prd-review-panel

## Purpose

Get comprehensive feedback on your PRD from 7 different perspectives in parallel: Engineering, Design, Executive, Legal, UX Research, Skeptic, and Customer Voice.

Catches gaps, challenges assumptions, and surfaces conflicts before stakeholder review.

## Usage

- `/prd-review-panel` - Review a PRD with all 7 sub-agents
- `/prd-review-panel [prd-name]` - Review specific PRD
- `/prd-review-panel --perspectives "eng,design,exec"` - Review with subset of agents

---

## Context Routing

**Check these files first:**

1. `thoughts/shared/pm/prds/` - Active PRDs to review
2. `thoughts/shared/pm/sub-agents/` - The 7 reviewer personas
3. `thoughts/shared/pm/frameworks/` - Strategic context for executive review
4. `thoughts/shared/pm/` - User research for UXR validation

**Sub-agents available:**

1. **engineer-reviewer.md** - Technical feasibility, complexity, dependencies
2. **designer-reviewer.md** - UX/UI feedback, user experience
3. **executive-reviewer.md** - Strategic alignment, business impact
4. **legal-advisor.md** - Compliance, risk, regulatory concerns
5. **uxr-analyst.md** - User research synthesis, validation
6. **skeptic.md** - Devil's advocate, challenge assumptions
7. **customer-voice.md** - Simulate user perspective

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: PRD Selection

1. **If user specified PRD name:**
   - Look for it in `thoughts/shared/pm/prds/`
   - If found: Proceed
   - If not found: List available PRDs, ask user to choose

2. **If no PRD specified:**
   - Scan `thoughts/shared/pm/prds/` for recent PRDs (modified in last 30 days)
   - List them with:
     - File name
     - Title (from content)
     - Last modified date
     - Current stage (if indicated)
   - Prompt: "Which PRD do you want to review?"

3. **Read the full PRD:**
   - Load complete content
   - Note the current stage (Team Kickoff / Planning Review / XFN Kickoff / Solution Review / Launch Readiness)
   - Identify sections present (some PRDs may be incomplete)

---

### Step 2: Review Preparation

**Extract key elements from PRD:**

- **Problem statement** - What user pain are we solving?
- **Hypothesis** - If we build X, then Y will happen because Z
- **Strategic fit** - Why this vs other things?
- **Non-goals** - What's explicitly out of scope?
- **Success metrics** - How we measure success
- **Rollout plan** - A/B test or full launch?
- **Technical approach** - How we'll build it (if specified)
- **UX design** - Mockups, flows, behavior examples
- **Stakeholders** - Who needs to approve/support
- **Risks** - Known concerns or open questions

**Determine review focus based on stage:**

- **Team Kickoff stage:** Focus on problem definition, strategic fit
- **Planning Review stage:** Focus on scope, estimates, prioritization
- **XFN Kickoff stage:** Focus on cross-functional alignment, dependencies
- **Solution Review stage:** Focus on technical approach, UX design, edge cases
- **Launch Readiness stage:** Focus on rollout plan, metrics, compliance

---

### Step 3: Spawn 7 Sub-Agents in Parallel

**CRITICAL: Use single message with multiple Task tool calls for parallel execution.**

For each sub-agent, create Task with:

**Agent 1: Engineering Reviewer**

```
Prompt:
You are an engineering reviewer. Review this PRD for technical feasibility.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Review framework:
1. Technical Feasibility
   - Is the proposed solution technically sound?
   - Are there better technical approaches?
   - What's the complexity (S/M/L/XL)?

2. Dependencies & Integration
   - What systems/services does this touch?
   - What dependencies are missing from the PRD?
   - What could break?

3. Scalability & Performance
   - Will this scale to expected load?
   - What performance concerns exist?
   - What monitoring is needed?

4. Edge Cases & Error Handling
   - What edge cases aren't addressed?
   - How should errors be handled?
   - What failure modes exist?

5. Timeline & Estimates
   - Are engineering estimates realistic?
   - What's missing from the estimate?
   - What unknowns could cause delays?

Provide:
- ✅ What looks good technically
- ⚠️ Concerns or gaps
- ❌ Blockers or red flags
- 💡 Suggestions for improvement

Be specific. Reference line numbers or sections of the PRD.
```

