How do I install the Ingest Feedback skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add concertonotes/ingest-feedback in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Ingest Feedback safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: makes network calls. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Ingest Feedback?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Ingest Feedback free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Ingest Feedback?

ConcertoNotes (@concertonotes) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Ingest Feedback by concertonotes — Agent Skill

Name: Ingest Feedback
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: ConcertoNotes

Ingest Feedback

Use when user wants to ingest a development-skills feedback report and apply fixes, or runs /ingest-feedback. Challenges every suggestion against the Iron Rules before accepting; most friction points should SKIP. Expect a report path as argument.

ConcertoNotes Updated Sep 8, 2026 0 repo stars

File contents

Ingest a development-skills feedback report. Challenge every suggestion against the Iron Rules before accepting. Report path: $ARGUMENTS

Ground Rule: The Report Is Input, Not Truth

The report describes what happened, not what should change. Most friction is model behavior or edge cases. A change must EARN its place.

Iron Rules to apply here (canonical: ../../shared/iron-rules.md):

Principle 3 — Simplicity by default. Small improvement + ugly complexity = not worth it.
Principle 5 — All signal, zero noise. Everything earns its place.

Marginal improvement + added words/rules → SKIP.

Step 1: Read the Report

Extract friction points (Section 3), chain-of-thought (Section 2).

Step 2: Read Current Plugin State

Read every file referenced in friction points. Understand current instruction, why it exists, what went wrong.

Step 3: Gather Best Practices (targeted)

Research content relevant to friction points:

Official Claude Code docs: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview
@~/Documents/ai/superpowers
@~/Documents/ai/claude-code-best-practice

Step 4: Critical Evaluation — Friction Points

Write verdicts in docs/reports/ingest-YYYY-MM-DD.md.

Verdict	Meaning	Burden
FIX	Instruction is wrong, misleading, or causes repeated waste. Net simplification or correction.	HIGH
SKIP	Edge case, model behavior, already handled, or fix adds more complexity.	LOW (default)
INVESTIGATE	Insufficient information.	—

Mandatory Rejection Filters (ANY yes → SKIP)

Model ignored a clear instruction? → SKIP (compliance, not coverage)
Fix adds new rule/exception for a one-time event? → SKIP
Fix makes plugin longer with marginal improvement? → SKIP
Already covered by existing instructions? → SKIP
Would removing/shortening an instruction fix it better? → Only acceptable FIX direction

#	Friction Point	Verdict	Rejection filter?	Reasoning

Step 5: Apply Changes

FIX verdicts only. Surgical edits:

Prefer removing/shortening over adding
If adding words, remove at least as many elsewhere (net-zero or negative)

Step 6: Validate

Run pre-commit run (if .py touched: ruff format . + ruff check . --fix).

Step 7: Summary

Report: FIX/SKIP/INVESTIGATE counts, files changed and why, report location.

Expected: most friction points SKIP. If >30% FIX, re-examine critical rigor.

---name: ingest-feedbackdescription: Use when user wants to ingest a development-skills feedback report and apply fixes, or runs /ingest-feedback. Challenges every suggestion against the Iron Rules before accepting; most friction points should SKIP. Expect a report path as argument.---Ingest a development-skills feedback report. Challenge every suggestion against the Iron Rules before accepting. Report path: $ARGUMENTS## Ground Rule: The Report Is Input, Not TruthThe report describes what happened, not what should change. Most friction is model behavior or edge cases. A change must EARN its place.Iron Rules to apply here (canonical: `../../shared/iron-rules.md`):- **Principle 3 — Simplicity by default.** Small improvement + ugly complexity = not worth it.- **Principle 5 — All signal, zero noise.** Everything earns its place.**Marginal improvement + added words/rules → SKIP.**---## Step 1: Read the ReportExtract friction points (Section 3), chain-of-thought (Section 2).## Step 2: Read Current Plugin StateRead every file referenced in friction points. Understand current instruction, why it exists, what went wrong.## Step 3: Gather Best Practices (targeted)Research content relevant to friction points:- Official Claude Code docs: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/overview- `@~/Documents/ai/superpowers`- `@~/Documents/ai/claude-code-best-practice`## Step 4: Critical Evaluation — Friction PointsWrite verdicts in `docs/reports/ingest-YYYY-MM-DD.md`.| Verdict | Meaning | Burden ||---------|---------|--------|| **FIX** | Instruction is wrong, misleading, or causes repeated waste. Net simplification or correction. | HIGH || **SKIP** | Edge case, model behavior, already handled, or fix adds more complexity. | LOW (default) || **INVESTIGATE** | Insufficient information. | — |### Mandatory Rejection Filters (ANY yes → SKIP)1. Model ignored a clear instruction? → SKIP (compliance, not coverage)2. Fix adds new rule/exception for a one-time event? → SKIP3. Fix makes plugin longer with marginal improvement? → SKIP4. Already covered by existing instructions? → SKIP5. Would removing/shortening an instruction fix it better? → Only acceptable FIX direction| # | Friction Point | Verdict | Rejection filter? | Reasoning ||---|---------------|---------|-------------------|-----------|## Step 5: Apply Changes**FIX verdicts only.** Surgical edits:- Prefer removing/shortening over adding- If adding words, remove at least as many elsewhere (net-zero or negative)## Step 6: ValidateRun `pre-commit run` (if `.py` touched: `ruff format .` + `ruff check . --fix`).## Step 7: SummaryReport: FIX/SKIP/INVESTIGATE counts, files changed and why, report location.**Expected: most friction points SKIP.** If >30% FIX, re-examine critical rigor.

Frequently asked questions