All packsApp Store MachinerySolve
app store review rejection guideline 3.1.2 restore purchases
A missing restore-purchases button is a review rejection, not a build error
Guideline 3.1.2 requires a visible restore-purchases control on the paywall -- Xcode happily lets you submit without one, and Apple rejects it days later.
This is one of the things App Store Machinery already handles. Sell subscriptions and one-time unlocks in your iOS app, and get it through App Review.
Is this you?
App Review guidelines 3.1.2 (restore purchases must be visible and functional), 3.1.1 and 2.1 (subscription terms and pricing must be clear), and 5.1.2 (privacy commitments) are all things a StoreKit integration can compile, run, and pass every local test while still violating -- because none of them are things the compiler, the simulator, or a unit test checks. The rejection arrives from Apple's human review, typically 2-3 days after submission, for something that was avoidable and checkable well before then.
Why this one is easy to get wrong
These guidelines live in App Review's documentation, not in any API's type signature or compiler warning -- a StoreKit integration that renders a working paywall and processes a purchase correctly gives every local signal of being done. Whether a restore button is visible enough, or terms-of-service links are wired to the right policy destination, is a review-time, human-judged UI-completeness question that no automated local check catches unless something is specifically built to check it.
What you get instead
Decision 10 pins the paywall to Apple's own SubscriptionStoreView with .subscriptionStorePolicyDestination(url:for:) wired for both Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, a visible restore button via .storeButton(.visible, for: .restorePurchases), and the offer-code redemption control -- Apple's own component renders price, duration, and localization correctly by construction. The review-rejection preflight then statically checks for the presence of exactly these elements (plus the privacy manifest and export-compliance flag) before the build ships, catching what's checkable before a review cycle does.
Source: ARCHITECTURE.md decision 10; LISTING.md 'The five traps this pack pre-solves' — checkable in the pack you receive
How you actually use this
You don’t install a library or wire up an SDK. Your own coding agent builds the code in your project, and you keep it — no runtime dependency on us.
Step 1
Download and unzip
You get a folder: the docs that tell an agent what to build, a starting skeleton, and the test suite that decides when it's done.
Step 2
Open it in Claude Code or Cursor
Point your coding agent at the folder. Nothing to install, no account with us, no API key.
Step 3
Paste one prompt
The pack contains the exact prompt. Paste it as your first message and leave it alone — it works through the build itself, choosing a cheaper or stronger model per task.
Step 4
Run ./verify.sh
One command. It prints a pass or fail for every check. Green means the build is done — the same script we ran to produce the receipt on this page.
Typical build: about 21 minutes of your agent working, mostly unattended. Then you integrate the working module into your app the way you would any code you’d written yourself.
Why you can believe this
3 of 3 runs passedWe ran this pack from an empty folder 3 times and published exactly what happened — every check, the model, the token cost, the wall time. Not a testimonial, and not our opinion: the same verify.sh you run yourself. Read the full receipt →