**Agent 2: Design Reviewer**

```
Prompt:
You are a design reviewer. Review this PRD for user experience.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Review framework:
1. User Experience
   - Is the proposed UX intuitive?
   - Are there better interaction patterns?
   - What friction points exist?

2. Visual Design
   - Do mockups align with design system?
   - Are UI patterns consistent?
   - Is information hierarchy clear?

3. Accessibility
   - Are accessibility requirements specified?
   - Can all users complete the flow?
   - What a11y concerns exist?

4. Edge Cases in UX
   - Error states defined?
   - Loading states clear?
   - Empty states addressed?

5. User Research Validation
   - Is this validated with users?
   - What assumptions need testing?
   - Are there usability risks?

Provide:
- ✅ Strong UX decisions
- ⚠️ Usability concerns
- ❌ UX blockers
- 💡 Design improvements

Be specific about which flows or screens have issues.
```

**Agent 3: Executive Reviewer**

```
Prompt:
You are an executive reviewer. Review this PRD for strategic alignment and business impact.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Strategic Context:
[Include content from thoughts/shared/pm/frameworks/ if available]

Review framework:
1. Strategic Alignment
   - How does this support company strategy?
   - Does it advance key metrics (North Star, OKRs)?
   - Why this vs other opportunities?

2. Business Impact
   - What's the expected ROI?
   - How does this affect revenue/growth/retention?
   - What's the opportunity cost?

3. Prioritization
   - Is this the right thing to build now?
   - What else could the team be working on?
   - What's the urgency/importance trade-off?

4. Market & Competitive
   - How does this position us vs competitors?
   - What market need does this address?
   - What's the differentiation?

5. Resource Allocation
   - Is the team/time investment justified?
   - What other initiatives does this affect?
   - Should we staff this differently?

Provide:
- ✅ Strategic strengths
- ⚠️ Strategic concerns
- ❌ Misalignment with strategy
- 💡 Strategic recommendations

Think like a VP or C-level executive reviewing this for approval.
```

**Agent 4: Legal Advisor**

```
Prompt:
You are a legal/compliance reviewer. Review this PRD for risk and regulatory concerns.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Review framework:
1. Privacy & Data
   - What user data is collected/stored/processed?
   - Are privacy requirements specified (GDPR, CCPA)?
   - Is data retention addressed?

2. Compliance & Regulations
   - What regulations apply (industry-specific)?
   - Are compliance requirements called out?
   - What legal reviews are needed?

3. Security
   - What security considerations exist?
   - Are security requirements specified?
   - What attack vectors should be considered?

4. Contracts & Terms
   - Does this affect user agreements/ToS?
   - Are B2B contract implications considered?
   - What legal language is needed?

5. Risk Assessment
   - What legal risks exist?
   - What liability concerns apply?
   - What could go wrong legally?

Provide:
- ✅ Legal considerations addressed
- ⚠️ Legal/compliance gaps
- ❌ Legal blockers or high-risk items
- 💡 Risk mitigation recommendations

Flag anything that needs legal team review before proceeding.
```

**Agent 5: UX Research Analyst**

```
Prompt:
You are a UX research analyst. Review this PRD for research validation and user insights.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

User Research Context:
[Include recent research from thoughts/shared/pm/ if relevant]

Review framework:
1. Research Validation
   - What user research supports this?
   - Are assumptions validated or just assumed?
   - What evidence backs the problem statement?

2. User Needs
   - Does this solve a real user pain?
   - How acute is the pain (nice-to-have vs must-have)?
   - What user quotes or data support this?

3. Jobs to Be Done
   - What job is the user trying to accomplish?
   - Does the proposed solution help them do the job?
   - Are there better ways to solve the job?

4. Behavioral Insights
   - What user behaviors are expected?
   - Are those behaviors realistic?
   - What might users actually do (vs intended)?

5. Research Gaps
   - What should be researched before building?
   - What assumptions need validation?
   - What user testing is needed?

Provide:
- ✅ Well-researched decisions
- ⚠️ Unvalidated assumptions
- ❌ Contradicts user research
- 💡 Research recommendations

Reference specific research findings or recommend studies needed.
```

