Home/Catalog/Product
Product — what could this be?
Brief 45

Feedback Loop Audit

How user signal re-enters the product — corrections captured or evaporating, thumbs nobody reads, and the complaint-to-fix path.

FEEDBACK.md4 phases7 lenses~2.7k chars

Free & open · no signup · read-only — it ends by asking · nothing leaves your machine

What it does

You are working inside this repo. Mission: trace how user signal enters this product and whether it ever changes anything — or whether feedback is collected into a void.

Read-only pass. Your only write is the report file.

What it looks for

7 lenses it looks through

Phase 2 sweeps the codebase through every one of these, citing file and line for each finding.

1

Capture gaps

the richest signals uncollected: a user editing the agent's output is a labeled correction, vanishing on save; a retry is a thumbs-down nobody logged

2

Dead-end signals

thumbs stored in a table with zero readers; the census of write-only feedback

3

Loop latency

complaint → fix: is there a path at all, and how long is it in practice

4

Signal-to-artifact wiring

bad runs becoming eval cases (34), corrections becoming few-shots or prompt fixes (30), feature pain becoming roadmap items

5

Closing with users

"you reported this, it's fixed" — the cheapest retention message that almost nobody sends

6

Raw-session review

does any human regularly read real transcripts, or only dashboards of averages

7

Ask fatigue

rating prompts so frequent that response rates collapse; measure what's actually answered

The deliverable

What lands in your repo

One structured report at the repo root — or in reports/, if you keep one — the same shape every time, ready for a teammate — or the optional Studio — to act on.

FEEDBACK.md
1
Signal inventory
channel · volume · destination · readers found
2
Dead-ends ranked
the write-only list
3
The wiring plan
signal → artifact (eval, prompt, roadmap) → mechanism
4
The loop to close this week
one signal, end to end, spelled out
5
Ask hygiene
what to stop asking
One file. Evidence-backed. It ends by asking before touching anything.
How it works

What it makes the agent do

Every Goal Prompt follows the same four steps, so results are consistent and repeatable — no matter which one you run.

1
Phase 1

Map the signal channels

Every way users tell you something.

2
Phase 2

Audit through 7 lenses

Capture gaps — the richest signals uncollected.

3
Phase 3

Curate

Rank channels by signal quality × current waste.

4
Phase 4

Report

Create FEEDBACK.md at repo root.

Get started

Three ways to run this Goal Prompt

01 · COPY

Paste it in

Copy it and paste it into your agent inside the repo you want checked.

02 · INSTALL

As a slash command

Install the goal plugin once — two commands — then just type /goal:feedback-loop-audit.

1/plugin marketplace add GhostlyGawd/goal-prompts
2/plugin install goal@goal-prompts

Or install only this Goal Prompt as /goal-feedback-loop-audit:

curl -fsSL https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/install | BRIEF=45 sh
03 · AGENT

From an agent (MCP)

Let an agent fetch it mid-conversation, or pull the raw Goal Prompt by URL.

https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/raw/45.md
Transparency

The exact prompt

Nothing hidden — this is the whole Goal Prompt, verbatim. Read it in a minute, edit it, or copy it as-is.

Read the full brief (2,695 characters)
# Goal: Feedback Loop Audit

You are working inside this repo. Mission: trace how user signal enters this product and whether it ever changes anything — or whether feedback is collected into a void.

Read-only pass. Your only write is the report file.

## Phase 1 — Map the signal channels
- Every way users tell you something: thumbs and ratings, edits and corrections of outputs, retries, abandonments, support tickets, cancellations.
- For each: where does the signal land — a table, a tool, a Slack channel, nowhere?
- Find the readers: search the code and docs for anything that *consumes* each signal.

## Phase 2 — Audit through 7 lenses
1. **Capture gaps** — the richest signals uncollected: a user editing the agent's output is a labeled correction, vanishing on save; a retry is a thumbs-down nobody logged
2. **Dead-end signals** — thumbs stored in a table with zero readers; the census of write-only feedback
3. **Loop latency** — complaint → fix: is there a path at all, and how long is it in practice
4. **Signal-to-artifact wiring** — bad runs becoming eval cases (34), corrections becoming few-shots or prompt fixes (30), feature pain becoming roadmap items
5. **Closing with users** — "you reported this, it's fixed" — the cheapest retention message that almost nobody sends
6. **Raw-session review** — does any human regularly read real transcripts, or only dashboards of averages
7. **Ask fatigue** — rating prompts so frequent that response rates collapse; measure what's actually answered

## Phase 3 — Curate
- Rank channels by signal quality × current waste: high-quality ignored signals first
- Every wiring proposal names source, destination artifact, and owner

## Phase 4 — Report
Create `FEEDBACK.md` at repo root:
1. **Signal inventory** — channel · volume · destination · readers found
2. **Dead-ends ranked** — the write-only list
3. **The wiring plan** — signal → artifact (eval, prompt, roadmap) → mechanism
4. **The loop to close this week** — one signal, end to end, spelled out
5. **Ask hygiene** — what to stop asking

Start the report with today's date. If `FEEDBACK.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since.

## Rules
- Feedback that changes nothing is a survey, not a loop
- Corrections are gold: captured labels users paid you with their patience to create
- No user feedback channels in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding.
- If a `reports/` directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.
- Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words
- Report only — end by asking which loop to close first

House rules for this Goal Prompt

  • Feedback that changes nothing is a survey, not a loop
  • Corrections are gold: captured labels users paid you with their patience to create
  • No user feedback channels in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding.
  • If a reports/ directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.
  • Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words
  • Report only — end by asking which loop to close first
Keep exploring

More Product briefs