| name | feedback-prioritizer |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| description | Triages a backlog of raw customer feedback into a ranked list of opportunities scored on reach, severity, strategic fit, and confidence. Outputs a prioritized list with explicit "do not act" callouts for vocal-minority signals. Use when: triage feedback, prioritize feature requests, customer feedback backlog, what should we build next, opportunity scoring, RICE feedback, feedback synthesis. |
| when_to_use | A backlog of tickets, interviews, NPS, or sales notes is piling up and the team needs focus on what to actually act on. |
| inputs | ["Raw customer feedback corpus (support tickets, interviews, NPS verbatims, sales notes)"] |
| outputs | ["Ranked opportunity list scored on Reach / Severity / Confidence / Fit (RSCF)","Explicit Do-Not-Act list for vocal-minority signals","Theme synthesis with representative quotes"] |
| tags | ["discovery","prioritization","feedback","RSCF","triage"] |
| maintainer | varunk130 |
Feedback Prioritizer
Convert a stack of customer feedback (tickets, interview notes, NPS comments, sales loss reasons) into a small ranked list of opportunities, with explicit reasoning for what not to act on. The single most important section of the output is "Do Not Act" - vocal-minority signals that look compelling but would distract the roadmap.
Core Principle
Most feedback is noise; the prioritizer's job is to find the signal and name the noise. A ranked list without a "Do Not Act" section silently licenses the team to chase the loudest voices.
Scoring Model: RSCF
Each candidate opportunity is scored 1-5 on four dimensions:
| Letter | Dimension | Question |
|---|
| R | Reach | What share of paying customers will benefit? |
| S | Severity | When the problem hits, how badly does it hurt? |
| C | Strategic fit | Does this align with the current strategy or pull us off-mission? |
| F | Confidence | How certain are we, given evidence quality and quantity? |
Score = R × S × C × F / 25 (normalized to 0-25). Confidence acts as a multiplier that crushes weakly-evidenced items.
Output
Save to outputs/feedback-priority-[period]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md
| Section | Description |
|---|
| Top 5 Opportunities | Ranked by RSCF, with evidence count and source breakdown |
| Watch List | Promising but evidence-light items (Confidence ≤ 2) - gather more data |
| Do Not Act | Vocal-minority signals with explicit reasoning for de-prioritization |
| Patterns Across Sources | Themes that appeared in 3+ independent channels (highest-trust signal) |
| Counterfactual Check | "If we only did the top-1 item, would the next quarter look meaningfully better?" |
Process
Step 1: Intake
I'll ask:
"Share the feedback corpus (paste, file, or sample). Tell me the time window, source mix (tickets / interviews / NPS / sales / churn), and your current strategy in one sentence."
Step 2: Cluster
Group raw items into themes. Items that repeat across different sources weight more than the same item repeated 50× from one source.
Step 3: Score
Score each theme 1-5 on R, S, C, F with a one-line rationale per dimension. Compute RSCF.
Step 4: Pattern Pass
Surface themes that appeared in 3+ source types - these are the highest-trust signals even if individual scores are middling.
Step 5: Build the Do-Not-Act List
Identify items that:
- Came from a single loud source
- Conflict with strategy (low C)
- Would require disproportionate effort relative to RSCF
For each, write why it's tempting and why it's wrong.
Step 6: Counterfactual
Test the top-1 against the question: "If this is all we shipped next quarter, is the quarter visibly better?" If no, re-open the ranking.
Tips
- Source diversity beats source volume. 3 channels saying the same thing is stronger than 30 customers saying it on one.
- Confidence is the multiplier that matters. A 4×4×4×1 scores 16; a 3×3×3×4 scores 27. Evidence quality wins.
- Always publish the Do Not Act list. It's the only section that protects strategic focus.
