{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_feedback-ai","slug":"feedback-ai","name":"Feedback AI","type":"product","url":"https://feedbackbyai.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/feedback-ai","categories":["text-writing"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"freemium","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_0","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.real.time.developmental.feedback.generation","name":"real-time developmental feedback generation","description":"Analyzes writing drafts via LLM inference to generate constructive critique on prose quality, narrative structure, pacing, and clarity. The system processes submitted text through a feedback prompt template that instructs the language model to emulate developmental editor commentary, returning structured critique organized by feedback category (character development, plot coherence, dialogue authenticity, etc.). Feedback is generated synchronously with minimal latency to enable immediate iteration.","intents":["I want instant feedback on my draft without waiting days for a human editor to respond","I need to understand which sections of my writing are unclear or structurally weak","I want to iterate rapidly on multiple versions of a scene to find the strongest version"],"best_for":["indie authors and self-published writers in commercial genres (romance, thriller, sci-fi)","content creators producing high-volume output who need quick feedback loops","writers in the drafting phase who prioritize speed over stylistic nuance"],"limitations":["Feedback lacks contextual understanding of authorial voice and intent — often suggests generic improvements that flatten distinctive writing styles","No persistent memory of previous feedback or writing goals across sessions, so repeated suggestions may occur","LLM-generated critique can miss subtle narrative problems that require deep reading comprehension","Feedback quality degrades on experimental or avant-garde writing styles outside the model's training distribution"],"requires":["Active internet connection for LLM API calls","Text input between 100-5000 words (estimated based on typical usage)","Account creation (freemium tier available)"],"input_types":["plain text","formatted text (markdown, basic HTML)"],"output_types":["structured feedback text","categorized critique (prose quality, structure, character, dialogue, etc.)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_1","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.genre.agnostic.idea.prompt.generation","name":"genre-agnostic idea prompt generation","description":"Generates contextual writing prompts and narrative suggestions based on the current draft content, using the submitted text as semantic context to suggest plot complications, character arcs, dialogue directions, or scene expansions. The system analyzes the draft's existing narrative elements (characters, setting, conflict) and uses LLM generation to propose story developments that extend or deepen the work. Prompts are designed to overcome writer's block by providing concrete narrative directions rather than abstract inspiration.","intents":["I'm stuck on what happens next in my story and need concrete narrative suggestions","I want ideas for how to develop a character's arc or backstory","I need suggestions for plot complications or twists that fit my existing story"],"best_for":["prolific writers who experience frequent writer's block and benefit from external ideation","commercial fiction authors (romance, thriller, sci-fi) where plot-driven suggestions are most applicable","writers in early-to-middle drafting phases who haven't yet locked narrative direction"],"limitations":["Suggestions are genre-agnostic — literary fiction writers receive identical prompt types as romance authors, reducing applicability for voice-driven or experimental work","Generated ideas may not align with the writer's thematic intentions or long-term story arc if not explicitly stated in the draft","Prompt suggestions can be generic or clichéd, especially for well-trodden genre tropes","No memory of previously rejected suggestions, so repeated prompts may occur across sessions"],"requires":["Active internet connection","Minimum 500 words of draft text to provide sufficient narrative context","Account with idea-prompt feature enabled (may be premium-only)"],"input_types":["plain text draft","partial manuscript sections"],"output_types":["narrative prompt suggestions (text)","character development ideas (text)","plot complication suggestions (text)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_2","uri":"capability://memory.knowledge.iterative.draft.comparison.and.refinement.tracking","name":"iterative draft comparison and refinement tracking","description":"Maintains session-level history of submitted drafts and corresponding feedback, enabling writers to compare multiple versions of the same passage and track how feedback has been applied across iterations. The system stores draft snapshots with associated feedback and allows side-by-side comparison of revisions. This creates an audit trail of the writing process and helps writers identify which feedback suggestions produced the strongest improvements.","intents":["I want to see how my writing has improved across multiple revision passes","I need to compare two versions of the same scene to decide which is stronger","I want to track which feedback suggestions actually improved my writing"],"best_for":["writers who revise heavily and benefit from seeing iteration history","authors testing different narrative approaches and needing objective comparison","writers building a personal feedback database for their own style development"],"limitations":["Session history is not persistent across logout/account deletion — no long-term archive of writing evolution","Comparison interface likely limited to text-level diffs rather than semantic analysis of improvement quality","No integration with external version control (Git) or manuscript management tools","Tracking is passive — system does not actively recommend which feedback to prioritize or apply"],"requires":["User account with session persistence enabled","Multiple draft submissions within same session or account","Browser with local storage or server-side session management"],"input_types":["multiple text drafts of same passage"],"output_types":["side-by-side draft comparison (text diff)","revision history timeline","feedback-to-revision mapping"],"categories":["memory-knowledge","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.freemium.tiered.access.with.feature.gating","name":"freemium tiered access with feature