LoopyLuci Skill Review and Feedback Loops
Implementing review and feedback processes for skills — from peer review workflows through user feedback collection, iteration cycles, and continuous improvement.
When to Use
- Reviewing skills for quality before publishing
- Collecting user feedback on skill usefulness
- Iteratively improving existing skills
- Building a skill improvement cycle
Review Framework
class SkillReview:
"""Review skills for quality and completeness."""
REVIEW_CRITERIA = {
'accuracy': 'Technical content is correct and up-to-date',
'clarity': 'Content is understandable for the target audience',
'completeness': 'All required sections are present and substantial',
'practicality': 'Examples are realistic and applicable',
'usefulness': 'Skill addresses a real user need',
}
def __init__(self):
self.reviews = []
def conduct_review(self, skill_md: str, reviewer: str) -> Dict:
"""Conduct a review of skill content."""
issues = []
if not skill_md or len(skill_md) < 200:
issues.append('Skill content too short (< 200 chars)')
if '## Common Pitfalls' not in skill_md:
issues.append('Missing Common Pitfalls section')
if '## Verification Checklist' not in skill_md:
issues.append('Missing Verification Checklist')
if '```' not in skill_md:
issues.append('No code examples')
return {
'reviewer': reviewer,
'issues': issues,
'pass': len(issues) <= 2,
'score': max(0, 10 - len(issues) * 2),
}
Feedback Loop
FEEDBACK_LOOP = """
Collect → Analyze → Prioritize → Improve → Verify → Measure
Collect: Inline feedback, surveys, usage analytics
Analyze: Tag and categorize feedback (accuracy, depth, missing topics)
Prioritize: By frequency + impact (how many users affected? how bad?)
Improve: Update skill content, add examples, fix inaccuracies
Verify: Re-review updated skill against quality standards
Measure: Track improvement in user satisfaction scores
"""
Common Pitfalls
- Review bottlenecks — single reviewer blocks publishing; use rotating reviewers
- Vague feedback — "This could be better" without specifics; require actionable comments
- No iteration limit — skills that keep getting revised without publishing
- Ignoring negative feedback — critical feedback is the most valuable for improvement
- No feedback channel — users can't report issues; add an inline feedback mechanism
Verification Checklist
- Peer review completed before publishing significant skills
- Review criteria defined (accuracy, clarity, completeness, practicality)
- User feedback channel exists (inline rating, issues link)
- Feedback analyzed and prioritized regularly
- Improvement cycle: feedback → prioritize → update → verify
- Skill satisfaction score tracked over time
- Review turnaround time < 48 hours