This skill turns scattered ecommerce customer feedback — reviews, post-purchase surveys, support transcripts, return-reason codes, and social DMs — into a single prioritized improvement roadmap. The output is a ranked list of changes with frequency and severity evidence, a transparent priority score, a suggested owner, and a one-line rationale each. Use it when you have a pile of qualitative signal and need to decide what to fix first without it becoming a loudest-voice argument.
| Decision | Strong | Acceptable | Weak |
|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Signal sources to include | 4+ independent sources (reviews, surveys, support, returns, social) cross-checked against each other | 2-3 sources covering both happy and unhappy paths | A single channel (e.g. only 5-star reviews or only the loudest tickets) |
| Clustering granularity | Themes map to one actionable owner + decision; 8-20 clusters for a mid-size store | A handful of broad buckets with sub-tags noted | One mega-bucket ("UX is bad") or 80 hyper-specific clusters nobody can act on |
| Prioritization framework | RICE or weighted impact/effort/urgency with documented weights | ICE or a clean Impact/Effort 2x2 | Gut-feel ordering with no recorded scores |
| Urgency scoring | Tied to objective triggers (revenue at risk, safety, churn, legal, seasonal deadline) | Relative high/med/low agreed by 2+ stakeholders | "Everything is urgent" or urgency = whoever complained loudest |
| Owner assignment | Named person/team who controls the fix, accepts the item, has capacity | A function (e.g. "Merch") with a follow-up to name a person | Unassigned, or "everyone," or assigned to a team that can't actually ship it |
| Evidence threshold | Quantified frequency + severity + at least 2 verbatim quotes per theme | Frequency count + one quote | "Customers hate this" with no count and no quote |
| Severity rubric | Blocker / Major / Minor / Cosmetic applied consistently with a written rubric | Severity tagged but rubric loosely applied | Severity = personal annoyance level |
| Review cadence | Refreshed on a fixed cadence (e.g. monthly) with deltas vs last cycle tracked | Refreshed each planning cycle | One-and-done; never revisited |
| Sample-size handling | Small clusters flagged as "monitor," not ranked as facts | Note added when n is low | Acting on n=2 as if it were a trend |
source, date, verbatim, product/category, customer_value (e.g. LTV tier or order value), and raw_tag. De-duplicate the same customer raising the same issue across channels so you don't double-count.references/feedback-clustering-guide.md). Each theme should map to a single decision and owner. Separate symptom from root cause — "checkout is slow" and "PayPal button missing" may be the same root cause or two different ones; tag accordingly.references/prioritization-frameworks.md). Estimate each factor from the data, not vibes: reach from mention frequency and traffic, impact from severity and revenue at risk, effort from engineering/ops sizing, urgency from objective triggers (seasonal deadlines, escalating trend, legal/safety). Show the math so the ranking is auditable.references/output-template.md: exec summary, signal-source inventory, theme cluster table, prioritized roadmap table, and a parking-lot/monitor section for low-confidence or low-priority items. Keep verbatim quotes attached so stakeholders feel the customer pain, not just the number.Store: Lumen & Loft, a mid-size DTC home-lighting brand. ~9,000 orders/quarter, AOV $140. Pulled feedback from on-site reviews (Q1), post-purchase CSAT free-text, Gorgias support tickets, and return-reason codes.
Normalized & clustered themes (distinct mentions, 90-day window):
| Theme | Mentions | Severity | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Bulbs not included / "needs separate bulb" surprise | 61 | Major | Top return reason; PDP doesn't state bulb type/inclusion clearly |
| Dimmer compatibility unclear | 38 | Major | Customers buy, then find their dimmer flickers |
| Shipping damage (glass shades) | 29 | Blocker | Arrives broken; immediate refund/replace cost |
| Assembly instructions confusing | 22 | Minor | Workaround exists (YouTube), but adds friction |
| Color temperature looks "yellower" than photos | 17 | Minor | Expectation mismatch on PDP imagery |
| Wishlist/save-for-later missing | 9 | Cosmetic | Nice-to-have, low signal |
Scoring with RICE (Reach = est. customers affected/quarter; Impact 0.25-3; Confidence 0-1; Effort in person-weeks). Score = Reach × Impact × Confidence ÷ Effort.
