feedback-prioritizer
Skill2 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Triages a backlog of raw customer feedback into a ranked list of opportunities scored on reach, severity, strategic fit, and confidence. Outputs a prioritized list with explicit "do not act" callouts for vocal-minority signals. Use when: triage feedback, prioritize feature requests, customer feedback backlog, what should we build next, opportunity scoring, RICE feedback, feedback synthesis.
In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.
- assumption-mapperSkill
- competitive-analyzerSkill
- jtbd-extractorSkill
- north-star-metric-finderSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 72
Test the top-1 against the question: "If this is all we shipped next quarter, is the quarter visibly better?" If no, re-open the ranking.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 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.
Files
Feedback Prioritizer
Convert a stack of customer feedback (tickets, interview notes, NPS comments, sales loss reasons) into a small ranked list of opportunities, with explicit reasoning for what not to act on. The single most important section of the output is "Do Not Act" - vocal-minority signals that look compelling but would distract the roadmap.
Core Principle
Most feedback is noise; the prioritizer's job is to find the signal and name the noise. A ranked list without a "Do Not Act" section silently licenses the team to chase the loudest voices.
Scoring Model: RSCF
Each candidate opportunity is scored 1-5 on four dimensions:
| Letter | Dimension | Question |
| R | Reach | What share of paying customers will benefit? |
| S | Severity | When the problem hits, how badly does it hurt? |
| C | Strategic fit | Does this align with the current strategy or pull us off-mission? |
| F | Confidence | How certain are we, given evidence quality and quantity? |
Score = R × S × C × F / 25 (normalized to 0-25). Confidence acts as a multiplier that crushes weakly-evidenced items.
Output
Save to outputs/feedback-priority-[period]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
| Section | Description |
| Top 5 Opportunities | Ranked by RSCF, with evidence count and source breakdown |
| Watch List | Promising but evidence-light items (Confidence ≤ 2) - gather more data |
| Do Not Act | Vocal-minority signals with explicit reasoning for de-prioritization |
| Patterns Across Sources | Themes that appeared in 3+ independent channels (highest-trust signal) |
| Counterfactual Check | "If we only did the top-1 item, would the next quarter look meaningfully better?" |
Process
Step 1: Intake
I'll ask:
"Share the feedback corpus (paste, file, or sample). Tell me the time window, source mix (tickets / interviews / NPS / sales / churn), and your current strategy in one sentence."
Step 2: Cluster
Group raw items into themes. Items that repeat across different sources weight more than the same item repeated 50× from one source.
Step 3: Score
Score each theme 1-5 on R, S, C, F with a one-line rationale per dimension. Compute RSCF.
Step 4: Pattern Pass
Surface themes that appeared in 3+ source types - these are the highest-trust signals even if individual scores are middling.
Step 5: Build the Do-Not-Act List
Identify items that:
- Came from a single loud source
- Conflict with strategy (low C)
- Would require disproportionate effort relative to RSCF For each, write why it's tempting and why it's wrong.
Step 6: Counterfactual
Test the top-1 against the question: "If this is all we shipped next quarter, is the quarter visibly better?" If no, re-open the ranking.
Tips
- Source diversity beats source volume. 3 channels saying the same thing is stronger than 30 customers saying it on one.
- Confidence is the multiplier that matters. A 4×4×4×1 scores 16; a 3×3×3×4 scores 27. Evidence quality wins.
- Always publish the Do Not Act list. It's the only section that protects strategic focus.
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
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.