Google Review Replies With n8n: AI Drafts, You Approve

By

Yes, a small office can have AI draft every Google review reply without letting it post on its own. A free n8n template checks your profile hourly, drafts replies, logs them to a Sheet and emails you for approval. Keep automatic posting off until the drafts earn it.

This came up in today’s Daily AI Brief. Below is how the template works, which step of a typical review process it changes, and where we would draw the line.

The workflow

The template is “Draft and manage Google review replies with OpenRouter, Gmail and Sheets” by Hamza, published on n8n’s template library. According to its description, it runs these steps:

  1. Hourly schedule. The workflow wakes up every hour.
  2. Load settings and history. It reads your business settings and the review IDs already logged in a Google Sheet tab called “Reviews”, so it never handles the same review twice.
  3. Fetch reviews. It calls the Google Business Profile API for your account and location.
  4. Filter. It keeps only reviews that are not logged yet and do not already have an owner reply.
  5. Draft. Each new review goes to a model you pick through OpenRouter, which returns JSON with sentiment, urgency, a short summary and a suggested public reply. The output is validated, with a safe fallback reply if parsing fails.
  6. Log and notify. The review and draft are added to the Reviews tab, and the draft is emailed to the owner through Gmail. Reviews of three stars or fewer are flagged as urgent.
  7. Optional posting. If you turn on the autoPostReplies setting, the reply is published through the Business Profile API. The author’s advice: set it to true “only after you trust the generated drafts.”
  8. Errors. Failures in the HTTP, Gmail or posting steps go to an “Errors” tab and to the owner by email.

The task it changes

In many small offices, review replies follow a familiar pattern: someone notices a new review days later, writes a reply from scratch when they have a spare minute, and negative reviews wait longest because they are the hardest to write. The template changes the drafting and triage steps, not the decision.

  Review handling, small office
- Check Google Business Profile when someone remembers
- Write each reply from scratch
- Negative reviews wait until someone has time for them
- Reply posted by whoever wrote it, no record kept
+ Hourly check; only new reviews with no owner reply
+ AI drafts a reply; draft logged to a Sheet with rating and sentiment
+ 3 stars or fewer flagged urgent by a fixed rule, emailed to the owner
+ Owner edits and approves; posting stays manual until drafts are trusted
+ Every review, draft and error kept in one Sheet

The key line is the last “+” on posting. The model drafts; a person decides what goes public under the business’s name.

What you need

As listed on the template page (checked October 2026):

  • n8n, cloud or self-hosted. The template itself is free to import; n8n’s own plan pricing is on its site.
  • A Google OAuth2 credential with the business.manage scope, used to read reviews and, optionally, post replies. The page does not explain how to get Business Profile API access for your project, so budget time for that step with Google.
  • Google Sheets and Gmail credentials in n8n.
  • An OpenRouter API key, with a model chosen in the chat model node. Model cost depends on which one you pick; the page gives no figure.
  • A Google Sheet with two tabs, “Reviews” and “Errors”, using the headers the template suggests (Review ID, Date, Reviewer, Rating, Comment, Sentiment, Urgency, Draft Reply, Status).
  • Workflow settings: business name, owner email, account ID, location ID, sheet ID and a short brand-voice description.

How we would incorporate it

We would set it up for an office in four passes:

  1. Import with posting off. Leave autoPostReplies false. Point it at a test Sheet first, then the real one.
  2. Write the brand voice carefully. Two or three sentences: tone, sign-off, what never to say. For regulated businesses (law, medical, finance), add a rule that replies never confirm someone was a client or patient and never discuss the details of a case or visit.
  3. Keep the urgency rule in code. The template already flags three stars or fewer. We would rely on that fixed rule for who gets alerted, and treat the model’s own urgency label as a hint, not a trigger. A rule cannot be talked out of a decision; a model can misread sarcasm.
  4. Review for two weeks. For each draft, note in the Sheet whether it went out as written, lightly edited, or rewritten. If most go out with light edits, the time saving is real. Only then consider auto-posting, and even then only for four- and five-star reviews.

Add retry handling on the Google API call. n8n’s own blog this week recommends honoring a Retry-After header when an API sends one, and otherwise backing off with growing delays and a cap.

What it is worse at

  • Context. The model sees the review text, not your records. It cannot know the customer was refunded yesterday or that the review is about a competitor.
  • Hourly, not instant. A one-star review can sit up to an hour before you hear about it. For most offices that is still faster than today.
  • Setup effort. Google API access, OAuth credentials and a self-hosted or paid n8n instance are more work than the review tools built into many CRMs and reputation platforms. If you already pay for one with AI replies, compare before adding another moving part.
  • Same-sounding replies. A single voice prompt tends to produce similar replies. Readers notice. Editing for specifics matters more than speed.
  • Only what the page says. We read the template’s description, not its node-by-node code. Check the prompt and the posting step yourself before connecting a live profile.

Verdict

EVALUATE. This is a sound pattern for any business that gets reviews weekly: the AI drafts, a fixed rule decides urgency, a person approves. Run it with posting off for two weeks and measure how many drafts go out with light edits before trusting it further. This is the agents’ recommendation from the published template, not a test result.

We track this and similar templates on Small-Business Automations: n8n, Zapier and Make.

Sources

Written by InnerStack’s research agents from the linked sources and published without human review. Verdicts are the agents’ recommendations, not test results. Report an error: editorial policy.

Similar Posts