**Agent 6: Skeptic**

```
Prompt:
You are the devil's advocate. Challenge this PRD's assumptions and poke holes.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Review framework:
1. Challenge the Problem
   - Is this really a problem worth solving?
   - How do we know users care?
   - What if we're wrong about the problem?

2. Challenge the Solution
   - Why is this the right solution?
   - What simpler alternatives exist?
   - What if we just don't build this?

3. Challenge the Metrics
   - Will these metrics actually move?
   - What if success metrics are hit but users hate it?
   - Are we measuring the right things?

4. Challenge the Assumptions
   - What assumptions are we making?
   - Which assumptions are risky?
   - What happens if key assumptions are wrong?

5. What Could Go Wrong
   - Best case / worst case scenarios
   - What are we not thinking about?
   - What second-order effects might occur?

Provide:
- 🤔 Questions that need answers
- ⚠️ Risky assumptions
- ❌ Flawed logic or reasoning
- 💡 Alternative approaches to consider

Be direct. The goal is to strengthen the PRD by challenging it.
```

**Agent 7: Customer Voice**

```
Prompt:
You are simulating the customer perspective. Review this PRD as if you're the target user.

PRD Content:
[Full PRD text]

Review framework:
1. As a User, I Want...
   - Does this actually solve my problem?
   - Is this how I'd want it to work?
   - What am I missing or confused about?

2. First Impression
   - If I see this feature, what's my reaction?
   - Is it immediately valuable or confusing?
   - Would I use this?

3. Daily Use
   - How does this fit my workflow?
   - Does it create more work for me?
   - What friction does it introduce?

4. Comparison to Alternatives
   - How does this compare to competitors?
   - Why would I choose this over alternatives?
   - What would make me switch?

5. Delight vs Frustration
   - What would delight me?
   - What would frustrate me?
   - What's the emotional experience?

Provide:
- ✅ User value delivered
- ⚠️ User confusion or friction
- ❌ User would reject or avoid
- 💡 Ways to increase user love

Write from first person ("I") as the user. Be honest about whether you'd use this.
```

---

### Step 4: Collect & Synthesize Reviews

Once all 7 agents complete (wait for all Task outputs):

**Read each review and extract:**

1. ✅ Strengths (what's working well)
2. ⚠️ Concerns or gaps (important but not blocking)
3. ❌ Blockers (must fix before proceeding)
4. 💡 Suggestions (improvements to consider)

**Identify patterns:**

- **Convergent feedback:** Multiple agents flagging same issue (high priority)
- **Conflicting perspectives:** Agents disagree (requires PM judgment)
- **Blind spots:** Issue only one agent caught (could be critical)

**Categorize all feedback:**

**Critical Blockers** (Must fix before next stage):

- [Issue from Agent X]
- [Issue from Agent Y]
- **Why critical:** [Impact if not addressed]

**Important Gaps** (Address before launch):

- [Gap from Agent X]
- [Gap from Agent Y]
- **Why important:** [Risk or limitation]

**Enhancements** (Consider for v1 or v2):

- [Suggestion from Agent X]
- [Suggestion from Agent Y]
- **Value if added:** [Benefit]

**Conflicting Perspectives** (Requires decision):

- **Agent X says:** [Position]
- **Agent Y says:** [Opposite position]
- **PM decision needed:** [What to prioritize]

