bots.new_
Sign in
USE CASECustomer SupportAdvanced

“An Instagram bug report that routes itself to QA”

Dan Peguine's Grok Bot watches his Instagram inbox. A website-bug complaint got routed to a QA bot in the Ship channel (with his engineer bot 'David'); QA tested the funnel, found nothing, and had a Writer bot reply — and a real bug would have become David's fix and a PR.

Grok·0.0·0 saves·11 uses·via @danpeguine·Tweet by @danpeguine
Open @danpeguine on X

How it runs

5 steps. Do them in order.

  1. 01Give an inbox-watcher bot access to your Instagram (or other social) inbox to catch incoming complaints and bug reports.
  2. 02Create a shared **Ship channel** holding a **QA** bot and an **engineer** bot (Dan's is named 'David').
  3. 03When a bug is reported, the watcher posts it into the Ship channel and tags QA.
  4. 04QA reproduces it — tests the funnel/flow the customer described. If nothing's wrong, a **Writer** bot drafts the reply back to the customer.
  5. 05If QA finds a real bug, the engineer bot fixes it and opens a PR for your review. Keep the customer reply and the PR merge behind your approval.

What you get

It's a whole support desk and a slice of an engineering team wired together. One complaint in a social inbox becomes a reproduction attempt, a real reply, and — when warranted — a fix and a PR, with the humans only in the approval seats. The clever bit is the shared channel as the handoff surface: support, QA, and engineering bots passing one issue between them instead of a person forwarding screenshots around.

Prompt

Copy it. Change the names. Keep the job.

Prompt
You run my front-line support-to-engineering loop across a team. Watch my social inbox and turn bug reports into either a clear reply or a fix.

When a message looks like a bug report or complaint about the product:
1. Post a concise summary into the Ship channel and tag the QA bot: what the customer said, where, and any link.
2. QA: reproduce it — walk the exact flow/funnel described. Report what you actually observed.
3. If QA finds no problem: the Writer bot drafts a friendly reply to the customer explaining what you checked. Show it to me before sending.
4. If QA confirms a bug: the engineer bot proposes a fix and opens a PR for my review — do not merge without me. Then the Writer drafts the customer reply once a fix is in motion.

Rules: never tell a customer something is fixed unless it is; never merge or ship without my approval; keep the whole thread visible in the Ship channel so I can see who did what.
Use withGrok

via @danpeguine · Tweet by @danpeguine

Tips

  • ·A Curator reconstruction of Dan's multi-bot setup. To adapt: give an inbox-watcher access to your social DMs, put a QA bot and an engineer bot in one shared channel, define the report→reproduce→fix/reply path, and keep the customer reply and any PR merge behind approval.
  • ·none
  • ·acts-with-approval

Related setups

Same category. Different job.

More in Customer Support →

Reply by text, and it works the helpdesk for you

Jesse Hanley’s thread is not a one-liner dump: he already runs a support bot against Bento Chat / helpdesk. It sweeps a few times a day, summarises what is assigned or escalated, and he texts back what to do — then it hits the admin MCP. “This is what I’ve done and it’s fantastic.”

Customer Support·Moderate·0 saves
Setup

One ticket, a root-caused PR, and a reply by morning

Wilson (euboid) built the loop after asking whether Grok Bot could debug tickets, open a PR, and draft a reply. Incoming ticket → agent reads Fern docs, codebase, Axiom logs → bug gets RCA + PR + Linear, feature request hits the board, customer reply is drafted in his voice.

Customer Support·Moderate·0 saves
Setup