CodexPluginStats
← getuserfeedback.comCONTENT HISTORY

Update to getuserfeedback.com

Snapshot Nov 6, 2026 · 06:57 UTC · version 0.1.174

Collection source: downloaded plugin package.

WHAT CHANGED

Instructions updated for review-user-feedback

Full description — Now says: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.

Observed in instructions or declared skills. Runtime behavior has not been tested.

Save getuserfeedback.com and check future changes in Following.

Up to 3 plugins free · no card required.

All fields and original values.

Full description

Before

Oct 24, 2026 · 13:34 UTC

Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses, conversations, or weekly digests to answer questions about user feedback.

After

Nov 6, 2026 · 06:57 UTC

Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.

Skill instructions

Before

Oct 24, 2026 · 13:34 UTC

Responses, conversations, or weekly digests to answer questions about user feedback. Preserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting; label paraphrases Feedback can suggest an explanation; it does not by itself establish ca...

After

Nov 6, 2026 · 06:57 UTC

Responses to answer questions about user feedback. Preserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting. Label paraphrases Feedback can suggest an explanation. It does not by itself establish causation `responses_list` provides ...

Compare saved observations

Download comparison JSON

SKILL.md text changes

− removed · + added

--- before
+++ after
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: review-user-feedback
-description: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses, conversations, or weekly digests to answer questions about user feedback.
+description: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.
 ---
 
 # Review user feedback
@@ -9,25 +9,22 @@
 problems, explain the evidence behind each theme, and link to the supporting
 Responses when their product links are available. Include relevant conflicting
 feedback rather than forcing every answer into the dominant theme.
-Preserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting; label paraphrases
+Preserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting. Label paraphrases
 as summaries. Consider the severity of a reported problem as well as how often
 it appears.
 
 Separate what users reported from your interpretation and proposed next step.
-Feedback can suggest an explanation; it does not by itself establish causation
+Feedback can suggest an explanation. It does not by itself establish causation
 or represent everyone who uses the product. State the scope and coverage of the
 review. Do not describe a page or sample as the complete dataset, count multiple
 Responses as distinct people, or turn a few examples into a population percentage.
 If the available evidence cannot answer the question, identify the gap and a
 focused question that would help resolve it.
 
-`responses_list` provides compact analysis; `response_get` provides approved
-answer content and linked conversations. Query matching verifies sanitized
-answer content permitted for the model and fills pages with matching responses.
-Dedicated contact fields and withheld answers are excluded.
-
-Weekly digests cover the returned closed periods; they do not cover the live
-period. `weekly_digests_list` exposes the available recent digest history.
+`responses_list` provides compact analysis. `response_get` provides approved
+answer content. Query matching verifies sanitized answer content permitted for
+the model and fills pages with matching responses. Dedicated contact fields and
+withheld answers are excluded.
 
 `user_get` opens the current User behind a Response's opaque
 `respondentReference`. References are scoped to the organization and may change
Full technical diff · 2 changed fields

changed /description

BEFORE
"Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses, conversations, or weekly digests to answer questions about user feedback."
AFTER
"Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback."

