Skill

feedback

Records stakeholder feedback as f### claims (constraints or feedback), tags by role, detects conflicts via wheat_compile, and suggests next steps like /resolve. Useful for sprint corrections or direction changes.

developer-tools

npx claudepluginhub grainulation/grainulator --plugin grainulator

Tool Access

This skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.

Preview

The user is relaying feedback from stakeholders that should be incorporated into the sprint.

SKILL.md

Similar Skills

Scope Creep Defense

Protects projects from scope creep via requirement triage, stakeholder negotiation, diplomatic refusals, and MVP discipline. Activates on mentions of scope creep, feature requests, or changing requirements.

3 files

omer-metin-skills-for-antigravity-2

review-synthesis

104

Aggregates multi-reviewer feedback from content, brand, technical, legal, and strategic categories into prioritized action items, resolves conflicts, and generates synthesis reports.

marketing

clarify

Resolves requirement ambiguity before implementation by decomposing into decision points and asking targeted questions. Auto-selects depth: default research mode or --light Q&A based on input specificity.

5 files

cwf

Stats

Stars82

Forks6

Last CommitApr 7, 2026

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Help us improve

Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.

/feedback -- Record stakeholder input

The user is relaying feedback from stakeholders that should be incorporated into the sprint.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS

Instructions

Parse the feedback: Identify what the stakeholder said. This could be:

A new constraint ("CTO says prioritize speed over cost")
A correction ("compliance says we need SOC2 Type II, not Type I")
A direction change ("skip the custom build, focus on Auth0 vs Clerk")
A new question ("what about latency in EU regions?")

Create feedback claims as f### claims:

Type: constraint for hard requirements, feedback for opinions/preferences
Evidence tier: stated (stakeholder said it, not independently verified)
Tag with the stakeholder's name or role

Check for conflicts: Does this feedback contradict existing claims? If a stakeholder says "budget is $10K max" but research shows a solution at $15K, that's a conflict. Set conflicts_with on both claims.

Run wheat_compile to surface any new conflicts.

Print result:

Feedback recorded:
- <f001>: <summary>
- <f002>: <summary>

Conflicts introduced: <N>

Next steps:
  /resolve            -- resolve any new conflicts
  /research <topic>   -- investigate new questions from feedback
  /challenge <id>     -- test if feedback contradicts existing evidence

/feedback -- Record stakeholder input

The user is relaying feedback from stakeholders that should be incorporated into the sprint.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS

Instructions

Parse the feedback: Identify what the stakeholder said. This could be:
- A new constraint ("CTO says prioritize speed over cost")
- A correction ("compliance says we need SOC2 Type II, not Type I")
- A direction change ("skip the custom build, focus on Auth0 vs Clerk")
- A new question ("what about latency in EU regions?")
Create feedback claims as f### claims:
- Type: constraint for hard requirements, feedback for opinions/preferences
- Evidence tier: stated (stakeholder said it, not independently verified)
- Tag with the stakeholder's name or role
Check for conflicts: Does this feedback contradict existing claims? If a stakeholder says "budget is $10K max" but research shows a solution at $15K, that's a conflict. Set conflicts_with on both claims.
Run wheat_compile to surface any new conflicts.

Print result:

Feedback recorded:
- <f001>: <summary>
- <f002>: <summary>

Conflicts introduced: <N>

Next steps:
  /resolve            -- resolve any new conflicts
  /research <topic>   -- investigate new questions from feedback
  /challenge <id>     -- test if feedback contradicts existing evidence