/feedback-triage

name: feedback-triage
description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "process beta reader feedback", "alpha reader feedback", "feedback round", "synthesize reader feedback", "reader notes", "beta feedback", "reader readiness check", "review copy", "send the draft to readers", "share with readers who don't use GitHub", "triage the reader panel", or wants to collect, reconcile, and act on external reader feedback for a story project. NOT for running the simulated reader panel itself (use reader-panel), rounds with a professional editor (use editorial-review), or for checking a manuscript is ready to query or publish (use submission or publishing).

Feedback Triage

Overview

Process alpha/beta reader feedback as a structured, reconcilable workflow: collect per-reader feedback files, hold all revision until the round is complete, synthesize convergent/divergent/single-reader findings into a decision record with a readiness verdict, and hand a concrete revision plan to the `revision-continuity` skill.

Prerequisites

A story project with at least one drafted chapter (or a complete draft) that readers have read. Verify `story.md` exists in the project root.

When to Use

• Starting a feedback round (recruiting readers, sending chapters out)
• Giving readers a review copy, including the GitHub Pages review-copy

workflow and the reader-note issue form (step 1 of the workflow; other skills point here)

• Recording feedback as it arrives
• Synthesizing a completed round into decisions
• NOT for revising the manuscript (use `revision-continuity` with the

synthesis's revision plan)

• NOT for the agent's own critique of the draft (use `revision-continuity`

audits; reader feedback is external input)

• NOT for producing simulated persona reads (use `reader-panel`; this

skill synthesises the round it writes)

Workflow

1. Set up the round

1. Decide the round scope: which chapters readers get (`chapters-read` range) and how many readers (2–4 per round is typical; one reader is a data point, not a round). 2. Create the round folder: `feedback/round-{N}/`. 3. Give readers a review copy they can open without a terminal. Build it from text you can get back, so the round can be rebuilt and old labels mapped later (step 2 of Collect). Save that text first:

• **Git project:** work from the book's folder, the one that holds

`story.md` (`cd` there first), because `-- .` below means the current folder. Check that `.gitignore` lists `dist/` (`story init` writes one that does; add the line if it is missing), so earlier review copies stay out of the commit. Then run `git status --untracked-files=all -- .` and show the user what it lists: the copy is built from the working tree, but a tag points at the last commit, so uncommitted changes would make the two differ. Look through it for private files (a `.env`, keys or credentials, scanned documents): unless the user says to commit one, add it to `.gitignore` first. Ask before committing and before tagging. With approval, commit the project folder only (skip the commit when the tree is already clean) and tag that commit:

     git add -A -- .
     git commit -m "Feedback round {N}" -- .
     git tag feedback-round-{N}

If the user declines the commit, never tag the last commit over an uncommitted tree: take a snapshot as below, or stop.

• **Project without git, or the user declined the commit:** take a

snapshot with `story snapshot feedback-round-{N} --path .`.

Then build the stamped HTML copy from that text:

   story build . --format html --stamp feedback-round-{N}

Never push, and never move or delete a tag, without the user's approval: a push to `main` can publish the manuscript through the review-copy workflow below. The single-file HTML copy in `dist/` has a table of contents, the build stamp at the top, and a paragraph label beside every paragraph (`ch03-p12` is chapter 3, paragraph 12). A label is the chapter and the paragraph's position in that build, not a permanent id: any earlier edit in the chapter renumbers it, and `story move` changes its chapter part. Ask readers to cite the label, the build stamp, and the paragraph's first few words with each note.

**GitHub review copy.** This is the setup the other skills point to. For a project on GitHub, offer the templates from the Story Skills repository (https://github.com/danjdewhurst/story-skills, `templates/github/`). The `review-copy.yml` workflow publishes the HTML copy to GitHub Pages on each push to `main`, stamped with the date and short commit, with a **Note** link beside every label (`--note-url`) that opens the issue form prefilled with the label, build, and first words. Like every build, it leaves out a matter page whose `permission` is `pending` or unclear (warning `permission-pending-left-out`), so an uncleared epigraph never reaches Pages; never add `--include-pending` to the workflow. The `ISSUE_TEMPLATE/manuscript-note.yml` issue form asks readers for the label, build, first few words, note type (typo or wording, confusing, continuity, pacing, character, sensitivity or authenticity, loved this, other), how much it affected their reading, and the note. Before asking to copy them, warn that a public Pages site makes the manuscript public unless the repository and Pages are private, and confirm the visibility the user wants. Then copy them into the story repository's `.github/workflows/` and `.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/` only with the user's approval, and create a `manuscript-note` label first; GitHub only applies existing labels. 4. For each expected reader, create a stub file from `references/feedback-template.md` at `feedback/round-{N}/{reader-kebab}.md` with frontmatter filled in and the body sections empty. The stub l