Feedback — the session's experience, written where it can be acted on

An agent passes through its own instruments all day: skills that fitted or misled, a tool description that promised something the surface does not do, a rule that was right and still let a case through. None of it reaches whoever maintains those instruments, because the session ends and takes it with it.

The unit is a case, not an opinion. "The skill is confusing" cannot be acted on. "The rule says X, I did Y, and nothing refused me" can. What makes feedback usable is the same thing that makes a counterexample usable: something specific happened, and it is reproducible enough to argue with.

When this fires

By itself, on non-trivial experience — you do not wait to be asked. Non-trivial means one of these actually happened to you:

• a rule exists, you read it, and a case still escaped it;
• a description promised behaviour the surface does not have — you found out by attempting the move;
• a repair worked, and you cannot say it addressed the cause;
• a step had no sign of its own, so nothing would have told you it was skipped;
• you reached for an instrument and it returned nothing, where the thing existed under another name.

And the user can call it directly — /feedback, in their own words. Offer that when they say something about the instruments that is worth keeping and has nowhere else to go. A person's complaint is already a case; your job is the form, the check, and the placement, not the judgement of whether it counts.

What does not fire it: something that worked as documented; a difficulty that was yours rather than the instrument's; a preference. A field full of "I would have liked" is a field nobody reads.