---

### Step 5: Generate Review Synthesis

Create file: `thoughts/shared/pm/reviews/[prd-name]-review-synthesis.md`

**Template:**

```markdown
---
prd: [PRD filename]
review_date: YYYY-MM-DD
stage: [Current PRD stage]
agents: [engineer, designer, executive, legal, uxr, skeptic, customer]
---

# PRD Review Synthesis: [PRD Title]

**Reviewed:** [Date]
**Current Stage:** [Stage]
**Reviewers:** Engineering, Design, Executive, Legal, UXR, Skeptic, Customer Voice

---

## TL;DR

**Overall Assessment:** [Ready to proceed / Needs minor fixes / Requires significant work / Not ready]

**Critical Blockers:** [X]
**Important Gaps:** [Y]
**Conflicting Perspectives:** [Z]

**Recommended Next Step:** [Specific action]

---

## Critical Blockers

[Must be addressed before moving to next stage]

### 1. [Blocker Title]

**Flagged by:** [Agent(s)]
**Issue:** [Description of the problem]
**Impact if not fixed:** [Consequence]
**Recommendation:** [Specific fix]
**Owner:** [Who should address this]

---

### 2. [Blocker Title]

[Same structure]

---

## Important Gaps

[Should be addressed before launch, may not block next stage]

### [Gap Category - e.g., "Missing Technical Specs"]

**Flagged by:** [Agent(s)]
**Gap:** [What's missing]
**Risk:** [What could go wrong]
**Recommendation:** [How to fill the gap]

---

## Enhancements to Consider

[Nice-to-haves that would strengthen the PRD or feature]

**From Engineering:**

- [Suggestion]
- [Suggestion]

**From Design:**

- [Suggestion]

**From Executive:**

- [Suggestion]

**From Legal:**

- [Suggestion]

**From UXR:**

- [Suggestion]

**From Skeptic:**

- [Challenging question or alternative]

**From Customer:**

- [User perspective suggestion]

---

## Conflicting Perspectives

[Where agents disagreed - requires PM judgment]

### Conflict 1: [Topic]

**Perspective A** ([Agent]):

- [Position]
- [Rationale]

**Perspective B** ([Agent]):

- [Opposite position]
- [Rationale]

**Decision needed:**

- [What the PM needs to decide]
- [Trade-offs to consider]
- [Recommendation if any]

---

## Detailed Feedback by Perspective

### Engineering Review

**✅ Strengths:**

- [What looks good technically]

**⚠️ Concerns:**

- [Technical concerns or gaps]

**❌ Blockers:**

- [Technical blockers]

**💡 Suggestions:**

- [Engineering improvements]

**Estimated Complexity:** [S/M/L/XL based on feedback]

---

### Design Review

**✅ Strengths:**

- [UX decisions that work well]

**⚠️ Concerns:**

- [Usability issues]

**❌ Blockers:**

- [UX blockers]

**💡 Suggestions:**

- [Design improvements]

**Usability Risk:** [Low/Medium/High]

---

### Executive Review

**✅ Strengths:**

- [Strategic alignment]

**⚠️ Concerns:**

- [Strategic questions]

**❌ Blockers:**

- [Strategic misalignment]

**💡 Suggestions:**

- [Strategic recommendations]

**Business Impact:** [High/Medium/Low]
**Strategic Fit:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]

---

### Legal Review

**✅ Strengths:**

- [Legal considerations addressed]

**⚠️ Concerns:**

- [Legal/compliance gaps]

**❌ Blockers:**

- [Legal red flags]

**💡 Suggestions:**

- [Risk mitigation]

**Legal Risk:** [Low/Medium/High]
**Requires Legal Team Review:** [Yes/No]

---

### UX Research Review

**✅ Strengths:**

- [Research-backed decisions]

**⚠️ Concerns:**

- [Unvalidated assumptions]

**❌ Blockers:**

- [Contradicts research]

**💡 Suggestions:**

- [Research needed]

**Research Validation:** [Strong/Moderate/Weak]

---

### Skeptic Review

**🤔 Questions to Answer:**

- [Challenging questions]

**⚠️ Risky Assumptions:**

- [Assumptions that need validation]

**❌ Flawed Logic:**

- [Issues with reasoning]

**💡 Alternatives:**

- [Different approaches to consider]

---

### Customer Voice Review

**✅ User Value:**

- [What users will love]

**⚠️ User Friction:**

- [What might confuse or frustrate]

**❌ User Rejection:**

- [What users might hate]

**💡 Delight Opportunities:**

- [Ways to exceed expectations]

**User Sentiment:** [Would love it / Would use it / Might use it / Would avoid it]

---

## Action Items

**Before Next Review:**

- [ ] [Critical blocker 1] - Owner: [Name]
- [ ] [Critical blocker 2] - Owner: [Name]

**Before Launch:**

- [ ] [Important gap 1] - Owner: [Name]
- [ ] [Important gap 2] - Owner: [Name]

**Decisions Needed:**

- [ ] [Decision on conflict 1] - Owner: PM
- [ ] [Decision on conflict 2] - Owner: PM

---

## Next Steps

1. **Immediate:** [What to do right now]
2. **This week:** [What to tackle soon]
3. **Before next stage:** [What must be done]

**Recommended:**

- Run `/decision-doc` for conflicting perspectives
- Update PRD to address blockers
- Schedule follow-up review after fixes (if needed)

---

_Generated: [Timestamp]_
_Agents used: 7 (Engineering, Design, Executive, Legal, UXR, Skeptic, Customer)_
_Next: Update PRD → Re-review or proceed to next stage_
```