changed /skill_md_contents

BEFORE
"---\nname: review-user-feedback\ndescription: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses, conversations, or weekly digests to answer questions about user feedback.\n---\n\n# Review user feedback\n\nAnswer the product question using the feedback actually examined. Group related\nproblems, explain the evidence behind each theme, and link to the supporting\nResponses when their product links are available. Include relevant conflicting\nfeedback rather than forcing every answer into the dominant theme.\nPreserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting; label paraphrases\nas summaries. Consider the severity of a reported problem as well as how often\nit appears.\n\nSeparate what users reported from your interpretation and proposed next step.\nFeedback can suggest an explanation; it does not by itself establish causation\nor represent everyone who uses the product. State the scope and coverage of the\nreview. Do not describe a page or sample as the complete dataset, count multiple\nResponses as distinct people, or turn a few examples into a population percentage.\nIf the available evidence cannot answer the question, identify the gap and a\nfocused question that would help resolve it.\n\n`responses_list` provides compact analysis; `response_get` provides approved\nanswer content and linked conversations. Query matching verifies sanitized\nanswer content permitted for the model and fills pages with matching responses.\nDedicated contact fields and withheld answers are excluded.\n\nWeekly digests cover the returned closed periods; they do not cover the live\nperiod. `weekly_digests_list` exposes the available recent digest history.\n\n`user_get` opens the current User behind a Response's opaque\n`respondentReference`. References are scoped to the organization and may change\nafter identity deletion or reset. Stored identity, attributes, and dynamic\nevent properties are withheld from the model. The User UI can show separately\ndelivered sensitive context, marked with a padlock.\n"
AFTER
"---\nname: review-user-feedback\ndescription: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.\n---\n\n# Review user feedback\n\nAnswer the product question using the feedback actually examined. Group related\nproblems, explain the evidence behind each theme, and link to the supporting\nResponses when their product links are available. Include relevant conflicting\nfeedback rather than forcing every answer into the dominant theme.\nPreserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting. Label paraphrases\nas summaries. Consider the severity of a reported problem as well as how often\nit appears.\n\nSeparate what users reported from your interpretation and proposed next step.\nFeedback can suggest an explanation. It does not by itself establish causation\nor represent everyone who uses the product. State the scope and coverage of the\nreview. Do not describe a page or sample as the complete dataset, count multiple\nResponses as distinct people, or turn a few examples into a population percentage.\nIf the available evidence cannot answer the question, identify the gap and a\nfocused question that would help resolve it.\n\n`responses_list` provides compact analysis. `response_get` provides approved\nanswer content. Query matching verifies sanitized answer content permitted for\nthe model and fills pages with matching responses. Dedicated contact fields and\nwithheld answers are excluded.\n\n`user_get` opens the current User behind a Response's opaque\n`respondentReference`. References are scoped to the organization and may change\nafter identity deletion or reset. Stored identity, attributes, and dynamic\nevent properties are withheld from the model. The User UI can show separately\ndelivered sensitive context, marked with a padlock.\n"
Full snapshot data
{
  "description": "Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "review-user-feedback",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: review-user-feedback\ndescription: Inspect getuserfeedback.com Responses to answer questions about user feedback.\n---\n\n# Review user feedback\n\nAnswer the product question using the feedback actually examined. Group related\nproblems, explain the evidence behind each theme, and link to the supporting\nResponses when their product links are available. Include relevant conflicting\nfeedback rather than forcing every answer into the dominant theme.\nPreserve the wording of permitted answer content when quoting. Label paraphrases\nas summaries. Consider the severity of a reported problem as well as how often\nit appears.\n\nSeparate what users reported from your interpretation and proposed next step.\nFeedback can suggest an explanation. It does not by itself establish causation\nor represent everyone who uses the product. State the scope and coverage of the\nreview. Do not describe a page or sample as the complete dataset, count multiple\nResponses as distinct people, or turn a few examples into a population percentage.\nIf the available evidence cannot answer the question, identify the gap and a\nfocused question that would help resolve it.\n\n`responses_list` provides compact analysis. `response_get` provides approved\nanswer content. Query matching verifies sanitized answer content permitted for\nthe model and fills pages with matching responses. Dedicated contact fields and\nwithheld answers are excluded.\n\n`user_get` opens the current User behind a Response's opaque\n`respondentReference`. References are scoped to the organization and may change\nafter identity deletion or reset. Stored identity, attributes, and dynamic\nevent properties are withheld from the model. The User UI can show separately\ndelivered sensitive context, marked with a padlock.\n"
}

SHA-256 of public snapshot: 6769920c7b55decae6beed889a96783808db66a8fd2cf1d0def91b1516bd3f42