Skill Feedback Generator

Generate structured improvement reports for skills or CLI packages based on session learnings.

Why? Valuable improvement opportunities emerge during sessions—user corrections, friction points, successful patterns—but they're lost unless explicitly captured. This skill systematically extracts and documents these learnings.

Quick Start

1. Detect what skill/package was worked on → 2. Analyze session for friction & feedback → 3. Generate structured report → 4. Save report → 5. Offer to implement improvements

When to Use

• At the end of any session where the user worked on a skill or package they authored
• When the user explicitly requests /skill-feedback
• When significant friction was observed during the session

Decision Threshold

Generate a report when ANY of these conditions are met:

• 1+ user corrections (explicit "don't do X", "you should have...")
• 3+ friction points (repeated attempts, clarification loops, rejections)
• User explicitly requests feedback capture

[!WARNING] Do NOT generate a report if the session was purely Q&A, informational, or had no actionable friction. A report with empty improvement sections wastes the user's time.

Workflow

1. Identify What Was Worked On

Scan the session to determine what skill or package was the focus:

Signal	Interpretation
Files in~/.claude/skills/*/ read/edited	Global skill: extract name from path
Files in .claude/skills/*/` read/edited	Local skill: extract name from path
User says "my skill", "my CLI", "my package"	Explicit ownership confirmation
Skill invoked via/skill-name	That skill was used

If multiple candidates, ask the user which to focus on.

2. Analyze the Session

Scan the conversation for each signal type using explicit detection patterns. Every signal must have evidence.

Signal Taxonomy

1. User Correction

Definition: User explicitly negates, redirects, or overrides a prior agent action.

Detection Pattern	Example
Negation + redirect	"No, I meant X" / "Not that, do Y instead"
Explicit disagreement	"That's wrong" / "That's not what I asked"
Undo request with reason	"Undo that, it broke X"

NOT a correction (false positives to avoid):

Pattern	Example	Why it's not a correction	Caveat
Standalone directive	"Delete file X"	No prior action being negated	-
Clarification request	"What does this do?"	Information seeking, not correction	If the agent could have been clearer → capture as Missed Opportunity
Continuation	"Now do Y"	Sequential task, not override	If the agent could have anticipated this → capture as Missed Opportunity

Extract verbatim quotes — these are gold for skill improvement.

[!TIP] Verbatim quotes capture the user's exact mental model and language. Paraphrasing loses nuance and makes improvements less targeted.

2. Workflow Friction

Definition: User manually performs work that the tool could/should automate.

Detection Pattern	Example
Manual ID/path entry	User types abc-123 when tool could infer it
Repeated context	User re-explains something already in conversation
Copy-paste from output	User copies value from tool output to feed back in
Multi-step manual workaround	User chains commands that could be one operation

3. Capability Gap

Definition: User requests functionality that doesn't exist or discovers a limitation.

Detection Pattern	Example
Feature request	"Can you add X?" / "It would be nice if..."
Discovered limitation	"Why can't it do X?" / Tool responds "I can't do that"
Workaround needed	User does something manually because tool can't

4. Bug/Error

Definition: Tool produces incorrect output or fails unexpectedly.

Detection Pattern	Example
Runtime error	CLI throws exception, stack trace
Wrong output	Tool edits wrong file, produces malformed output
Silent failure	Tool reports success but action didn't happen

5. Performance Issue

Definition: Tool is slow, resource-intensive, or inefficient.

Detection Pattern	Example
Explicit complaint	"This is slow" / "Why does this take so long?"
Timeout/hang	Operation doesn't complete in reasonable time
Resource exhaustion	Out of memory, token limit hit

6. Missed Opportunity

Definition: Agent could have been smarter, clearer, or more proactive—even though the user didn't explicitly correct it.

This is a second-pass analysis: after ruling out "Correction," ask "Could the skill have done better here?"

Detection Pattern	Example	What It Reveals
User asks for clarification	"What does this do?"	Agent's output was unclear → improve prompts/explanations
User provides next step	"Now do Y"	Agent could have anticipated this → add to workflow logic
User re-states intent	"I meant for the whole project"	Agent interpreted too narrowly → improve intent parsing
User simplifies/rephrases	"Just do X"	Agent over-complicated → simplify default behavior

Key distinction from Correction:

• Correction = user says "that's wrong, undo/redo"
• Missed Opportunity = user moves forward, but agent could have been better

When to capture: Only if the improvement is generalizable (can be encoded in the skill), not a one-off preference.

7. Successful Patterns (What Worked)

• Workflows that completed smoothly
• User expressed satisfaction ("perfect", "exactly")
• Patterns worth codifying in the skill

Attribution Rules

Feedback must be attributed to the correct target:

If the issue involves...	Attribute to
CLI behavior, installation, binary errors	Package
API/SDK behavior, library code	Package
Prompt wording, instruction clarity	Skill
Workflow logic, step ordering	Skill
Missing automation, friction	Skill (feature request)
Agent misunderstanding user intent	Skill

When unclear: Note both possibilities. Don't force attribution.

