Install
$ agentstack add skill-cbrock84-headcount-voice-of-customer ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Voice of customer
Most feedback programs collect diligently and change nothing. The collection is the easy half; the loop is the whole value.
Sources, weighted honestly
- Support contacts — the highest-volume and least prompted source, and the most under-used.
People contacting you have a real problem nobody asked them about. But the sample is strongly self-selected: it excludes everyone who silently churned, worked around the problem, or would never contact you. Treat it as operational evidence to be normalized per active account and triangulated against churn and behavioral data — never as representative of the customer base.
- Churn and loss reasons — the most valuable and most under-sampled. People leaving have no
reason to be polite.
- Interviews — depth, small n, best for understanding why something in the data is happening.
- Surveys — breadth, and only meaningful once you know what to ask.
- Public reviews and forums — biased toward extremes, useful for what people say when you are not
in the room.
Anything a customer built a workaround for outranks anything they merely said in a survey.
On CSAT and NPS
Both are useful as trends and misleading as targets. The moment a team is measured on a score, the score improves faster than the experience does — asking at the favorable moment, coaching for the rating, excluding difficult segments.
Treat the score as a prompt for the free-text answer, which is where the information is. Segment before concluding: an overall score is an average of experiences that have nothing in common.
Never target a number without also watching the behavior it is supposed to predict.
Turning feedback into change
The failure is not collection, it is triage. Feedback needs:
- Categorization against a stable taxonomy, so volume per cause is countable across periods.
- Quantification. "Several customers mentioned" loses every argument. "Eighty-one contacts this
quarter, four percent of active accounts, twelve of them on enterprise plans" wins.
- A named owner per theme, outside the feedback function. A theme owned by the team collecting
it goes nowhere.
- A standing review where product, support, and success look at the same list together.
Distinguish requests from problems. Customers describe solutions; your job is to recover the problem underneath, because the request is often not the best fix for it.
Closing the loop
Tell the customer what changed and that they prompted it. Almost nobody does this, which is exactly why it works — it converts a complainer into someone who reports the next issue instead of leaving.
Also close it internally: show the support team what shipped because of what they escalated, or they stop escalating.
Never
- Report themes without volume.
- Let one loud enterprise account set the roadmap without checking how widely the problem is shared.
- Run a program with no mechanism for anything to change as a result. That is a survey habit, not
a feedback loop.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: cbrock84
- Source: cbrock84/headcount
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://cbrock84.github.io/headcount/
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.