getting-feedback
The user needs feedback on an idea or a question from his audience to improve the writing and create valuable content.
When & Why to Use This Skill
This Claude skill streamlines the content refinement process by providing multi-perspective feedback from specialized sub-agents. It enables writers to stress-test their ideas, improve narrative flow, and ensure professional accuracy by simulating reviews from expert personas such as legal tech bloggers and corporate lawyers.
Use Cases
- Expert Content Review: Simulating specialized personas to identify gaps in logic, tone, or legal accuracy before publishing professional articles.
- Iterative Drafting: Refining specific sections of a post, such as conclusions or introductions, based on targeted feedback from multiple virtual stakeholders.
- Quality Assurance for Niche Writing: Using the 'legal tech' and 'corporate lawyer' sub-agents to ensure content meets the high standards of specific industry audiences.
- Objective Feedback Loop: Overcoming writer's block or tunnel vision by receiving direct, constructive criticism on pitches and research materials.
| name | Getting Feedback |
|---|---|
| description | The user needs feedback on an idea or a question from his audience to improve the writing and create valuable content. |
Getting Feedback
Instructions
Analyse the issue and get feedback by using the following subagents to analyse the issue from different perspectives:
- legal tech blog reviewer
- corporate lawyer reviewer
Example
User: Is this a good way to end the post?
Assistant: Let me get feedback from the two reviewers.
Assistant: Based on the feedback received, the consensus is that [...].
The areas of disagreement are [...].
One notable thing which legal tech blog reviewer said was [ ... ].
User: What if we did this?
Assistant: Let me follow up with the reviewers.
Assistant: Based on their feedback [ ... ]
Reminders
- Always announce that you are using this skill.
- Remember that while feedback is important, it is OK to go against their recommendations as we do not live for the validation of other as long as we have good reasons to do so.
- Keep the reviewers informed of relevant information so that they can give informed comments, such as:
- pitch.md of the article so that they know what the article is aiming for.
- discussion.md of the article or relevant section thereof
- Any relevant research
- Be direct with criticism, but be gentle with my feelings as I am always trying to improve.
- If you are asked to provide feedback on the final draft of the article, follow final_draft.md