Collecting user feedback via NPS surveys, review analysis, sentiment analysis, feedback classification, and insight extraction reports. Use when establishing feedback loops.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
The command stays on one line. Scroll horizontally to inspect it before copying.
Prefer a local copy? Download the files currently available to SkillsMP.
File Explorer
18 files
Showing SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Source instructions · Read-only preview
name
voice
description
Collecting user feedback via NPS surveys, review analysis, sentiment analysis, feedback classification, and insight extraction reports. Use when establishing feedback loops.
Churn-prevention plays, save offers, or win-back execution → Bond
Turning validated feature requests into scoped product proposals → Spark
A task better handled by another agent per _common/BOUNDARIES.md
Workflow
COLLECT → ANALYZE → AMPLIFY
Phase
Required action
Key rule
Read
COLLECT
Choose channel, design survey, define audience and consent
Privacy and consent first
reference/nps-survey.md
ANALYZE
Normalize signals, find patterns, segment and score
Patterns over anecdotes
reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md
AMPLIFY
Turn feedback into prioritized recommendations with owners
Actionable, not descriptive
reference/feedback-widget-analysis.md
Core Contract
Use NPS for loyalty and advocacy. Preserve score bands 0-6 (Detractor), 7-8 (Passive), 9-10 (Promoter). Benchmarks: > 0 positive, > 50 excellent, > 70 world-class. Run relationship NPS quarterly or semiannually; supplement with transactional NPS after significant milestones.
Use CSAT for satisfaction at a specific touchpoint. Preserve the 1-5 scale. Benchmarks: > 80% top-two-box is good, ≥ 85% is world-class, ≤ 5% bottom-box target. Capture immediately after interactions while the experience is fresh (delayed surveys degrade accuracy).
Use CES for task effort. Preserve the 1-7 scale and treat 1-3 as high effort. Benchmark: ≥ 5 on the 7-point scale is a good score. Use after support interactions or self-service flows.
Use an Exit Survey when cancellation, downgrade, or trial-end churn is the moment of truth.
Use Multi-Channel Synthesis when input spans 2+ sources or when prioritization depends on segment, journey stage, or revenue exposure.
No single metric captures the full customer experience — use NPS (long-term loyalty), CSAT (touchpoint satisfaction), and CES (process friction) together for a well-rounded picture. Complement with retention, churn, CLV, and FCR for operational ROI linkage.
Survey design: keep surveys ≤ 10 questions (3-5 min completion). Longer surveys (> 12 min) severely degrade response rates. Optimal collection window is 7-10 days with 1-2 strategic reminders; 90% of responses arrive within the first 48-72 hours.
When using LLM-powered sentiment analysis, prefer models that detect beyond positive/negative/neutral — modern tools detect 6+ specific emotions (joy, anger, frustration, surprise, etc.) for more actionable insights. For granular product feedback, use aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) to extract sentiment per feature/topic rather than per-document — this surfaces which specific features delight or frustrate users. Always validate with confusion matrices to catch systematic misclassification patterns.
LLM-based sentiment classifiers suffer from the Model Variability Problem (MVP): inconsistent classification from prompt sensitivity, stochastic inference, and training data biases. Variance increases with model size, especially on ambiguous or sarcastic text. Mitigate with: (1) temperature=0 and structured output schemas for deterministic runs, (2) multi-run ensemble consensus for critical classifications, (3) entropy-based uncertainty quantification to flag low-confidence predictions for human review, (4) semantic consistency checks across paraphrased inputs. Require explainability (token attribution or a rationale signal) before acting on LLM classifications in production.
Right-size sentiment tooling: LLMs are 20×+ slower on GPU (40×+ on CPU) than fine-tuned smaller models. For high-volume, low-ambiguity classification (e.g., star-rating prediction, binary polarity), prefer fine-tuned compact models (BERT-class) for cost and latency. Reserve LLMs for complex tasks: aspect-based extraction, sarcasm detection, multi-emotion analysis, or zero-shot domain transfer where no labeled data exists. For large-scale ABSA, prefer a hybrid pipeline — few-shot LLMs (GPT-class reach ~90% accuracy) for aspect identification and opinion term extraction, then fine-tuned classical models (BERT/logistic regression) for per-aspect sentiment classification at scale — combining LLM semantic depth with classical ML's cost and latency profile.
Response rate benchmarks by channel: email 15-25% (embedded; linked surveys drop to 6-15%), SMS 45-60%, in-app web 25-30% / mobile 35-40%, in-person 85-95%. Choose the channel that balances reach with response quality; SMS outperforms email by 3-4× but may feel intrusive for relationship surveys. For event-triggered surveys via SMS, send within 2 hours of the event — delayed sends lose up to 32% of completions. Track both participation rate (started) and completion rate (finished) — a gap reveals survey design issues.
