agentleFS
Sign inStart free
EveryIncEveryInc/every-marketplace/skills/ce-riffrec-feedback-analysis/SKILL.md

ce-riffrec-feedback-analysis

Skill26k starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Analyze recorded product feedback into evidence for bugs and requirements. Use when a Riffrec capture or other screen, voice, or notes artifact needs interpretation. Use for Riffrec setup, capture, or sharing help when no recording exists yet.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    When the input is ambiguous (e.g., a zip arrived without context), inspect the recording length and event count before choosing.

    line 25
  2. Very specific:

    Keep raw recordings, audio chunks, zip contents, session dumps, and extracted screenshots local-only by default.

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    Use repo-relative screenshot paths in any committed doc so later agents can open the evidence without absolute local paths.

    line 31

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Riffrec Feedback Analysis

Turn raw product feedback into structured evidence for downstream agents. This skill is the consumption side of Riffrec, a capture tool that records synchronized screen + voice + event sessions and emits a riffrec-*.zip bundle.

Done:

  • Setup ends with a current capture/share path.
  • Quick analysis ends with one evidence-backed bug report and no durable artifact unless requested.
  • Extensive analysis ends with the complete evidence set and a ce-brainstorm handoff unless the user asked for extraction only.
  • A missing input, analyzer failure, or unresolved route ends with an actionable blocker rather than a partial success claim.

Choose the path

Route from the input. Read only the references named for that route; do not load the other path references.

  • Setup — user has no recording yet and asks how to install Riffrec, capture a session, or share feedback. Read references/install-riffrec.md.
  • Quick bug report — input is a short recording (under ~60 seconds), the user describes a single specific issue, or asks for "quick", "small", or "just transcribe". Read references/analyzer.md, then references/quick-bug-report.md.
  • Extensive analysis — input is longer, contains multiple issues, requirements, or a workflow walkthrough, or the user wants requirements material. Read references/analyzer.md, then references/extensive-analysis.md. Continue into ce-brainstorm unless the user explicitly asked only to extract or analyze artifacts.

When the input is ambiguous (e.g., a zip arrived without context), inspect the recording length and event count before choosing. If still unclear, ask the user which path applies before running anything heavy.

Common rules

  • Keep raw recordings, audio chunks, zip contents, session dumps, and extracted screenshots local-only by default. Do not commit raw/ or frames/ directories unless the user explicitly asks and privacy is acceptable.
  • Text/metadata artifacts (requirements kickoff material, analysis summaries, problem analyses, source manifests) may be committed when they are needed for traceability and contain no sensitive data.
  • Use repo-relative screenshot paths in any committed doc so later agents can open the evidence without absolute local paths.

The Compound Engineering output format used by the extensive path is documented in references/compound-engineering-feedback-format.md.

Download now (ZIP)

Trending

Steady: 0 new projects took it in the last 4 weeks, none the 4 weeks before.thin data

Week of Aug 30: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 6: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 13: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 20: 0 new projectsWeek of Sep 27: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 4: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 11: 0 new projectsWeek of Oct 18: 0 new projects
Aug 2026Sep 2026Oct 2026
New projects taking a version of this file each week, over the 8 weeks our latest run read: only 0 in all, so this is a hint, not a trend.

Who's talking about EveryInc/every-marketplace

The biggest 5 of 12 mentions linking to the repository that our crawl found. Each line is their own headline.

See all 12

Talked about on GitHub, YouTube and Hacker News (12 times).

On GitHub · 10

5 more on GitHub

On YouTube · 1

On Hacker News · 1

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free