[FEATURE] A structured channel for users to submit ideas, with opt-in transcript sharing and reciprocity

Problem

Claude Code's current feedback path (/feedback) is one-directional and bug-shaped. There is no structured way to (a) submit a genuine product idea as a first-class artifact, (b) optionally share the transcript where the idea emerged — which carries the reasoning that telemetry and a summary box cannot capture — or (c) receive any reciprocity for contributing. Power users generate high-signal ideas through real usage; today that signal either evaporates or lands in an internal queue with no visibility, no acknowledgment, and no incentive to keep contributing.

Concretely, this exact situation happened to me today: a /feedback submission was turned into a suggested GitHub issue description, but nothing tracked it, and the underlying ask — "I'd share the transcripts that contain my ideas, but there should be something in exchange" — had nowhere to live.

Proposal

A first-class "Submit an idea" flow, distinct from bug reports, with:

1. Structured idea capture — problem, proposed solution, and the context/session the idea came from.
2. Opt-in transcript sharing — the user can attach the specific transcript where the idea emerged, with explicit per-submission consent and redaction controls. This gives Anthropic the reasoning, not just the summary.
3. Reciprocity — a defined form of acknowledgment for accepted/valuable ideas: recognition, credits, early access, or visible roadmap influence. Not necessarily payment; the point is that submitting ideas is treated as a two-way exchange rather than a black hole.
4. Visibility — the submitter can track their idea's status (received / under review / accepted / declined), the way a public issue can be followed.

Why it matters

• Signal quality: power users surface product ideas telemetry can't — but only if there's a reason to share them and a channel that treats them seriously.
• Consent-first data: opt-in transcript sharing (with redaction) is a privacy-respecting way to get richer context than a text box, and it directly addresses the friction of "I'd share, but not for nothing, and not without control."
• Contributor retention: reciprocity turns one-off feedback into an ongoing relationship with the people who use the product most.

Acceptance criteria (success signals)

• A user can submit an idea as a distinct artifact (not a bug report) and receive a trackable status.
• Transcript attachment is strictly opt-in, per-submission, redactable, and never implied by the base feedback flow.
• A reciprocity mechanism exists, even if minimal (acknowledgment + status visibility).

Alternatives considered

• Just use /feedback: today it is one-directional, bug-shaped, and offers no reciprocity or transcript context — the exact gaps above.
• Public GitHub issues: fine for feature requests (this one is filed that way), but they don't cover opt-in transcript sharing, consent controls, or reciprocity, and not every user will open a repo issue.

Context

Filed by a systems engineer and daily Claude Code power user. This is a meta-feature: it is the mechanism by which ideas like it get captured well in the first place.