AgentSkillsCN

Getting Feedback

用户需要从受众那里获得关于某个想法或问题的反馈，以改进写作并创作出有价值的内容。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: Getting Feedback
description: The user needs feedback on an idea or a question from his audience to improve the writing and create valuable content.

Getting Feedback

Get audience-perspective feedback from three reviewers:

  1. •Legal tech blog reviewer (Marcus Tan) — technical depth, open source, implementation details
  2. •Inhouse lawyer reviewer (Sarah Chen) — budget constraints, practical relevance, time investment
  3. •Lawyer coder reviewer (Wei Lin) — identity resonance, vulnerability, constraint acknowledgment

Which reviewers for which content

Not every post needs all 3. Match reviewers to content type:

  • •Open source project / post-mortem → Legal Tech
  • •Tool evaluation (budget focus) → Sarah Chen
  • •Learning in public / personal struggle → Wei Lin
  • •Tutorial / how-to → Sarah + Legal Tech
  • •Build vs. buy → Wei Lin + Legal Tech
  • •Policy/budget commentary → Sarah + Legal Tech
  • •Identity / "am I wasting my time" → Wei Lin
  • •Broad appeal across segments → All 3

Running all 3 on every post produces diminishing returns after round 1.

Round cap (enforced)

Maximum 2 audit rounds per draft. If the same core framing issue persists after round 2, switch to brainstorming with the user — reviewers diagnose, they don't fix framing problems.

Rationale: PR #32 ran 3 rounds; the third hit diminishing returns on the same framing issue. PR #30 had a similar pattern. When feedback repeats, escalate to the user, not another round.

Length-audit-first ordering (enforced)

Before applying reviewer fixes, estimate the word delta.

  • •If fixes are purely cuts or neutral → apply directly.
  • •If fixes would add more than ~10% to the current length → run a focused length audit first and identify what can be cut to make room. Apply the cuts, then apply the reviewer fixes.

Rationale: PR #30 and #32 both showed the add-then-cut pattern — reviewer fixes added ~270 words, a follow-up length audit then removed ~270 words. Cut first to avoid the churn.

Exception: for short newsletters (<800 words), additions under 100 words don't need a length audit.

Information to pass to reviewers

  • •pitch.md — so they evaluate whether the draft delivers what the pitch promised (the pitch is the contract)
  • •discussion.md relevant sections — for context on decisions already made
  • •Any relevant research

Example flow

code
User: Is this a good way to end the post about my open source legal tool?

Claude: Running Marcus Tan and Wei Lin (open source + identity fit).
Marcus: [feedback]
Wei Lin: [feedback]
Claude: Synthesising — consensus on X; Marcus alone caught Y; disagreement on Z.

User: What if we tried this?
Claude: Follow-up round (round 2 of 2).

Reminders

  • •Always announce that you're using this skill.
  • •Feedback isn't validation. It's fine to disagree with reviewers when there's a good reason.
  • •Be direct with criticism, gentle with feelings — Houfu is trying to improve.
  • •For final-draft review, see final_draft.md.