Prd review panel

Why this exists, and what I'd change

Why it exists. A single-perspective review misses the angle you're weakest on. Seven sub-agents (engineer, designer, exec, legal, UXR, skeptic, customer voice) catch what one reviewer misses. The whole loop runs in about 90 seconds.

Design tradeoffs.

• Seven fixed personas instead of dynamic reviewers. Each agent has a defined lens and a defined checklist. Cost: if your PRD really needs a "data scientist" or "compliance" view, you add a new sub-agent file before running this.
• Output is seven separate critiques plus a synthesis. Not one merged review. Cost: nine paragraphs to read instead of one. Readers skim the synthesis and miss specific findings.
• Severity isn't ranked across agents. Every critique is equal weight in the output. Cost: a tiny UX nit and a fatal legal flaw look the same on the page.

What I'd change. Auto-rank the seven critiques by severity so the top three issues across all reviewers surface first. You can stop reading after that if time is short.

---

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. outputs/prds/ - Active PRDs to review
2. context-library/prds/ - Reference PRDs and past reviews
3. sub-agents/ - The 7 reviewer personas
4. context-library/strategy/ - Strategic context for executive review
5. context-library/research/ - 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 outputs/prds/ and context-library/prds/
   • If found: Proceed
   • If not found: List available PRDs, ask user to choose

2. If no PRD specified:

   • Scan outputs/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 context-library/strategy/ 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 context-library/research/ 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: outputs/prds/[prd-name]-review-synthesis.md

Template:

---
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")