Loom for Claude Code? How to Give a Coding Agent Visual Feedback

You see a problem on screen and you want Claude Code to fix it. Loom is the tool many people use to show a problem. So the question is natural: can you record a Loom and hand it to Claude Code? This guide looks at what Loom offers for AI agents, where a plain video link falls short, and another option on Mac.

We make Quibble, a Mac screen recorder. We say plainly where Loom is the better choice.

A video link is made for people

A Loom link is made for a person to watch. A person can see the cursor, hear the voice and read the comments.

Claude Code works from text and images. Anthropic's Claude Code docs describe adding images (drag and drop, Ctrl+V paste, or a file path). We did not find a section about video links or video files in the docs we read, so we do not claim what Claude Code can or cannot do with one. What we can say is simple: text and screenshots are the formats the docs describe, and they are easy to paste. A link to a video is a person's format.

If you want the agent to act on a video, the useful part is usually the words you said and the frames you pointed at. That is what the options below turn into text.

What Loom offers for AI agents

Loom has a mode for this. Atlassian's support page says Record for agent turns a recording into a structured prompt for agents such as Rovo or Claude. From that page:

• It captures your spoken instructions as a transcript, keyframes (including things you select or draw), click locations and visited URLs. In the Chrome extension it also captures console and network logs.
• The result is an agent prompt split into tasks, with transcript quotes, visual references and timestamps.
• You can use Send to agent, which can open a supported agent with the prompt filled in, open it in Jira, or copy the prompt as markdown.
• It is in open beta, for Business + AI and Enterprise plans, in the Chrome extension and the desktop app 2.0 or later. Recordings are limited to five minutes, and the camera is turned off.

If you already pay for Loom Business + AI, try this first. The console and network logs are useful for web bugs, and Quibble does not capture them.

Where Loom is better

• Share links and team comments. Loom gives you a link, and people can reply. Quibble has no cloud upload and no share links.
• A person who needs to watch. If a designer or a manager needs to see the video, a link is easier than a file.
• Other platforms. Loom runs on more than Mac. Quibble needs a Mac with Apple silicon and macOS 15 or later.
• Team plans. Loom is built for teams. One Quibble license covers one Mac.
• Web details. Loom's agent mode can include URLs and, in Chrome, console and network logs.

For a full side-by-side, see Quibble vs Loom.

An option on Mac: copy notes and screenshots from a recording

Quibble is for a different job: you are a solo developer or designer on a Mac, and you want to point at several problems and hand them to a coding agent. Nothing goes to a cloud.

1. Press Option-Command-R to start. Your microphone is recorded by default.
2. Use your app. Hold Command and move the mouse over a problem to draw a yellow highlight, and say what is wrong. Each remark becomes a note with a time and a thumbnail, and the highlight keeps the spot.
3. Press Option-Command-R to stop. The editor opens.
4. Click Copy for AI agent (Shift-Command-C). It copies a fix instruction, your notes, the x and y spot for each note you highlighted, and the file path of each screenshot to the clipboard.
5. Paste it into Claude Code or Codex, in your project folder, to ask it to fix the items. The agent can open the screenshot files from the paths in the text.

Quibble copies text and does not send it anywhere. It does not fix your code. The agent can make the changes, and you should review them. A short test of two notes on a small page, run in Claude Code and in Codex, ended with both agents changing the code as asked. See how to show Claude Code a bug with a screenshot or recording for the details and the limits of that test.

Recording and editing are free, and Copy for AI agent works without a license. Saving the finished video as MP4 needs a license ($7.99 per month, $79 per year or $129 once). Captions are made on your Mac a few seconds after you stop. Quibble has no cloud and no share links.

Which one should you pick?

For other tools in this space, see visual feedback for AI coding agents.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use Loom with Claude Code?

You can use Loom to show a person a problem. For an agent, Loom has a Record for agent mode that makes a prompt you can copy as markdown, or send to an agent. It is in beta on Business + AI and Enterprise plans, according to Atlassian's support page. A plain Loom link is a video for people to watch.

Does Claude Code watch Loom videos?

We did not find a statement about this in the Claude Code docs we read, so we cannot say. Text and screenshots are the formats the docs describe.

Is there a free way to give Claude Code visual feedback?

Yes. You can paste a screenshot with Ctrl+V or give a file path. On Mac, Quibble lets you record and edit for free, and Copy for AI agent works without a license.

Does Quibble have share links like Loom?

No. Quibble has no cloud and no share links. If you need a link, Loom is the better tool.

Will the agent always fix everything?

No. It can fix the items, but it can misread a note. Review the changes.

Sources

• Atlassian: Record for AI agents (Loom)
• Loom: loom.com
• Anthropic: Claude Code common workflows, "Work with images"
• Quibble: getquibble.app

---