gating","description":"Implements a freemium business model where core feedback generation is available on the free tier with limited monthly submissions, while premium tiers unlock higher submission quotas, advanced feedback categories, and priority LLM inference. The system uses account-level quotas and feature flags to gate access, allowing writers to test the core feedback workflow before committing to paid subscription. Free tier is intentionally useful for drafting-phase work to reduce friction for new users.","intents":["I want to try AI-assisted feedback without paying upfront","I need unlimited feedback submissions for my full manuscript","I want access to advanced feedback types (e.g., genre-specific critique, sensitivity reading)"],"best_for":["indie authors and hobbyist writers evaluating AI editing tools with low budget","professional writers who need high-volume feedback and can justify subscription cost","teams or writing groups sharing a premium account for collaborative feedback"],"limitations":["Free tier quotas (likely 5-10 submissions/month) are insufficient for heavy revision workflows, forcing upgrade","Premium features are not transparently documented — users must upgrade to discover advanced feedback types","No trial period for premium features — users cannot test advanced feedback before committing to paid plan","Quota resets are likely monthly, creating artificial scarcity and potential frustration for writers in intensive revision phases"],"requires":["Email address for account creation","Payment method for premium tier (credit card, PayPal, etc.)","No technical prerequisites beyond web browser"],"input_types":["account signup data","payment information (premium tier)"],"output_types":["account tier status","quota usage metrics","feature access flags"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_4","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.llm.based.prose.quality.assessment","name":"llm-based prose quality assessment","description":"Evaluates submitted text for prose-level issues (clarity, conciseness, word choice, sentence variety, passive voice, redundancy) using LLM-guided analysis rather than rule-based grammar checking. The system prompts the language model to identify specific prose weaknesses and suggest improvements, generating feedback that addresses stylistic and readability issues beyond mechanical grammar. Assessment is context-aware, considering the surrounding narrative rather than evaluating sentences in isolation.","intents":["I want to know which sentences are unclear or hard to parse","I need feedback on my word choice and whether it's precise and evocative","I want to identify overused phrases or redundant descriptions in my draft"],"best_for":["commercial fiction writers who prioritize readability and pacing over stylistic experimentation","content creators writing for broad audiences where clarity is paramount","writers in revision phases who have completed structural edits and are polishing prose"],"limitations":["LLM-based assessment can be inconsistent — same prose may receive different feedback across multiple submissions due to model stochasticity","Suggestions often favor conventional prose style, potentially flattening distinctive authorial voice or experimental syntax","Assessment lacks understanding of intentional stylistic choices — may flag literary devices (repetition, fragments, unusual syntax) as errors","No customization for genre-specific prose conventions (e.g., literary fiction vs. romance vs. technical writing have different stylistic norms)"],"requires":["Text input of 100+ words","Active internet connection for LLM API calls","Account with prose-assessment feature enabled"],"input_types":["plain text","formatted text (markdown)"],"output_types":["prose quality feedback (text)","specific improvement suggestions (text)","readability metrics (estimated)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_5","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.narrative.structure.and.pacing.feedback","name":"narrative structure and pacing feedback","description":"Analyzes draft structure to identify pacing issues, narrative flow problems, and plot coherence gaps using LLM-based analysis of scene sequencing and tension arcs. The system evaluates how scenes connect, whether pacing accelerates appropriately toward climax, and whether plot threads are adequately resolved. Feedback addresses macro-level narrative architecture rather than sentence-level prose, helping writers identify structural revisions needed before final polish.","intents":["I want to know if my story's pacing feels right or if scenes drag","I need feedback on whether my plot threads are resolved satisfactorily","I want to identify where my narrative loses momentum or coherence"],"best_for":["plot-driven fiction writers (thriller, mystery, romance, sci-fi) where pacing and structure are critical","authors revising full manuscripts or substantial chapters who need structural feedback","writers transitioning from short-form to long-form fiction who need guidance on sustained narrative tension"],"limitations":["Structural analysis requires substantial text input (likely 5000+ words minimum) to assess pacing and coherence, limiting utility for short scenes","LLM-based analysis may miss subtle structural problems that require deep thematic understanding or familiarity with genre conventions","Feedback is generic across genres — literary fiction, romance, and thriller writers receive identical structural suggestions despite different conventions","No integration with outline tools or scene-level metadata, so analysis is limited to text content alone"],"requires":["Minimum 5000 words of draft text (full chapter or substantial section)","Narrative content with clear scene boundaries and plot progression","Account with structure-feedback feature enabled"],"input_types":["full chapter or manuscript section (text)","multi-scene narrative content"],"output_types":["pacing feedback (text)","structure analysis (text)","plot coherence assessment (text)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_6","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.character.consistency.and.development.feedback","name":"character consistency and development feedback","description":"Evaluates character arcs, consistency, and development across the submitted draft by analyzing character actions, dialogue, motivations, and emotional progression using LLM-based narrative analysis. The system identifies inconsistencies in character behavior, flags underdeveloped arcs, and suggests opportunities for deeper character exploration. Feedback addresses whether character motivations