E-commerce brands · EC-02
Customer Feedback to Product Page Brief
Turn supplied customer questions into product-page changes backed by approved facts.
Paid release in preparation. No purchase is available yet. Prices exclude applicable taxes.
What this workflow is designed to do.
Review up to 100 redacted review or support excerpts for one product family and period, then connect objections to fact-backed page proposals and missing proof.
Use the input and output contract above to assess whether it matches the decision you need to make. The examples below show the intended structure, with source information and human review kept visible.
SEE THE SHAPE OF THE WORK
From supplied facts to a useful draft.
Example input
# Fictional input — Linden laptop sleeve page Entirely synthetic demonstration: no real product, customers or results. All quoted excerpts below are invented input fixtures, not testimonials for publication. [S1] Scope: Linden laptop sleeve family, variants labeled 13 and 14. Feedback September 1–14, 2026 inclusive; source dates are date-only calendar dates. Decision: clarify purchase questions on one family page. Product reviewer Lee; source-data owner Alex; measurement owner Sam. Plain English, no hype. These are selected review and support excerpts, not a complete customer population or random sample. Eight supplied rows; source owner confirms excerpt IDs are stable and unique except the declared duplicate. [P1] Approved product specification, version 1, approved by Lee September 1, 2026: variant 13 internal dimensions 31 × 22 × 2 cm; variant 14 internal dimensions 33 × 24 × 2 cm. Material polyester felt. Care: spot clean only; do not machine wash. No device-specific compatibility list or guaranteed fit claim is approved. No drop-protection or water-resistance test evidence is supplied. No other approved source exists. [W1] Current supplied page snapshot, September 14, 2026, both variants: Hero: “Fits any 14-inch laptop. Full protection on every trip.” Selector labels: “13” and “14”. Details: “Polyester felt sleeve. Wipe clean.” No internal measurements or FAQ on the page. Page text is evidence of current copy, not an approved specification. | Row | Source excerpt ID | Date in 2026 | Product / variant | Channel | Redacted fictional excerpt | Duplicate | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | F01 | S101 | September 2 | Linden / 14 | support | Will my laptop fit with its hard shell? | none | | F02 | R202 | September 3 | Linden / 14 | review | The 14 label did not tell me the inside measurements. | none | | F03 | S303 | September 5 | Linden / both | support | Can I wash this in a machine? | none | | F04 | R404 | September 8 | Linden / 14 | review | It looks padded. Does it protect if dropped? | none | | F05 | R505 | September 9 | Linden / 13 | review | I wanted inside measurements and cleaning instructions. | none | | F06 | S606 | September 10 | Linden / both | support | Will rain soak through it? | none | | F07 | R404 | September 8 | Linden / 14 | review | It looks padded. Does it protect if dropped? | confirmed duplicate of F04 | | F08 | S808 | August 31 | Linden / 13 | support | Can this go through a wash? | none | [M1] Supplied planning objective: help visitors choose a sleeve size with clearer information. Sam can later assess proposed tracking definitions; no tracking availability, baseline, sample, test duration, assignment rule, numerical target or launch date is approved. Lee reviews all page changes. No publishing or experiment execution is requested.
Illustrative output
Hand-authored fictional illustration — DRAFT, HUMAN REVIEW REQUIRED. Scope: Linden sleeves, variants 13 and 14; September 1–14, 2026. 8 rows = 1 confirmed duplicate (F07 repeats F04) + 1 outside period (F08, August 31) + 0 held + 6 eligible unique excerpts (F01–F06). Fit: 3/6 (F01, F02, F05); care: 2/6 (F03, F05); drop protection: 1/6 (F04); water resistance: 1/6 (F06). Themes overlap through F05; counts describe selected excerpts, not customers. Proposed page changes: correct W1 universal-fit/full-protection claims because they exceed P1; propose P1 internal dimensions beside the selector: 13 = 31 × 22 × 2 cm, 14 = 33 × 24 × 2 cm. Ask visitors to compare their device including its case; no guaranteed fit. Add spot-clean-only care and no machine washing. FAQ draft: “How do I compare sizes?” → approved internal measurements above, with comparison instruction for review [P1; F01, F02, F05]. “Can I machine wash it?” → Spot clean only. Do not machine wash [P1; F03, F05]. Drop-protection and water-resistance answers remain UNRESOLVED internal placeholders [F04, F06]; Lee must review applicable evidence. Proposed experiment: after Lee approves factual corrections, compare the same approved dimensions block in details versus beside the selector. Primary metric proposed: sessions with a sleeve add-to-cart event / eligible family-page sessions, once per session. Guardrail proposed: sessions with page or selector errors / eligible sessions. Tracking source, assignment, baseline, sample, duration and stopping criteria are UNRESOLVED; Sam reviews feasibility. This observes behavior, not actual fit. No setup, results or conversion gain is claimed. Human review: Lee checks facts and wording; Alex checks the row audit; Sam checks measurement. No approval has occurred.
Fictional, hand-authored reference example. This is not a customer result or an evaluated AI run. No accuracy or time-saving results have been established.
Inside the planned package.
The workflow
A SKILL.md instruction file, a quickstart, and installation guidance.
The working materials
Input and output templates, example documents, and a review checklist.
The boundaries
Evaluation cases, version history, license, and data-handling notes.
Before you get started.
Environment & installation
Claude Code is a candidate for the first pilot, not a verified supported host. Host choice, account requirements, and installation must be validated with pilot users. AI tool costs are separate from the proposed product price.
Read the installation previewRelease evidence
Prototype v0.1.0 · Last edited 2026-09-07. Authoring: LibSkills prototype project. Independent industry reviewer: not yet assigned. Host test date and result: none. See the required quality gate.
Limitations & review points
- Proposed paid product; no paid package is available yet.
- Uses at most 100 supplied redacted excerpt rows for one family and period; no scraping, account access or publishing.
- Feedback does not prove product facts, and theme counts do not measure customer prevalence or predict conversion gains.
- Private authored candidate; installation, behavioral runs and user pilots remain pending.
Proposed paid terms
12 months of updates and 30 days of setup support. Client deliverable use allowed; redistribution of paid source excluded. License proposal · Refund proposal.
THE NEXT PIECE OF YOUR WORKFLOW
Keep the work moving.
E-commerce brands ↗
Multi-channel Product Fact QA
Find factual drift across two or three product drafts while preserving variants, units, components and pack quantities.
E-commerce brands ↗
Seasonal Campaign Consistency Check
Catch mismatched discounts, thresholds, dates, asset versions and stock promises before a seasonal campaign is approved.
E-commerce brands ↗
Returns to Corrective Action Brief
Reconcile return events to original units before deciding what to investigate or change.