Design-partner feedback loop operations

Problem

Design partners report MCP tool issues through ad-hoc channels (Slack, email, verbal), and there is no standardized path from a reported problem to a shipped fix. Feedback sits in threads without being triaged, root-caused, or linked to code changes. When fixes are shipped, there is no decision log explaining what was changed and why, making it hard for other contributors to understand the rationale or avoid re-introducing the same issue. This slow, lossy feedback loop means design partners wait weeks for fixes that should take days, and the team cannot demonstrate responsiveness — a prerequisite for partner retention.

Context

• Broader adoption will generate product feedback, support requests, and feature pressure around AI agent tool interfaces, execution workflows, and eval-driven behavior tuning, 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 dataface/ai/, MCP/tool contracts, cloud chat surfaces, eval runners, and prompt artifacts, 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 AI agent tool interfaces, execution workflows, and eval-driven behavior tuning 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