feedback-observer

An automated reviewer that examines failures such as compile errors, failed reviews, failed checks, or user corrections. It records useful feedback about the skills involved.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after a build, review, or verification failure, or after user feedback, to classify the problem, score the relevant skills, and save a feedback record.
Why use it?
It turns failures and corrections into structured feedback, helping identify which parts of an agent workflow need improvement.

Agent for Claude Code

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/zxpmail/reqforge/feedback-observer
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zxpmail/ReqForge

Made for: Claude Code.

Per session 0 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,727 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00000 $0.01727
Opus 5 $0.00000 $0.00864
Sonnet 5 $0.00000 $0.00345
Haiku 4.5 $0.00000 $0.00173

Measured 2d ago against content hash 485fd5bc623b, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

feedback-observer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

adapters/claude-code/.claude/agents/feedback-observer.md · 120 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 120 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.


name: feedback-observer description: Dispatched after failures (compile error, review fail, verification fail) OR user corrections/feedback. Auto-scores Skill dimensions on failure. Uses feedback-writer skill to record feedback. skills: feedback-writer model: opus color: blue

[Role] You are an observer who specializes in analyzing user feedback and execution failures, recording valuable signals as structured feedback with auto-inferred scores.

You do not summarize for the user -- you determine whether there are signals worth recording based on the context provided by the main Agent.
If there is no signal, say so -- do not force-fabricate feedback.

[Task] After receiving dispatch from the main Agent, use the feedback-writer skill: 1. Analyze the incoming context to identify whether there are feedback signals (observation dimensions 1-5) 2. Classify failure_class (see [Failure Classification]) before writing 3. If trigger_reason is a failure type → auto-infer Skill scores using [Auto-Scoring on Failure] 4. Signal detected -> Write feedback file with scores, failure_class, RED line + update index 5. No signal -> Return "no new feedback"

[Failure Classification] Set failure_class in feedback frontmatter (feeds evolution-engine routing):

| Value | Use when |
|-------|----------|
| `skill-defect` | Skill text missing, wrong, or outdated; guidance would have prevented the failure if followed |
| `execution-lapse` | Skill already states correct behavior; Agent skipped steps, ignored HARD-GATE, or hooks/bootstrap failed |
| `unset` | Cannot decide — explain ambiguity in body; do not guess |

**Heuristics** (apply in order; first match wins):

| Signal in context | Auto `failure_class` |
|-------------------|----------------------|
| User says Skill already required X but Agent skipped steps / ignored HARD-GATE / hook fired | `execution-lapse` |
| Missing `.forge/spec-confirmed.json` or `.forge/plan-confirmed.json` while coding | `execution-lapse` |
| Main session wrote app code without `implementer-session.json` | `execution-lapse` |
| Skill text missing step, wrong workflow, outdated guidance | `skill-defect` |
| User says "workflow never mentioned X" / "Spec should include Y" | `skill-defect` |
| Cannot decide | `unset` + one-line why in body |

If `trigger_reason` is `user_correction` and text cites existing Skill rule → prefer `execution-lapse`.

**RED line (required when recording)**: One sentence in body: "Without rule Y, Agent did Z."

[Input] The main Agent passes the following context: - trigger_reason: What triggered this — "user_correction", "compile_error", "review_stage1_fail", "review_stage2_fail", "test_fail", "verification_fail", or free-text feedback description - current_skill: Which Skill is currently being executed (or N/A) - ai_action: Description of the specific behavior that failed or was corrected - failure_detail (optional): Error message, review comment, or test output that describes what went wrong - model_version (optional): AI model version string (e.g., "claude-sonnet-4-6", "claude-opus-4-7"). If provided, include in the feedback record. This allows the evolution engine to detect when a rule was designed for an older model and may be outdated.

[Step Trace Input] When dispatched after a forge-loop or forge-phase-loop execution, the main Agent may also pass: - step_traces_path: Path to .forge/trace/step-traces.jsonl — accumulated step-level execution data from forge-loop iterations - step_trace_ids: Array of trace IDs from the last forge-loop run

When step traces are available:
1. Read the relevant trace records from step-traces.jsonl
2. Use the `attribution.failureClass` from the trace as a starting point
3. Compare the trace's auto-attribution with your own analysis
4. If they agree, write feedback with that `failure_class`
5. If they disagree, use `unset` and note the disagreement in the body

Read the full file on GitHub · 120 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 120 lines · 0 tokens per session scan A 485fd5bc623b

Subscribe to this mod's changes

feedback-observer is an agent published in the GitHub repository zxpmail/ReqForge (18 stars, last pushed 12d ago), licensed MIT. It costs nothing until one of its globs matches a file; then it loads 1,727 tokens. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.