Testimonial harvester

Testimonial Harvester

Turns scattered praise — support threads, DMs, community posts, feedback forms — into a structured testimonial library the user can legally and confidently publish. Three stages: find the candidates, ask permission (drafts only), record the approved quote with its usage rights. The standard: no quote is ever published without explicit permission on record, and no permission-ask is ever sent by the agent.

When to Use

• User wants social proof for a landing page, deck, or launch post.
• A pile of feedback exists (inbox export, community channel, form responses) and nobody has mined it.
• A customer just said something great and the user wants to capture it properly.
• Not for: working complaints — use customer-support-inbox. Not for messaging people with no prior relationship — use cold-outreach-sequencer.

Quick Reference

Action	Command / Call
Sweep feedback for praise signals	`grep -n -i -E "love
Testimonial library	testimonials.md in the marketing folder — one entry per quote with status + rights
Check for duplicates	grep -i "{customer name}" testimonials.md
Count approved quotes	grep -c "Status: approved" testimonials.md
Check for pending asks going stale	grep -B2 "Status: pending" testimonials.md — nudge once after ~10 days, then let it go
Never re-ask list	grep -B2 "Status: declined" testimonials.md

Procedure

1. Precheck — locate the feedback source(s) and testimonials.md (create it with a header if missing). Confirm with the user which channels are fair game to mine — private messages are only usable with the sender's permission anyway, but don't even harvest from channels the user says are off-limits.
2. Mine candidates — read the source, then run the grep sweep to catch anything missed. A candidate needs: a specific outcome or feeling (not just "great product"), the customer's name/handle, and where/when they said it. Rank by specificity — "cut my invoicing from 3 hours to 20 minutes" beats "love it!".
3. Draft permission asks (drafts only) — for each candidate, draft a short personal message: quote back exactly what they said, ask permission to use it, and offer the choice of name + title/company, first name only, or anonymous. One message per person, warm not legalese. The agent never sends these — the user copies and sends personally; personal asks convert better anyway.
4. Record responses — when the user reports back, update each entry's status: approved, approved-with-edits (store their edited version verbatim), anonymous-only, or declined (keep the entry so nobody re-asks — mark it clearly and never surface the quote again).
5. Structure approved quotes — for each approval, finalize the library entry per the template: exact quote, attribution level granted, where it may be used (web/social/deck/ads — as granted, not assumed), date, and source link/reference. Tighten quotes for length only with the customer's OK; never change meaning.
6. Deliver — output new candidates, permission-ask drafts, and the current library scoreboard (approved / pending / declined).

Output Template

# Testimonial Harvest — {Date}

## New candidates ({n})
1. {Name} — "{exact quote}" — {source, date} — specificity: high/med

## Permission-ask drafts (you send these — I don't)
### To {Name}
> {draft message quoting their words, asking permission + attribution preference}

## Library entry format (testimonials.md)
### {Name} — {Title, Company | first name | anonymous}
Quote: "{final approved text}"
Rights: {web / social / deck / ads} · Attribution: {level granted}
Status: approved · Asked: {date} · Approved: {date} · Source: {link/ref}

## Scoreboard
Approved {n} · Pending {n} · Declined {n} (never re-ask)

Pitfalls

• Quote used before permission lands — a "pending" quote ends up on the landing page; trust and possibly law broken. Recovery: only Status: approved entries are publishable; audit any live copy against the library and pull anything unapproved.
• Attribution beyond what was granted — customer approved "first name only" and the site shows full name + company. Recovery: the Rights and Attribution lines are the contract; check them before every use and fix the live copy immediately.
• Polished quote no longer sounds human — over-editing turns "honestly this saved my launch" into marketing mush. Recovery: keep the customer's exact words; if you must trim, show them the trimmed version and get a fresh OK.
• Re-asking someone who declined — feels pushy, burns the relationship. Recovery: declined entries stay in the library as tombstones; grep for the name before drafting any ask.
• Agent sends the permission asks — never; personal asks from the founder convert and the rail is drafts-only. Recovery: output text drafts, no send calls of any kind.

Verification

• Every candidate has name, exact quote, source, and date — nothing paraphrased
• Permission-ask drafts exist as text only; zero messages sent by the agent
• testimonials.md entries carry Status, Rights, and Attribution fields
• No approved-count mismatch: grep -c "Status: approved" equals the scoreboard number
• Declined entries preserved and excluded from all publishable output
• Candidates ranked by specificity, with the outcome-bearing quotes on top