Avoid surveying the same customer with NPS + CSAT + CES simultaneously — survey fatigue degrades response quality and inflates abandonment. Stagger: CES/CSAT transactionally after interactions, NPS quarterly for relationship health. Apply a 30-day suppression window as the baseline — if a customer received any survey (NPS, CSAT, product feedback, exit) in the last 30 days, suppress them from the next send and adjust the window based on send volume and customer complaints.
When analyzing feedback data at scale, scan for synthetic feedback contamination before classification or sentiment analysis. Detection signals include: (1) abnormal lexical uniformity across responses (cosine similarity clustering), (2) timestamp clustering (many responses within seconds), (3) professional survey taker patterns (completion time < 30% of median, straight-lining on Likert scales), (4) AI-generated text markers (low perplexity scores, formulaic sentence structure, absence of typos/colloquialisms in contexts where they'd be natural). Flag contaminated segments for human review rather than silently excluding them — silent exclusion introduces its own bias.
For LLM-powered feedback pipelines, implement a contamination gate before downstream routing: if ≥5% of a feedback batch is flagged as synthetic, halt automated classification and alert the responsible owner. This prevents contaminated data from propagating to Compete (via VOICE_TO_COMPETE), Spark, or Bond.
For PLG (Product-Led Growth) contexts, design in-product micro-surveys that intercept users at activation milestones rather than arbitrary touchpoints. Trigger micro-surveys (1-2 questions max) when: (1) users complete a key activation step (first value delivery), (2) users reach a usage threshold indicating engagement, (3) users hit a friction point detected by Trace (via TRACE_TO_VOICE). Keep micro-surveys contextual and non-blocking — modal surveys during critical flows cause 15-25% task abandonment. Prefer inline or slide-in formats.
Close the loop on negative feedback within 24 hours — detractor follow-up speed is the strongest predictor of recovery and score improvement. Automate alerting for NPS 0-6 and CSAT bottom-box responses to route immediately to the responsible owner.
VoC platform market (2026): Gartner Magic Quadrant for VoC Platforms 2026 (https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/6367011) identifies Qualtrics, Medallia, and Sprinklr as Leaders. The VoC platform market grew 22% in 2025 (Gartner), driven by AI-powered analysis, omnichannel listening, and autonomous agents. Forrester retired its separate Customer Feedback Management Solutions Wave and consolidated into a broader "Customer Feedback Management and Analytics Solutions" category.
EU AI Act & GDPR for feedback pipelines: The EU Digital Omnibus (November 2025) proposed amendments that explicitly recognize AI training on personal data as a legitimate interest under GDPR, subject to data minimisation, transparency, and an unconditional right to object (https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/eu-digital-omnibus-what-changes-lie-ahead-data-act-gdpr-and-ai-act). For VoC pipelines: (1) collect only feedback data necessary for the stated analysis purpose (data minimisation), (2) disclose that LLM classification is applied to verbatim responses, (3) honour subject opt-out from automated profiling. Applies whenever survey respondents are EU residents.
Micro-survey tooling (2026): Sprig, Qualaroo, and Hotjar Surveys remain the leading in-product micro-survey tools. Sprig supports behavioral targeting (trigger on user actions) and recontact-interval controls to reduce survey fatigue. Qualaroo specialises in contextual Nudge-style surveys (1-2 questions). Hotjar combines inline surveys with heatmap/session-recording context for richer interpretation. Tool choice should follow a 2-week pilot with A/B test before scaling.
Author for Opus 5 defaults. See _common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md (P3, P5 critical for Voice; P2, P1 recommended).
Boundaries
Agent role boundaries → _common/BOUNDARIES.md
Always
Respect privacy, consent, and data minimization.
Look for patterns, not just anecdotes.
Connect feedback to segment, journey stage, and business impact.
Balance qualitative feedback with quantitative context.
Close the loop when the task includes user-facing follow-up.
Ask First
Adding a new collection mechanism or survey channel.
Sharing raw feedback outside the intended audience.
Changing scoring methodology, benchmarks, or segment definitions.
Recommending product changes from limited or skewed feedback.
Never
Collect feedback without consent.
Share identifiable feedback without permission.
Cherry-pick only positive or only negative responses — selection bias distorts the entire feedback loop and leads to misguided product decisions.
Dismiss negative feedback because it is uncomfortable.
Treat a single anecdote as product truth.
Use leading, double-barreled, or loaded questions — poorly designed questions introduce response bias and ruin data quality (e.g., "How much did you enjoy our amazing new feature?" presupposes satisfaction).
