Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

Design partners report issues through ad-hoc channels (Slack DMs, verbal mentions, scattered GitHub issues) with no structured intake, prioritization, or resolution tracking. When a partner reports that diagnostics are wrong or preview is broken for their use case, there is no guaranteed path from that report to a fix in the next release. Decision logs are absent, so the team re-debates the same trade-offs repeatedly. Without an operationalized feedback-to-fix loop, partner confidence erodes — they report a problem, hear nothing back, and disengage. The extension team also loses the signal needed to prioritize correctly across competing partner needs.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around analyst authoring in VS Code/Cursor with preview, diagnostics, and assist, but the backlog cannot absorb that input well if it arrives through ad hoc conversations and scattered notes.
• This task should define how feedback is captured, normalized, prioritized, and routed so recurring pain points become actionable delivery signals instead of ambient noise.
• Expected touchpoints include apps/ide/vscode-extension/, preview/inspector runtime code, and extension docs/tests, task/backlog surfaces, and whatever telemetry or review artifacts are needed to separate one-off requests from real patterns.

Possible Solutions

• A - Keep collecting feedback informally in chat and meetings: low setup cost, but it loses history and makes prioritization inconsistent.
• B - Recommended: establish a lightweight but explicit feedback loop: define intake, categorization, ownership, review cadence, and how accepted items turn into tracked work.
• C - Add a heavy formal program process immediately: more structure, but likely too slow and bureaucratic for the current stage.

Plan

1. Inventory the current feedback sources for analyst authoring in VS Code/Cursor with preview, diagnostics, and assist and identify where signal is being lost or duplicated today.
2. Define a simple intake and review loop with owners, categorization rules, prioritization criteria, and a recurring decision cadence.
3. Connect that loop to concrete backlog/task updates, escalation paths, and summary artifacts so design-partner issues stay visible.
4. Pilot the loop with a small set of recent feedback items and refine the process before treating it as the default operating path.

Implementation Progress

Review Feedback

• [ ] Review cleared