# Reddit Feedback Incorporation Process > Compiled 2026-05-19 by the Reddit Community Engagement Lead agent. > > **The thesis**: the operator told us *"redditでコミュニティに参加し、議論 > をし、その結果を取り込むことで、一緒に作り上げているかんを出すのも良い"* > — join Reddit communities, engage in discussions, and incorporate the > results to create a building-together feeling. > > The phrase **"building together"** is load-bearing. If we treat Reddit > as a marketing channel, we will fail (and deserve to). If we treat > Reddit replies as PIP-candidate input, we get a co-design loop that > compounds with the existing PIP process. > > This document defines the formal mechanics of that loop. It is short > and ritualistic on purpose — the value comes from doing it every time, > not from a clever process. ## Goals 1. **Every substantive Reddit critique becomes a tracked item.** Nothing gets lost in DMs or buried in old threads. 2. **Every accepted suggestion explicitly cites the contributor.** No silent appropriation. No "thanks for the feedback" boilerplate. 3. **The path from Reddit comment → PIP is short and visible.** A contributor who pushed back on a design choice should be able to click through from their comment to the PIP that incorporated their input (and the line in the spec that changed because of it). 4. **The public-facing index makes the loop legible to outsiders.** A first-time visitor should be able to see at a glance "this protocol incorporates community input" without taking our word for it. ## Roles - **The Engagement Lead** (this agent's successor on each cycle) reads threads, captures critiques, files tickets, drafts thank-you posts. - **The Protocol Designer** (sibling agent) reviews captured tickets weekly, decides which become PIP candidates. - **The Operator** (human) reviews PIP candidates before they ship to the public PIPs folder. The operator owns the decision of "does this community input become a protocol commitment". ## The five-step loop ### Step 1 — Read every reply within 24h of posting When a Reddit reply (whether to our proactive post or our reply on someone else's thread) lands, the Engagement Lead: - Reads the full thread, not just the direct reply. - Categorises each substantive response into one of: - **agreement** (no action, but note who said it), - **clarification request** (answer in-thread within 24h), - **critique of a design choice** (file a Community Input ticket), - **proposal of an alternative design** (file a Community Input ticket marked `pip-candidate: true`), - **off-topic / hostile / spam** (no action; do not engage flame). Boilerplate "thanks for the feedback" replies are **prohibited**. Every reply to a critique must (a) name the contributor by username, (b) quote the specific point being addressed, (c) say either "adopted", "rejected with reason", or "filed for review at docs/CI/CI-NNN.md". ### Step 2 — File a Community Input ticket for each critique The ticket lives at `docs/CI/CI-NNN.md` (zero-padded incrementing id; next available is whatever `ls docs/CI/CI-*.md | sort | tail -1` is). It follows `docs/CI/TEMPLATE.md`. At minimum it captures: - Reddit permalink + commenter username + verbatim quote (≤200 words). - The specific design choice the critique targets. - The Engagement Lead's initial reaction: probably-adopt / probably-reject / needs-design-review. - `pip-candidate: true|false`. The ticket is filed within 24h of the comment landing. The commenter is **named in the ticket title** (e.g., `CI-007.md: @u_someuser on kind 53 verifier eligibility`). ### Step 3 — Weekly review of all open Community Input tickets The Protocol Designer reviews every open ticket weekly. For each: - **Adopted as-is** → ticket links to the doc change PR; close. - **Adopted with modification** → ticket annotates the modification; link to PR; close. - **Rejected** → ticket records the specific reason; close. The Engagement Lead replies to the Reddit comment with the rejection reason within 48h of close. - **Promoted to PIP candidate** → a new PIP draft is created at `docs/PIPs/PIP-NNN-draft.md`, the PIP draft cites the CI ticket and the Reddit permalink in its `## Origin` section, and the CI ticket is updated with the PIP number. ### Step 4 — Cite the contributor in the PIP and in the spec When a PIP that incorporates community input lands, the PIP's `## Acknowledgements` section names the contributor by Reddit username and links to the original comment. Example: ```markdown ## Acknowledgements This PIP incorporates a specific design alternative proposed by Reddit user @u_someuser in [this comment](https://reddit.com/r/AI_Agents/comments/.../comment/...) on 2026-05-22. The PIP draft author thanks @u_someuser for the counter-proposal and notes that the kind 53 verifier-eligibility check specified in §3 of this PIP would not exist without their input. ``` When the spec changes as a result of a landed PIP, the spec's `## Change history` (or equivalent) cites the PIP number; the PIP cites the CI ticket; the CI ticket cites the Reddit comment. The chain contributor → PIP → spec is queryable end-to-end. ### Step 5 — Public-facing index `docs/CI/INDEX.md` lists every Community Input ticket with status, contributor, sub, permalink, and outcome. It is updated whenever a ticket is filed or changes state. The index is **publicly visible at https://anp2.com/docs/CI/INDEX.md** (no auth) so that any prospective contributor can confirm we actually do this. ## Anti-patterns (banned) - "Thanks for the feedback, we'll consider it." — boilerplate, no citation, no commitment. Never use. - Quietly incorporating a Reddit suggestion without filing a CI ticket and citing the contributor. This is silent appropriation; it destroys the building-together signal even when the suggestion was good. - Cherry-picking which Reddit critiques to acknowledge. Every substantive critique gets a CI ticket. Even ones we reject. - Closing a CI ticket without replying back to the Reddit thread. The contributor must know their input was processed. - DMing the contributor to "take it offline". The whole point is the loop is public. If a contributor explicitly asks for a private channel, fine; otherwise stay in-thread. - Citing contributors only by their pubkey / handle without saying thank-you by name. The contributor's name is part of the citation, not metadata. ## What this is NOT - It is not a contributor-licence assignment. Reddit comments are not governed by CLA; we cite the contributor, we do not claim authorship of their idea. If a Reddit suggestion becomes a protocol commitment, the protocol commits — the contributor retains the moral credit and is named publicly. - It is not a guarantee that every critique gets implemented. Many will be rejected. The commitment is that every critique gets *considered, tracked, and answered* — not that every critique wins. - It is not a substitute for the existing PIP process. CI tickets feed into PIPs; PIPs are the binding instrument. CI tickets that don't become PIPs are still useful as design-review evidence. ## Cadence - Reading replies: every 24h while a thread is active (<14 days old). - Filing CI tickets: within 24h of a substantive reply landing. - Protocol Designer review: weekly (Mondays). - PIP draft creation: within 7d of a CI ticket being promoted. - Reply to Reddit thread with adoption/rejection: within 48h of ticket close. - INDEX.md update: real-time, on every ticket file/change. ## Initial folder layout (created today) ``` docs/CI/ ├── TEMPLATE.md — copy-and-rename for each new CI ticket ├── INDEX.md — public-facing list of all CI tickets and their status └── CI-NNN.md — one per substantive Reddit critique (none yet) ``` The first ticket will land when the first Reddit reply lands. Until then, INDEX.md notes "no tickets yet — the engagement loop has not started because we have not posted to Reddit yet." ## Closing note The operator's framing — "一緒に作り上げているかんを出す" / *create a building-together feeling* — is not aesthetic. It is a structural choice about who owns the protocol. The CI process is how that choice becomes observable from the outside. Skipping it is not a time-saver; it is a betrayal of the framing. — End of document.