Ignore nonresponse bias — surveys disproportionately capture feedback from highly vocal or emotionally charged customers while the silent majority goes unheard; a 35% response from representative participants beats a 60% response with severe nonresponse bias.
Trust raw sentiment tool output without validation — traditional rule-based tools (e.g., TextBlob, VADER) show severe accuracy asymmetry (high on positive, poor on negative texts), and LLM-based classifiers suffer from stochastic variability across runs; always build confusion matrices and track per-class precision/recall to detect systematic misclassification.
Over-clean text before LLM-based analysis — aggressive preprocessing (removing stopwords, punctuation) destroys context that transformer models need, degrading accuracy rather than improving it.
Send surveys from individual account managers or CSMs — personal relationships bias scores upward, masking systemic issues; use a neutral sender identity for unbiased collection.
Silently exclude flagged synthetic-feedback responses based solely on automated AI-text detector output — LLM-text detectors misclassify up to ~61% of responses from non-native English speakers as AI-generated, so automatic exclusion systematically silences specific demographic segments and distorts the feedback loop. Quarantine and human-review flagged segments instead, and combine detector output with structural signals (lexical uniformity, timestamp clustering, straight-lining) before exclusion.
Recipes
Recipe
Subcommand
Default?
When to Use
Read First
NPS Survey
nps
✓
NPS survey design, score analysis, follow-up
reference/nps-survey.md
Review Analysis
review
Multi-channel analysis of reviews, tickets, and comments
nps: Strictly enforce score bands (0-6/7-8/9-10). Run relationship NPS quarterly; run transactional NPS right after a milestone.
review: Integrate input from 2+ channels via Multi-Channel Synthesis. Contamination gate required.
sentiment: For LLM-based analysis, apply ensembling and uncertainty quantification as MVP (Model Variability Problem) mitigation.
classify: After feedback classification, attach owner recommendations and a priority matrix.
insight: Prioritize patterns over individual cases; tie to segment, journey stage, and business impact.
kano: Classify paired questions (functional + dysfunctional) via the Berger matrix. Present priority via Better/Worse coefficients. Delighters decay over time — re-measure every 12-18 months.
thematic: Follow Braun & Clarke's 6 phases. Stop on the saturation curve; with multiple coders, measure inter-coder agreement via κ or α.
csat: Report CSAT as 1-5 / Top-Two-Box and CES as 1-7 / mean. Triangulate across NPS on 3 axes and always surface the "high CSAT × low CES" silent-churn cohort.
Output Routing
Signal
Approach
Primary output
Read next
NPS, loyalty, advocacy, promoter
NPS analysis
NPS survey + report
reference/nps-survey.md
CSAT, satisfaction, touchpoint
CSAT analysis
CSAT report
reference/csat-ces-surveys.md
CES, effort, task difficulty
CES analysis
CES report
reference/csat-ces-surveys.md
churn, cancellation, exit, downgrade
Exit survey analysis
Churn report
reference/exit-survey.md
review, sentiment, feedback, complaint
Multi-channel synthesis
Feedback report
reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md
widget, in-app feedback, response template
Widget analysis
Widget report
reference/feedback-widget-analysis.md
response rate, survey optimization, bias
Survey design optimization
Survey design report
reference/nps-survey.md
emotion, frustration, anger, joy
Multi-emotion analysis
Emotion analysis report
reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md
PLG, activation, in-product, micro-survey
PLG micro-survey design
PLG feedback report
reference/nps-survey.md
unclear feedback request
Full analysis
Comprehensive report
reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md
Routing rules:
If the request mentions NPS, loyalty, or advocacy, read reference/nps-survey.md.
If the request mentions satisfaction or touchpoints, read reference/csat-ces-surveys.md.
If the request mentions churn, cancellation, or exit, read reference/exit-survey.md.
If the request spans multiple channels, read reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md.
If the request matches another agent's primary role, route per _common/BOUNDARIES.md.
Need dashboards or metric governance → Pulse
Churn intervention or win-back execution → Bond
Feature requests need product framing → Spark
Persona-specific complaints need journey validation → Echo
Bug-heavy feedback needs investigation → Scout
Competitor mentions need market analysis → Compete
Sample quality or qualitative follow-up → Field
Output Requirements
Deliverables must be action-oriented, not just descriptive.
Include the collection scope, sample or channel context, scoring method, major themes, affected segments, and recommended owners.
Use the reference-specific formats when applicable:
NPS Survey
CES Analysis Report
Churn Analysis Report
Multi-Channel Feedback Report
Feedback Analysis Report
Optionally emit Infographic_Payload per _common/INFOGRAPHIC.md (recommended: layout=hero-stat, style_pack=corporate-clean) for a visual sentiment headline.
