Claude Client Feedback Resolution Room

Name: Claude Client Feedback Resolution Room
Price: 12 USD
Availability: InStock
Author: Agensi

by monna

Turn scattered client comments into a traceable revision plan without losing scope, approvals, or the current draft.

$12

30-day refund guarantee

Secure checkout via Stripe

0 installsSecurity scanned

See it in action

You say

Approved brief: One 900-word founder article for LinkedIn, preserving the approved opening story and CTA. One revision round covers factual corrections and clarity edits.

Current draft: Version 3 attached below.

Feedback:

Email, Marketing Lead: Shorten the opening by half and add three Instagram carousel concepts.
Document comment, Founder: Do not change the opening story. Please correct the 2024 date to 2025.
Slack, Account Manager: Can we make the whole thing feel more premium?

Your agent does

Decision snapshot

Safe now: correct the date after confirming the supplied source.
Blocked: opening revision because two requests are mutually exclusive and decision authority is not supplied.
Change candidate: three Instagram carousel concepts add a new format beyond the one LinkedIn article.
Clarification required: more premium has no observable definition.

Conflict C-001

F-001 shorten the opening vs. F-002 preserve the opening.
Default: preserve the explicitly approved opening until the decision owner resolves the conflict.
Blocked work: opening patch only; factual correction can proceed independently.

Client reply excerpt I have separated the factual correction from the two decisions that affect direction and scope. I can update the date now. Before changing the opening, please confirm whether the approved story should remain or be shortened. The requested Instagram carousel concepts appear to add a new format beyond the current article brief; please confirm whether you would like that handled as a separate change.

What you get

Consolidate comments from email, Slack, and document notes into one decision ledger.Resolve contradictory feedback without choosing a reviewer based on tone or assumed seniority.Separate a correction from a new deliverable disguised as a quick tweak.Protect approved sections while planning targeted revisions.Draft a neutral client reply with the minimum blocking questions.Turn subjective feedback into observable acceptance conditions.

About this skill

Client feedback should become decisions—not another messy thread

Client Feedback Resolution Room reconciles the approved brief, current draft, and feedback scattered across email, chat, comments, transcripts, and documents. It preserves the original wording, exposes contradictions, separates true revisions from possible scope changes, and produces a controlled path to the next version.

What the skill produces

A source register that shows which brief, draft, message, and reviewer each conclusion came from.
An atomic feedback ledger with stable IDs instead of vague bundled comments.
A conflict map for incompatible requests, mixed versions, missing authority, and hidden dependencies.
Operational scope classification: In Scope, Clarification Required, Change Request Candidate, Not Actionable, or Duplicate/Superseded.
An ordered revision patch plan with invariants, dependencies, verification, and rollback points.
A professional client reply draft that groups decisions and asks only the questions that block progress.
An observable acceptance checklist for the revised artifact.
A fidelity receipt showing what is preserved, changed, deferred, or unknown.

Why this is a paid workflow

This is not a generic “summarize the feedback” prompt. The package contains dedicated reference protocols for source authority, atomic feedback normalization, contradiction handling, revision-scope control, patch planning, and acceptance testing. Ten forward-test cases cover clean revisions, vague requests, conflicting reviewers, mixed versions, new deliverables, duplicate feedback, missing baselines, private data, and authority ambiguity.

Best for

Content creators handling brand or client revisions.
Freelancers receiving feedback across several channels.
Agencies managing multiple reviewers and approval rounds.
Studios protecting approved work while resolving contradictory comments.
Consultants who need a clean record of decisions and next actions.

Boundaries

The skill does not provide legal advice, interpret contract enforceability, negotiate fees, send messages, edit files automatically, or decide commercial concessions. It never invents approval authority, deadlines, pricing, or scope terms. Possible scope changes are presented for the user’s decision.