conversations that show the normal range of work, not only complaints. Include:
- Straightforward requests resolved by a macro.
- Conversations where an agent heavily edited a macro.
- Escalations and reopened cases.
- Cases where the agent wrote a reply from scratch.
- Recent issue types that do not appear in the library.
Remove customer names, account numbers, addresses, payment details and other data that the review does not need. Keep the sequence of messages, issue category, final resolution and timestamps where they affect the promised action.
Watch out
Do not treat a resolved ticket as proof that the reply was right
A customer may accept an inaccurate promise, unclear instruction or inconsistent exception. Compare the wording with the policy and the eventual outcome.
2. Create the macro register first
Create a spreadsheet or shared document with one row per existing macro. Add rows for missing scenarios as you find them. Use these fields so every proposed change becomes actionable.
| Field | Record | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Macro ID and name | Existing shortcut and title | Lets agents find the right item after changes |
| Scenario | Customer situation and trigger | Stops one generic macro covering unrelated cases |
| Evidence | Conversation IDs or internal references | Shows why the change is needed |
| Decision | Keep, revise, merge, retire or create | Makes the review finite |
| Required placeholders | Fields such as {{order_number}} or {{next_step}} |
Prevents replies with missing case details |
| Approved wording | Exact customer-facing text or linked approved clause | Gives agents a safe default |
| Promise check | Delivery time, refund, investigation or follow-up commitment | Flags wording that may no longer be true |
| Sign-off owner | Named role or team | Prevents unapproved policy changes |
| Review date | Date and reviewer | Creates a repeatable audit trail |
Use clear decisions. Revise means the scenario is still valid but the content is not. Merge means two or more macros serve the same scenario. Retire means the scenario or promise should no longer be offered. Create means the conversations show a recurring need with no usable macro.
3. Compare each macro with the conversation sample
For each macro, find the conversations where it was used or where it should have been used. Read the customer message, the macro draft, any edits the agent made, the later messages and the final outcome.
Ask these questions in order:
- Does the macro match one specific customer scenario?
- Did agents use it without rewriting the central message?
- Does it state a fact, time frame or remedy that remains approved?
- Does it ask for only the information needed for the next step?
- Are the placeholders obvious and sufficient?
- Does it tell the customer what will happen next, who will do it and when they should reply?
- Did this type of case need escalation, even though the macro did not say so?
Mark duplicate candidates when two macros have the same trigger and next action but different titles or minor wording changes. Keep the clearer name and the wording that matches approved policy. Do not merge macros merely because they use similar greetings or apologies.
If you use the model you are using to speed up comparison, give it the macro text, anonymised conversation excerpts and your register headings. Ask it to return evidence, not just recommendations. For example:
Compare each macro with these anonymised conversations. For every macro, identify: scenario match, repeated agent edits, promises made, missing placeholders, escalation triggers, duplicate candidates and missing scenarios. Quote the exact source wording for each finding. Do not invent policy or customer facts. Return a table using the register fields provided.
Check the output against the original material. The model can group similar wording quickly, but it cannot decide whether your operational promise is still authorised. Capability and usage details can vary, so check the xAI documentation overview before setting a repeatable review process.
Check
Look for evidence in every recommendation
Each proposed change should point to a macro sentence, a conversation pattern or an approved policy source. A row without evidence is a suggestion, not an audit finding.
4. Write approved wording and placeholders
Draft each revised macro around the decision the customer needs, not around your internal process. Put the next action early. Use one placeholder for each fact that must be case-specific.
For example, a follow-up macro may require:
{{case_reference}}{{action_taken}}{{next_step}}{{follow_up_date}}
Do not use placeholders for information the agent cannot reliably find. Do not leave optional fields in the customer-facing body without instructions. Put internal guidance below the macro, such as: “Use only after the operations team confirms the replacement request.”
Separate fixed wording from variable wording. Fixed wording covers approved policy, limits and commitments. Variable wording covers the customer’s account, order or reported issue. This makes later policy updates faster and reduces accidental changes to sensitive promises.
5. Route each change for sign-off
Assign one owner to every row, even for a small wording change. The owner should approve the fact being stated, not merely the grammar.
| If the macro changes... | Send it to... | Sign-off question |
|---|---|---|
| Refund, charge or account-credit wording | Billing owner | Is the remedy and eligibility wording current? |
| Investigation or response timing | Operations or support lead | Can the team meet this commitment? |
| Product behaviour or workaround | Product owner | Does this describe current behaviour accurately? |
| Safety, privacy or contractual wording | Relevant specialist owner | Is this wording approved for customer use? |
| Tone, structure or macro naming only | Support lead or knowledge manager | Is it clear, consistent and easy to select? |
Record the owner’s decision in the register. Do not publish a macro because a reviewer says it “looks fine”. Record approved, changes requested or retired, plus the date and the final text location.
Stop
Do not copy an agent's improvised promise into a macro
A one-off concession or guessed time frame becomes a wider commitment when it is saved as reusable text.
6. Test the revised library before publication
Take a second small sample of recent conversations. Ask two experienced agents to choose a macro without being told which one you expect them to use. Note where they hesitate, select the wrong item or need to rewrite it.
The revised library is going wrong when you see any of these signs:
- Agents choose different macros for the same scenario.
- A macro title sounds right but its body requires extensive edits.
- A required placeholder is routinely left blank or replaced with vague text.
- Customers ask what happens next after receiving the reply.
- Escalations reveal a promise that the owning team did not approve.
- New macro rows keep appearing for cases that should have been covered by an existing scenario.
Treat these as register updates, not agent failures. Rename ambiguous macros, split overloaded scenarios and remove wording that agents must routinely work around.
7. Make the audit a queue habit
Run the same review after a policy change, a new product issue, a rise in escalations or a recurring pattern of agent edits. Between full audits, add a simple feedback field to macro requests: scenario, example conversation, suggested wording, policy owner and urgency.
Keep one published register as the source of truth. Archive retired macros rather than leaving them searchable beside active ones. Review dates make it clear which entries need another check.
If the audit produces too many findings, narrow the boundary further. Start with the five macros used most often or the scenario causing the most escalations. If owners cannot sign off the wording, publish no new promise. Keep the existing approved wording, mark the row as blocked and escalate the decision to the team that owns the underlying policy.
