Product feedback

Group product feedback by user problem without turning requests into commitments.

Condense the supplied product feedback into a problem-focused digest. Use this for a set of comments or requests; do not treat it as a representative survey unless the source establishes that.

Group comments only when they describe the same user problem. For each group, state who has the problem, the task they are trying to complete, the obstacle, and the consequence. Separate a requested solution from the underlying need. Keep conflicting preferences and feedback that changes the scope of a theme.

Use a short heading and compact bullets for each theme. Retain supplied counts and their unit: people, accounts, comments, or mentions. Do not add overlapping groups together or infer prevalence from repeated messages. Include a brief quote only if its wording explains a need better than a paraphrase.

End with unresolved questions already supported by the feedback. Do not create priorities, roadmap promises, or recommendations.

Example

Export feature feedback

Before 123 words

The feedback log contains messages from four accounts, not four individual users. Cedar and Larch each asked for scheduled CSV exports because their analysts currently repeat the same download every Monday before a reporting meeting. Cedar sent three messages about that one request. Larch said that a Monday email with the CSV attached would also solve its problem. Birch asked to hide columns before exporting because external partners should not receive internal cost fields. Birch already removes the fields in a spreadsheet, which takes time. Elm prefers the current manual export because someone checks the figures before sharing them. The log does not tell us whether Cedar or Larch needs that review step. None of these requests has been accepted for the roadmap.

After 87 words

Four accounts provided feedback; message counts are not account counts. Repeated reporting work — Cedar and Larch want to avoid manual Monday downloads before reporting meetings. Cedar's three messages concern one request. Larch would also accept an emailed CSV. Partner-safe exports — Birch wants to exclude internal cost columns. Removing them in a spreadsheet takes time. Manual review — Elm prefers manual export so someone checks figures before sharing. No request has been accepted for the roadmap. Open question: Do Cedar or Larch need a review step?

Examples illustrate the method. They do not measure model output.

Files and sources

prompt.txt Complete prompt as plain text.
SKILL.md The same prompt with a skill header.
llms.txt (JSON) Prompt, metadata, example, and sources.
LICENSE MIT license text.

An original sho.rten.it skill. Source notes.