| Item | Reach | Impact | Conf | Effort | RICE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Add bulb-inclusion + bulb-type module to PDP | 1,400 | 2 | 0.9 | 1 | (1400×2×0.9)/1 = 2,520 |
| Dimmer compatibility checker on PDP | 900 | 2 | 0.8 | 3 | (900×2×0.8)/3 = 480 |
| Upgrade glass-shade packaging | 600 | 3 | 0.9 | 2 | (600×3×0.9)/2 = 810 |
| Rewrite + illustrate assembly guide | 500 | 1 | 0.8 | 2 | (500×1×0.8)/2 = 200 |
| Add accurate color-temp swatches to PDP | 400 | 1 | 0.7 | 1 | (400×1×0.7)/1 = 280 |
| Wishlist feature | 300 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 4 | (300×0.5×0.6)/4 = 22.5 |
Resulting ranked roadmap:
| Rank | Item | Score | Owner | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | PDP bulb-inclusion module | 2,520 | Merch / PDP team | Highest reach, low effort, directly cuts the #1 return reason |
| 2 | Glass-shade packaging upgrade | 810 | Ops / Fulfillment | Blocker severity; broken arrivals are pure refund cost |
| 3 | Dimmer compatibility checker | 480 | Product/Eng | High-friction pre-purchase confusion; medium effort |
| 4 | Color-temp swatches | 280 | Merch / Photo | Cheap expectation-setting fix; reduces "looks wrong" returns |
| 5 | Assembly guide rewrite | 200 | CX / Content | Real but lower-impact; workaround exists |
Wishlist drops to the monitor list (n=9, low score). Note the bulb-inclusion fix and color-temp swatches together attack the return-rate problem from two angles.
Store: PaceForge, a running-apparel store. ~25,000 orders/quarter, AOV $65. Sources: Trustpilot + on-site reviews, NPS survey free-text, Instagram DMs, and return-reason codes. Here we use weighted impact/effort/urgency because a seasonal deadline (spring marathon season) makes urgency a first-class factor.
Weights agreed by team: Impact 50%, Urgency 30%, Effort 20% (inverted — low effort scores high). Each factor scored 1-5. Score = (Impact×0.5) + (Urgency×0.3) + (EffortInverse×0.2), all on a 5-point scale.
Clustered themes (distinct mentions, 90-day):
| Theme | Mentions | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- |
| Sizing runs small / inconsistent across styles | 188 | Major |
| Returns label costs $7 (customer-paid) frustration | 74 | Major |
| Out-of-stock on popular sizes during launches | 53 | Major |
| Sweat-wicking claim doesn't match experience | 31 | Minor |
| Checkout rejects some Apple Pay cards | 19 | Blocker |
| App push notifications too frequent | 14 | Cosmetic |
Scoring (5-point factors; EffortInv = 6 − effort):
| Item | Impact | Urgency | Effort | EffortInv | Weighted Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Per-style size guide + "true to size" review tags | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | (5×.5)+(4×.3)+(3×.2)=4.3 |
| Fix Apple Pay card rejection | 4 | 5 | 2 | 4 | (4×.5)+(5×.3)+(4×.2)=4.3 |
| Free returns for loyalty members | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | (4×.5)+(4×.3)+(2×.2)=3.6 |
| Size-level back-in-stock alerts | 4 | 5 | 4 | 2 | (4×.5)+(5×.3)+(2×.2)=3.9 |
| Clarify sweat-wicking copy + add tech spec | 2 | 2 | 2 | 4 | (2×.5)+(2×.3)+(4×.2)=2.4 |
| Notification frequency controls | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | (2×.5)+(1×.3)+(3×.2)=1.9 |
Resulting ranked roadmap (tie at 4.3 broken by severity — Apple Pay is a Blocker):
| Rank | Item | Score | Owner | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | Fix Apple Pay card rejection | 4.3 | Eng / Payments | Blocker losing orders silently; max urgency before marathon-season traffic |
| 2 | Per-style size guide + fit tags | 4.3 | Merch + CX | 188 mentions, top return driver; urgent before peak; medium effort |
| 3 | Size-level back-in-stock alerts | 3.9 | Eng / Growth | Captures demand lost at launch; high urgency for spring drops |
| 4 | Free returns for loyalty members | 3.6 | Finance + CX | Real frustration but cost/effort high; pilot to one tier first |
| 5 | Sweat-wicking copy fix | 2.4 | Content | Low-cost expectation fix; do opportunistically |
Notification controls go to the monitor list. Note the Apple Pay item had only 19 mentions but ranks #1 — severity and urgency, not raw count, carried it. This is exactly why frequency alone is a weak prioritizer.
references/output-template.md — Fill-in template for the finished roadmap: exec summary, signal inventory, theme cluster table, prioritized roadmap table, and parking-lot/monitor section.references/prioritization-frameworks.md — Formulas, numeric examples, and when-to-use guidance for RICE, ICE, Impact/Effort 2x2, weighted urgency scoring, and a Kano must-have/delighter lens.references/feedback-clustering-guide.md — How to normalize and cluster raw feedback: de-duping, tagging taxonomy, symptom vs root cause, source/value weighting, severity rubric, and small-sample handling.assets/quality-checklist.md — A pre-publish checklist across signal coverage, clustering, quantification, prioritization rigor, evidence, ownership, clarity, and cadence.共 2 个版本