Use this skill when the user shares a feedback document, issue, thread, or pasted notes and asks you to address the feedback.
The default posture is judgment plus action: fix clear, verified bugs you agree with; propose UX changes with rationale; skip or flag low-signal, unclear, or out-of-scope items.
-
Read the feedback source.
| Source | Reader |
|---|
| Notion link | Notion connector or Notion skill |
| Google Docs/Drive link | Google Drive connector or Google Docs skill |
| Linear link | Linear connector if installed; otherwise ask for pasted content |
| GitHub issue or PR | GitHub connector or gh issue view / gh pr view |
| Slack thread | Slack connector |
| Public URL | Web browsing |
| Pasted text | Read directly |
Use web browsing only for public URLs. Auth-gated docs usually need their matching connector. For threads, read the parent and all replies; note when there are no replies, and inspect linked files or newer follow-ups when the source refers to them.
-
Check whether this defect has already been reported.
A feedback channel holds months of reports and nobody remembers all of them,
so the same defect gets filed by different people weeks apart and every
filing reads as new. One recorded case: the same Clips recording bug was
filed almost word-for-word 29 days apart by the same reporter, and neither
message mentions the other. Another defect was reported fifteen times by
nine people across three months, was announced as fixed once in the middle,
and was reported again two weeks later.
Search before fixing, going back at least three months: the source channel
in the reporter's words and in your own, Sentry, and merged PR titles. Search
the feature name, the error text, and the surface separately — repeat reports
rarely share vocabulary.
- No prior report — proceed normally.
- Prior report, no fix landed — say how long it has been open. The person
forwarding it to you is likely seeing it for the second time too.
- Prior report, fix landed — this is a regression, and the bar is now
different. Patching it again and reporting done is exactly how it returns a
third time. Find why the first fix stopped holding, and leave behind
something that fails when it breaks again: a test that reproduces the
user's path, or an assertion in the flow the report names.
Report the repeat explicitly, with dates and reporters. A defect on its third
report is not a bug ticket, it is a missing check — and the missing check is
the deliverable, not the patch.
-
Decompose and categorize every actionable item.
Build a compact checklist before changing code. For each item, record the
symptom, expected behavior, evidence, and owning surface: UI, action/tool,
data model, provider/runtime, or product policy.
- Bug: Broken behavior, crash, wrong data, dead link, package/API mismatch, or captured exception. Verify and fix when you agree.
- UX suggestion: Design, discoverability, workflow, or feature feedback. Propose the cleanest version first unless the user explicitly asked you to implement UX changes.
- Question or unclear: Missing detail, contradictory feedback, or behavior you cannot inspect. Ask or flag it.
- Out of scope: Outside this repo, already shipped, intentionally unsupported, or too low-signal. Note briefly and skip.
-
For data, permissions, or resource-lifecycle feedback, verify the whole capability boundary before calling it UX.
- Check the supported create/read/update/delete lifecycle, including whether the backend/action exists when a UI control is missing.
- Inspect both the UI and the shared action/tool surface so agent and UI behavior stay in parity.
- Verify scope semantics such as owner/private, organization, shared, and public access. Test owner and non-owner paths with safe fixtures or read-only checks; never use another user's production data to test access.
- Treat possible cross-user or cross-organization exposure as a security/correctness bug and verify it before proposing polish.
- Keep undefined product policy separate from implementation bugs. If supported source types or scope semantics are not defined, flag the contract question instead of inventing behavior.
-
Check Sentry when the feedback smells like an error.
- Use the Sentry skill/plugin if available, or the repo's Sentry scripts if documented.
- Search by route, stack symbol, error text, and symptom keywords.
- Default org is
builder-io unless the user specifies another.
- Cite issue IDs or links when you find a match.
- If nothing matches, say that plainly.
-
Fix only the clear bugs you agree with.
- Verify before fixing: reproduce locally, read the relevant code, inspect logs, or confirm with a stack trace.
- Keep each fix narrow and mapped to a feedback item.
- Follow existing project conventions and nearby patterns.
- Do not switch branches, stash, reset, force-push, or open a PR unless the user asks.
- Add or update focused tests when the bug risk warrants it.
-
Treat UX feedback with product judgment.
Do not add visible UI as the default response. Address the underlying user
problem first, then choose the smallest change that makes the current state,
decision, action, or recovery path clearer.
- Make the current intent, state, and meaningful next step easier to find.
- Remove competing or redundant elements before adding controls, helper
text, banners, top-level navigation, or always-open panels.
- Put secondary or advanced actions in a
DropdownMenu, Popover, Sheet,
Collapsible, tabs, or another contextual surface. Keep essential meaning,
labels, focus, hit targets, and recovery in the default path.
- Improve empty, loading, and error states around the user's actual need.
When the user has corrected the same visual preference more than once, treat
it as an acceptance criterion for the surface, not as a one-off copy edit.
State the underlying invariant before coding, such as “the default state
makes one next decision obvious and defers secondary detail,” then check the
rendered result against it. A screenshot showing unrelated forms, repeated
explanatory copy, documentation links, or competing controls in the default
state fails the review. Subtract that competition instead of explaining the
UI with more copy.
When proposing a UX change, write it as: what to change, why it helps, and the tradeoff. Keep each proposal short.
-
Verify changed behavior.
- Run the smallest relevant test or typecheck command.
- For UI fixes, inspect the actual screen with a browser tool you already
have. Do not write a browser-automation script to check a small fix.
- For resource visibility or lifecycle changes, verify both the screen and
shared action/tool behavior, including owner versus non-owner access when
relevant.
- If you cannot run a useful verification, say why.
Only include sections that have content. The user can read the diff; do not write a second feedback document.