3. Generate the Report

Use this structure:

# Feedback Report: [Skill/Package Name]

**Session Date:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Session:** [Brief description of what was done]

---

## Summary

[1-2 sentences: What was the session about? What's the key takeaway?]

---

## Signals Detected

### User Corrections
[List each with: what was corrected, what the user wanted instead, root cause hypothesis]
- None detected / [specific corrections with verbatim quotes]

### Workflow Friction
[List each with: what manual work occurred, what automation could eliminate it]
- None detected / [specific friction points]

### Capability Gaps
[List each with: what was requested/missing, potential solution]
- None detected / [specific gaps]

### Bugs/Errors
[List each with: what failed, reproduction context]
- None detected / [specific bugs]

### Missed Opportunities
[List each with: what the user did, what the agent could have done better, generalizable improvement]
- None detected / [specific opportunities]

### Successful Patterns
[Patterns worth preserving or codifying]
- [Pattern that worked well]

---

## Recommended Improvements

### Package Improvements
[Improvements to CLI/API/binary - or "None identified"]
- **[Issue]**: [Description]
  - **Current behavior:** [What happens now]
  - **Proposed fix:** [What should happen]

### Skill Improvements
[Improvements to prompts/logic/workflow - or "None identified"]
- **[Issue]**: [Description]
  - **Current behavior:** [What happens now]
  - **Proposed fix:** [What should happen]

---

*Generated by /skill-feedback*

4. Save the Report

Default location: ~/.claude/skills/skill-feedback/.feedback/skill-feedback-{name}-{YYYYMMDD-HHMM}.md

5. Offer Implementation

[!CAUTION] Only offer implementation if you have time remaining in the session. If context is running low, just provide the path to the saved report.

After saving the report, ask:

"I've saved the report to [path]. Would you like me to implement any of these improvements now? I can start with the Critical items."

If yes:

• Work through improvements systematically
• Mark each as complete in the report
• Save updated report with implementation status

---

Examples

Example 1: After an Inbox Triage Session

Context: User ran /inbox-assistant, agent was too passive, user corrected it twice.

Report excerpt:

## User Corrections (Verbatim)

> "you didn't make a recommendation of what to do with the summary?"

> "Never suggest full deletion, specially if they are old emails"

## Recommended Improvements

### Critical
- **Agent too passive after summary**: Add post-summary recommendation logic
  - Current: Shows numbers, waits
  - Proposed: Always suggest ONE clear next action based on inbox state

Example 2: After CLI Package Work

Context: User added new commands to inboxd, discovered missing --account flag handling.

Report excerpt:

## Friction Points

| Step | What Happened | Friction? |
|------|---------------|-----------|
| 3 | Ran `inbox delete --ids "..."` | YES - CLI rejected: "Multiple accounts configured" |

## Recommended Improvements

### High Priority
- **Auto-resolve account from email ID**: CLI should look up which account an ID belongs to
  - Proposed: Add internal mapping or make `--account` optional when ID is unique

---

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Mistake	Why It's Wrong	What to Do Instead
Paraphrasing user quotes	Loses the user's exact words and intent	Copy-paste verbatim, even if grammar is imperfect
Generating empty reports	Wastes user time, implies problems exist	Skip report if no actionable friction
Mixing skill/package fixes	Confuses where to apply changes	Use separate sections, label each improvement
Vague improvements like "improve UX"	Not actionable	Be specific: "Add confirmation dialog before delete"
Ignoring successful patterns	Misses opportunity to codify what works	Always include "Patterns to Preserve" even if short
Forcing Critical priority	Inflation reduces trust in priorities	Use Critical only for blocking issues

---

Quality Rules

Do:

1. Verbatim quotes are sacred — Never paraphrase user corrections; use exact words
2. Be specific, not vague — "Add post-summary recommendations" not "improve UX"
3. Categorize by priority — Critical/High/Medium/Low based on impact and effort
4. Distinguish skill vs package — Clearly label which improvements go where
5. Preserve what works — Don't just focus on problems; capture successful patterns
6. Offer implementation — The report is useful, but acting on it is better

Don't:

• Generate reports for sessions with no friction (see Decision Threshold)
• Invent friction that wasn't observed just to have content
• Mark everything as Critical/High — use the full priority range
• Skip the TL;DR — it's the most-read section

---

Report Validation Checklist

Before presenting the report, verify:

• TL;DR is present and summarizes key findings in 2-3 sentences
• User quotes are verbatim (copy-pasted, not paraphrased)
• Each improvement is specific (actionable, not vague)
• Priorities are distributed (not all Critical/High)
• Skill vs Package is labeled for each improvement
• Successful patterns included (even if brief)
• No empty sections (omit sections with nothing to report)
• Date and session context filled in

---

Troubleshooting

Problem	Solution
Can't determine what was worked on	Ask the user directly
No friction observed	Focus on successful patterns; maybe the session was smooth
User doesn't want implementation	Just save the report for future reference
Multiple skills/packages in session	Generate separate sections or ask user which to focus on

---

Reference

• TESTING.md — Evaluation scenarios, model coverage, validation commands