Pm artifact review

Skill guhcostan/product-superpowers/skills/pm-artifact-review

Use when completing PM artifacts (PRDs, user stories, roadmaps) or before sharing with stakeholders to verify quality and completenessFrom its SKILL.md

Install

npx -y skills add guhcostan/product-superpowers --skill pm-artifact-review

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

4.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

PM Artifact Review

Dispatch a PM reviewer subagent to catch gaps and quality issues in PM artifacts before they reach engineering, stakeholders, or leadership. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context — never your session history.

Core principle: Review PM artifacts before they cascade into commitments. A flawed PRD costs 10x more to fix after engineering starts.

Announce at start: "I'm using the pm-artifact-review skill to review [artifact type]."

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

After completing a PRD (before user story breakdown)
After completing user stories (before sprint planning)
After completing a roadmap (before stakeholder presentation)
After completing a discovery doc (before PRD)

Optional but valuable:

When the artifact is strategically critical
When multiple stakeholders will commit resources based on it
When you want a fresh perspective before an executive review

The Process

Step 1: Identify What to Review

Ready to review:

PRD: Check against Amazon PR/FAQ format, discovery findings, and PM quality standards
User Stories: Check INVEST criteria, acceptance criteria format, edge case coverage
Roadmap: Check outcome-based structure, Now/Next/Later format, OKR alignment
Discovery Doc: Check completeness of opportunity assessment, research evidence, JTBD mapping

Step 2: Dispatch PM Reviewer Subagent

Use the template at pm-artifact-review/artifact-reviewer-prompt.md.

Fill these placeholders:

{DESCRIPTION} — Brief summary of the artifact (e.g., "PRD for onboarding redesign")
{PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} — What it should address (discovery doc path, or requirements list)
{ARTIFACT_CONTENT_OR_PATH} — Full path to the artifact file

Step 3: Act on Feedback

Fix Critical issues immediately — these block progress
Fix Important issues before proceeding to next step
Note Minor issues for later polish
If the reviewer found gaps in the underlying spec/discovery, go back and fix those first

Two-Stage Review

The reviewer checks two dimensions:

Stage 1 — Spec Compliance Does the artifact follow the required format and cover all required sections?

Stage 2 — PM Quality Is the thinking sound? Are there gaps in problem clarity, metrics, scope, user centricity, or executability?

Always complete Stage 1 before Stage 2. A perfectly written artifact (Stage 2) that misses required sections (Stage 1) still fails review.

Example

You: "PRD complete. Let me review before breaking into stories."

[Review discovery doc to ensure it's current]
[Dispatch PM reviewer subagent]
  DESCRIPTION: PRD for new onboarding flow — aims to improve activation from 40% to 65%
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: docs/product-superpowers/discovery/2026-05-20-onboarding.md
  ARTIFACT_CONTENT_OR_PATH: docs/product-superpowers/prds/2026-05-22-onboarding.md

[Subagent returns]:

  Strengths:
  - Strong press release with clear customer benefit
  - Metrics are specific and time-bound

  Issues:
  Critical: (none)
  Important:
  1. Missing FAQ internal question about support team training
  2. Out-of-scope section doesn't mention mobile (will engineering assume it's in scope?)
  3. No accessibility requirements specified
  Minor:
  1. Customer quote could be more specific to target persona

  Assessment: Ready with fixes

You: [Fix Important issues]
You: [Invoke user-story-writing skill]

Red Flags

Never:

Skip review because "it's a simple feature"
Proceed with unfixed Critical issues
Forward unreviewed artifacts to stakeholders
Ignore Important issues — they compound
Argue with valid PM quality feedback

If reviewer wrong:

Push back with evidence (research data, user quotes, strategy documents)
Show how the artifact addresses the concern
Request clarification on what specifically is missing

Integration with Workflow

Discovery → PRD pipeline:

Review discovery doc before writing PRD
Review PRD before breaking into stories
Review stories before sprint planning

Roadmap work:

Review roadmap before presenting to stakeholders

Strategic artifacts:

Review competitive analysis before strategy decisions
Review strategy doc before roadmap alignment

Common Mistakes

Skipping review: "The PRD is solid, let's just start writing stories" Reality: You're too close to the work. Fresh eyes catch what you missed.

Review-only at the end: Reviewing a full PRD + stories + roadmap at once Reality: Review at each stage. Fixing early saves rework.

Vague review prompt: "Review this PRD" with no context Reality: Provide the discovery doc, format requirements, and quality standards.

Ignoring reviewer: Noting issues but not fixing them Reality: Every ignored Important issue will resurface as a stakeholder or engineering complaint.