---

### Step 6: Output & Next Actions

1. **Save review synthesis file**

2. **Display summary:**

   ```
   7-agent review complete for [PRD]!

   ✅ Strong areas: [X]
   ⚠️ Critical blockers: [Y]
   💡 Key recommendations: [Z]

   Overall: [Ready to proceed / Needs work]
   ```

3. **Offer next steps:**
   - If blockers exist: "Want me to help update the PRD to address blockers?"
   - If conflicts exist: "Run `/decision-doc` to document the [Conflict] decision?"
   - If ready: "PRD looks solid! Ready for stakeholder review."
   - Always: "Review synthesis saved to [file path]"

---

## Integration with Other Skills

**Before `/prd-review-panel`:**

- `/prd-draft` - Create the initial PRD
- `/user-interview` - Gather research to validate PRD
- `/impact-sizing` - Quantify expected value

**After `/prd-review-panel`:**

- `/decision-doc` - Document decisions on conflicting perspectives
- `/prd-draft` - Update PRD based on feedback
- `/prototype` - Build prototype for validation
- `/launch-checklist` - Plan the launch

**Iterative use:**

- Run review at each PRD stage (Team Kickoff, Planning, Solution, Launch)
- Each review focuses on stage-appropriate concerns

---

## Tips for Best Results

**When to run:**

- After completing first draft (Team Kickoff stage)
- Before stakeholder review (catch gaps privately first)
- After major changes (validate new approach)
- Before committing to build (final gate)

**How to use the output:**

- Address blockers immediately (don't proceed without fixing)
- Discuss conflicts in next stakeholder meeting
- Park enhancements for v2 (don't let perfect kill good)
- Use as peer review before formal review

**Common patterns:**

- Engineering often conflicts with Design (speed vs polish)
- Executive often conflicts with Customer (business vs user needs)
- Legal often blocks what users want (compliance vs freedom)
- **Your job as PM:** Make the call, document the trade-off

---

## Related Skills

**Before this:**

- `/prd-draft` - Create the PRD
- `/user-research-synthesis` - Validate with research
- `/impact-sizing` - Quantify value

**After this:**

- `/decision-doc` - Document key decisions
- `/prototype` - Build based on feedback
- `/launch-checklist` - Prepare for launch

**Complements:**

- `/competitor-analysis` - Inform strategic review
- `/stakeholder-update` - Share review results

---

## Output Quality Self-Check

Before presenting output to the PM, verify:

- [ ] **All requested reviewer perspectives included:** The synthesis contains feedback from all 7 sub-agents (or all specifically requested agents), each with their own dedicated section
- [ ] **Each reviewer has specific, actionable feedback:** Every reviewer section contains at least one concrete, actionable item (not generic praise like "looks good" or vague concerns like "needs more detail")
- [ ] **Conflicting perspectives between reviewers explicitly flagged:** Any disagreements between agents (e.g., Engineering wants simplicity while Design wants richness) are called out in the "Conflicting Perspectives" section with both positions stated
- [ ] **Synthesis section prioritizes feedback items:** The TL;DR and summary sections rank issues by severity (Critical Blockers > Important Gaps > Enhancements) with a clear recommended next step
- [ ] **Feedback references specific PRD sections:** Each piece of feedback points to the exact section, requirement, or design element it applies to (e.g., "the rollout plan in Section 5" not "the rollout approach")