← Browse

@owl-listener/feedback-loops

A

User correction, thumbs up/down, inline editing, and reinforcement signals.

skillclaude

Install

agr install @owl-listener/feedback-loops --target claude

Writes 1 file into .claude/skills/, pinned to git-b607f935.

  • .claude/skills/feedback-loops/SKILL.md

Document


name: feedback-loops description: User correction, thumbs up/down, inline editing, and reinforcement signals.

Feedback Loops

Feedback loops are how users tell the AI what's working and what isn't. Designing these loops well is the difference between an AI that improves over time and one that repeats the same mistakes.

Types of Feedback

  • Explicit feedback: Thumbs up/down, star ratings, "this was helpful/not helpful" buttons
  • Implicit feedback: Regeneration (user asks again), editing (user modifies the output), abandonment (user leaves)
  • Corrective feedback: User provides the right answer ("No, I meant X not Y")
  • Preference feedback: User chooses between alternatives ("I prefer option B")
  • Contextual feedback: Feedback tied to a specific part of the output, not the whole response

Designing for Correction

The most valuable feedback is correction — but it's also the hardest to design for:

  • Inline editing: Let users edit AI output directly. Track what they change.
  • Partial acceptance: Let users keep some parts and reject others.
  • Explanation requests: "Why did you do it this way?" — the user's question reveals what went wrong.
  • Redo with guidance: "Try again but make it more formal" — correction through re-prompting.

Feedback Timing

When to ask for feedback matters:

  • Too early: User hasn't evaluated the output yet. Feedback is premature.
  • Too late: User has moved on. The moment for feedback has passed.
  • Interruptive: Modal dialogs or required ratings break flow.
  • Ambient: Passive signals (edits, regeneration) collected without asking. Design for ambient feedback first. Add explicit feedback sparingly.

Closing the Loop

Feedback is only valuable if it changes something. The user needs to see that their feedback matters:

  • Immediate adaptation: The AI adjusts in the current conversation
  • Persistent learning: The AI remembers preferences across sessions
  • Acknowledgment: "I'll keep that in mind" — even if adaptation is delayed

Design Artefacts

  • Feedback mechanism inventory per feature
  • Implicit signal definitions (what counts as positive/negative)
  • Feedback-to-adaptation mapping (what changes based on what feedback)
  • Correction flow specifications

Trustgrade A

  • passBody integrity

    Whether the stored document is plausibly the kind of file the artifact declares, rather than something fetched by mistake.

  • passType matchnot applicable to this artifact type

    Whether the artifact is really the kind of thing its metadata claims it is.

  • passFreshness

    How long since the source repository was last pushed to.

  • passPrompt injection

    Scans the artifact's own text for instructions aimed at your agent rather than at you.

  • passLicense

    Whether the source repository declares an SPDX license permissive enough to redistribute.

How the grade is calculated

Each check contributes 0 points when it passes, 1 when it warns, and 2 when it fails. The total maps to a letter:

  • Aevery check passed
  • Bone warning
  • Ctwo warnings
  • Dprompt injection or body integrity failed, or three warnings
  • Fone of those failed, and something else is wrong

These are automated hygiene checks, not a security audit, and not a dependency or vulnerability scan. A grade of A means nothing was flagged — not that the artifact is safe.

Versions

  • git-b607f93532f52026-07-31