are clear, whether emotional beats feel earned, and whether character voices are distinct.","intents":["I want to know if my character's behavior is consistent throughout the story","I need feedback on whether my character's arc feels complete and earned","I want to identify where my character's motivations are unclear or unconvincing"],"best_for":["character-driven fiction writers (literary fiction, romance, character studies) where emotional authenticity is paramount","authors revising manuscripts with multiple POV characters who need consistency checks","writers developing complex character arcs across multiple chapters or books"],"limitations":["Character analysis requires sufficient text to establish patterns — short scenes may not provide enough data for meaningful feedback","LLM-based analysis can miss subtle character inconsistencies or misinterpret intentional character growth as inconsistency","Feedback lacks understanding of character archetypes or genre conventions — may suggest changes that violate genre expectations","No integration with character sheets or metadata, so analysis is limited to textual evidence alone","Feedback is generic across genres — literary fiction and romance writers receive identical character suggestions despite different conventions"],"requires":["Minimum 2000 words of text with clear character presence and dialogue","Multiple scenes or chapters to establish character patterns","Account with character-feedback feature enabled"],"input_types":["narrative text with character dialogue and action","multi-scene content with character interactions"],"output_types":["character consistency feedback (text)","arc development assessment (text)","motivation clarity feedback (text)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_feedback-ai__cap_7","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.dialogue.authenticity.and.voice.assessment","name":"dialogue authenticity and voice assessment","description":"Evaluates dialogue quality, character voice distinctiveness, and conversational authenticity using LLM-based analysis of speech patterns, word choice, and emotional subtext. The system identifies dialogue that feels stilted or exposition-heavy, flags characters with indistinguishable voices, and suggests opportunities for more natural or revealing dialogue. Assessment considers whether dialogue serves narrative function (advancing plot, revealing character) beyond mere conversation.","intents":["I want feedback on whether my dialogue sounds natural or stilted","I need to know if my characters have distinct voices or if they all sound the same","I want to identify dialogue that's exposition-heavy and could be more subtle"],"best_for":["dialogue-heavy fiction writers (literary fiction, contemporary romance, thrillers) where character voice is critical","authors writing in specific dialects or regional voices who need authenticity feedback","writers revising dialogue-intensive scenes who want to improve naturalness and distinctiveness"],"limitations":["LLM-based dialogue assessment can be inconsistent — same dialogue may receive different feedback across submissions","Suggestions often favor conventional, naturalistic dialogue, potentially flattening intentional stylistic choices (e.g., heightened language, poetic speech)","Assessment lacks cultural context — may flag authentic regional dialects or non-native speaker speech patterns as errors","No integration with character metadata, so voice distinctiveness analysis is limited to textual patterns alone","Feedback is generic across genres — literary fiction and romance writers receive identical dialogue suggestions despite different conventions"],"requires":["Minimum 1000 words of dialogue-heavy text","Multiple characters with distinct dialogue to enable voice comparison","Account with dialogue-feedback feature enabled"],"input_types":["narrative text with character dialogue","dialogue-heavy scenes"],"output_types":["dialogue authenticity feedback (text)","voice distinctiveness assessment (text)","exposition-heavy dialogue identification (text)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":39,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Active internet connection for LLM API calls","Text input between 100-5000 words (estimated based on typical usage)","Account creation (freemium tier available)","Active internet connection","Minimum 500 words of draft text to provide sufficient narrative context","Account with idea-prompt feature enabled (may be premium-only)","User account with session persistence enabled","Multiple draft submissions within same session or account","Browser with local storage or server-side session management","Email address for account creation"],"failure_modes":["Feedback lacks contextual understanding of authorial voice and intent — often suggests generic improvements that flatten distinctive writing styles","No persistent memory of previous feedback or writing goals across sessions, so repeated suggestions may occur","LLM-generated critique can miss subtle narrative problems that require deep reading comprehension","Feedback quality degrades on experimental or avant-garde writing styles outside the model's training distribution","Suggestions are genre-agnostic — literary fiction writers receive identical prompt types as romance authors, reducing applicability for voice-driven or experimental work","Generated ideas may not align with the writer's thematic intentions or long-term story arc if not explicitly stated in the draft","Prompt suggestions can be generic or clichéd, especially for well-trodden genre tropes","No memory of previously rejected suggestions, so repeated prompts may occur across sessions","Session history is not persistent across logout/account deletion — no long-term archive of writing evolution","Comparison interface likely limited to text-level diffs rather than semantic analysis of improvement quality","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.31666666666666665,"quality":0.67,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.892Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.561Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=feedback-ai","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=feedback-ai"}},"signature":"6U75rJVJYpmcf6XTW7BjMTE3STlceAlLnMqC6Vim2MT7I59KiZjigNx+tZ2u1G6nPA1AC23zvfswbavfMTMQCA==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T18:14:56.840Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/feedback-ai","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/feedback-ai","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=feedback-ai","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}