本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

voice-of-customer

Builds the loop from what customers say to what gets changed — collecting feedback, distinguishing signal from noise, routing it to owners, and closing the loop back to the customer. Use this to set up a feedback program, design or interpret CSAT/NPS, decide what customer feedback deserves action, get product to act on recurring issues, or diagnose why feedback is collected but nothing changes.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md3.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Voice of customer

Most feedback programs collect diligently and change nothing. The collection is the easy half; the loop is the whole value.

Sources, weighted honestly

  • Support contacts — the highest-volume and least prompted source, and the most under-used. People contacting you have a real problem nobody asked them about. But the sample is strongly self-selected: it excludes everyone who silently churned, worked around the problem, or would never contact you. Treat it as operational evidence to be normalized per active account and triangulated against churn and behavioral data — never as representative of the customer base.
  • Churn and loss reasons — the most valuable and most under-sampled. People leaving have no reason to be polite.
  • Interviews — depth, small n, best for understanding why something in the data is happening.
  • Surveys — breadth, and only meaningful once you know what to ask.
  • Public reviews and forums — biased toward extremes, useful for what people say when you are not in the room.

Anything a customer built a workaround for outranks anything they merely said in a survey.

On CSAT and NPS

Both are useful as trends and misleading as targets. The moment a team is measured on a score, the score improves faster than the experience does — asking at the favorable moment, coaching for the rating, excluding difficult segments.

Treat the score as a prompt for the free-text answer, which is where the information is. Segment before concluding: an overall score is an average of experiences that have nothing in common.

Never target a number without also watching the behavior it is supposed to predict.

Turning feedback into change

The failure is not collection, it is triage. Feedback needs:

  • Categorization against a stable taxonomy, so volume per cause is countable across periods.
  • Quantification. "Several customers mentioned" loses every argument. "Eighty-one contacts this quarter, four percent of active accounts, twelve of them on enterprise plans" wins.
  • A named owner per theme, outside the feedback function. A theme owned by the team collecting it goes nowhere.
  • A standing review where product, support, and success look at the same list together.

Distinguish requests from problems. Customers describe solutions; your job is to recover the problem underneath, because the request is often not the best fix for it.

Closing the loop

Tell the customer what changed and that they prompted it. Almost nobody does this, which is exactly why it works — it converts a complainer into someone who reports the next issue instead of leaving.

Also close it internally: show the support team what shipped because of what they escalated, or they stop escalating.

Tooling

Survey and feedback: Qualtrics, Medallia, Delighted, SurveyMonkey, Typeform, and similar.

In-product feedback and micro-surveys: Pendo, Sprig, Chameleon, and similar — usually a better signal than emailed surveys because they reach people mid-task rather than after the fact.

Aggregating unstructured feedback across tickets, calls and reviews is where the platforms differ most. Whatever collects it, the theme has to be traceable back to individual verbatims, or nobody downstream will believe the count.

Never

  • Report themes without volume.
  • Let one loud enterprise account set the roadmap without checking how widely the problem is shared.
  • Run a program with no mechanism for anything to change as a result. That is a survey habit, not a feedback loop.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する