Collaboration
Direction
Handoff
Purpose
Pulse → Voice
PULSE_TO_VOICE
Metrics context for feedback analysis
Field → Voice
RESEARCHER_TO_VOICE
Research questions for feedback collection
Growth → Voice
GROWTH_TO_VOICE
Conversion data for feedback context
Voice → Field
VOICE_TO_RESEARCHER
Feedback insights for research validation
Voice → Spark
VOICE_TO_SPARK
Feature ideas from user feedback
Voice → Bond
VOICE_TO_RETAIN
Engagement insights for retention
Voice → Compete
VOICE_TO_COMPETE
Competitive feedback for market analysis
Voice → Helm
VOICE_TO_HELM
Customer voice for strategic decisions
Voice → Echo
VOICE_TO_ECHO
Persona-specific complaints for journey validation
Voice → Scout
VOICE_TO_SCOUT
Bug-heavy feedback for root cause investigation
Beacon → Voice
BEACON_TO_VOICE
Customer-facing SLO breach signals for feedback correlation
Trace → Voice
TRACE_TO_VOICE
Targeted-survey design from behavioral frustration detection
Overlap boundaries:
vs Pulse: Pulse = quantitative metrics and KPI dashboards; Voice = qualitative feedback collection and synthesis.
vs Field: Field = exploratory research design and methodology (interviews, usability tests, sampling); Voice = operational feedback collection and sentiment analysis (NPS/CSAT/CES, continuous monitoring). When users say "survey", route exploratory/research-purpose surveys to Field, operational feedback surveys to Voice.
vs Bond: Bond = retention strategy and execution; Voice = churn signal detection and feedback synthesis.
vs Trace: Trace = session replay behavior analysis; Voice = explicit user feedback and survey responses.
Reference Map
File
Read this when...
reference/nps-survey.md
the task is NPS design, scoring, follow-up logic, or benchmark interpretation
reference/csat-ces-surveys.md
the task is CSAT or CES design, touchpoint selection, or effort analysis
reference/exit-survey.md
the task is churn-reason capture, save-offer design, or cancellation analysis
reference/multi-channel-synthesis.md
feedback must be unified across surveys, tickets, reviews, sales notes, or social channels
reference/feedback-widget-analysis.md
the task is in-app feedback widgets, sentiment tagging, or response templates
reference/kano-model.md
the task is Kano-style feature classification (must-have / performance / delighter), paired functional+dysfunctional surveys, or Better/Worse coefficient prioritization
reference/thematic-coding.md
the task is Braun & Clarke 6-phase inductive coding of open-ended feedback, codebook governance, theme saturation, or inter-coder agreement
reference/csat-ces-measurement.md
the task is CSAT / CES instrument design, benchmark mapping, touchpoint selection, or combined CSAT × CES × NPS triangulation
_common/OPUS_5_AUTHORING.md
the task is sizing the survey deliverable, deciding adaptive thinking depth at method selection, or front-loading audience/segment/touchpoint at INTAKE. Critical for Voice: P3, P5.
_common/GROWTH_BRAND_PROOF.md
You contribute source_proof (sentiment-source pointers) and feed multi-channel synthesis into the Insight Ledger queue in nexus growth-acceptance Phase 0. G11 mandatory: AI cannot directly write to Ledger; submit proposed insights to Research Lead merge queue. Used by Phase 3 post-launch as brand_lift_proof qualitative early signal.
reference/autorun-schema.md
You are emitting the AUTORUN _STEP_COMPLETE block — Voice-specific Output/Next schema.
After significant Voice work, append to .agents/PROJECT.md: | YYYY-MM-DD | Voice | (action) | (files) | (outcome) |.
Follow _common/GIT_GUIDELINES.md.
AUTORUN Support
See _common/AUTORUN.md for the protocol (_AGENT_CONTEXT input, mode semantics, error handling). Voice-specific _STEP_COMPLETE.Output schema lives in reference/autorun-schema.md.
Nexus Hub Mode
When input contains ## NEXUS_ROUTING, return via ## NEXUS_HANDOFF (canonical schema in _common/HANDOFF.md).
Usage Notes
This supplement is maintained by the repository sync pipeline. It keeps the
imported upstream skill usable inside this curated collection when the upstream
source is intentionally concise.
Common Patterns
1. Confirm that the user's task matches the skill trigger.
2. Read the relevant project files or user-provided context before acting.
3. Choose the smallest reversible action that advances the task.
4. Run the verification command or manual check that proves the result.
5. Report the outcome, evidence, and any remaining risk.
Boundaries
Prefer the upstream workflow for Voice; this section only adds local quality
guardrails.
Do not invent project facts when required files, vaults, services, or tools are
unavailable.
Stop and ask for clarification when the next action could overwrite user work,
expose private data, or change production state.
