App stores
AuraScore 83/100

E-Commerce Checkout and App Store Billing Compliance Checklist

Audit retail mobile checkout flows against Apple and Google billing policies for physical versus digital consumer goods.

Use this template before submitting e-commerce retail apps to ensure payment gateways and digital services comply with store monetization rules. It helps engineering leads avoid rejection over physical goods exemptions and digital loyalty credits.

Template

Role: Principal Mobile Solutions Architect specializing in retail e-commerce architectures and app store monetization compliance.

Context

  • Retail brand: {{brand_name}}
  • Deployment platforms: {{target_stores}}
  • Product catalog breakdown: {{digital_physical_split}}
  • Integrated payment processors: {{third_party_gateways}}
  • Primary operational regions: {{jurisdiction_region}}
  • In-app rewards and redemption mechanics: {{loyalty_points_model}}

Task

Generate a comprehensive, pre-submission technical audit checklist to verify that {{brand_name}}'s mobile checkout, payment architecture, and digital loyalty mechanics strictly adhere to store guidelines without triggering store payment system rejections across {{target_stores}}.

Method

  1. Review {{digital_physical_split}} to classify every SKU as tangible goods, digital services, or hybrid purchases.
  2. Cross-reference physical goods checkout flows against Apple Guideline 3.1.5 and Google Play Payments Policy to verify third-party gateway eligibility.
  3. Audit {{loyalty_points_model}} to ensure earned and purchased points do not violate anti-steering or in-app purchase mandates.
  4. Verify that {{third_party_gateways}} integrations handle out-of-app redirection, web-view isolation, and native tokenization securely.
  5. Inspect fallback mechanisms for mixed carts containing both tangible goods and digital subscription items.
  6. Evaluate regional payment mandates within {{jurisdiction_region}} (e.g., PSD2/SCA, UPI) for compliant mobile user experience.
  7. Formulate explicit pass/fail verification criteria for pre-submission engineering sign-off.

Constraints

  • Checkpoints MUST be organized by architectural tier: Core Catalog, Payment Gateway, Loyalty System, and Submission Packaging.
  • Every checklist item MUST include a regulatory rationale referencing specific platform guidelines.
  • You MUST NOT recommend proprietary third-party payment rails for purely digital consumable items.
  • Output MUST be structured purely as actionable checklist items with clear verification criteria.

Output format

  • Section 1: Executive Compliance Overview (1 brief paragraph)
  • Section 2: Physical Goods vs. Digital Goods SKU Matrix (Markdown table)
  • Section 3: Technical Checkout Verification Checklist (15-20 distinct items across 4 categories with status checkboxes [ ], Risk Level, and Verification Step)
  • Section 4: Store Submission Evidence Log (bulleted list of required artifacts)

Self-review

  • Are all 6 variables ({{brand_name}}, {{target_stores}}, {{digital_physical_split}}, {{third_party_gateways}}, {{jurisdiction_region}}, {{loyalty_points_model}}) addressed?
  • Are physical vs digital goods clearly separated according to official store policies?
  • Does the output follow the requested checklist format without placeholder text?
AuraScore breakdown
83/100Provisional
Instruction clarity15/15 · Strong

Explicit role, a named task, and discrete steps the model can follow.

Context architecture12/12 · Strong

Background, inputs and variables the model needs before it starts.

Constraint engineering12/12 · Strong

Hard boundaries — what the model must and must not do.

Output specification6/14 · Thin

A named, field-level shape for the response.

Reasoning structure10/10 · Strong

Ordered work items that force analysis before an answer.

Model compatibility10/10 · Strong

Length and structure that travel across frontier models.

Token efficiency5/10 · Thin

Signal density — instruction weight without padding.

Reusability7/7 · Strong

Documented variables so the scaffold adapts to new inputs.

Robustness5/5 · Strong

Quality bar, assumptions and behaviour when inputs are thin.

Observed performance1/5 · Thin

How much real usage the template has behind it.

developers
developers-app-stores
retail-consumer-goods
app-stores
retail-commerce
payments-compliance