brainAlly 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:
outputs/prds/- Active PRDs to reviewbrain/knowledge/product/features/- Reference PRDs and past reviews.claude/agents/- The 7 registered reviewer subagents (delegate viasubagent_type)brain/knowledge/- Strategic context for executive reviewbrain/ingestion/interviews/- User research for UXR validation
Sub-agents available:
- engineer-reviewer.md - Technical feasibility, complexity, dependencies
- designer-reviewer.md - UX/UI feedback, user experience
- executive-reviewer.md - Strategic alignment, business impact
- legal-advisor.md - Compliance, risk, regulatory concerns
- uxr-analyst.md - User research synthesis, validation
- skeptic.md - Devil's advocate, challenge assumptions
- customer-voice.md - Simulate user perspective
Workflow
Step 1: PRD Selection
If user specified PRD name:
- Look for it in
outputs/prds/andbrain/knowledge/product/features/ - If found: Proceed
- If not found: List available PRDs, ask user to choose
- Look for it in
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?"
- Scan
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 a single message with multiple Task tool calls for parallel execution.
Delegate to each registered subagent in .claude/agents/ via the Task tool, passing its name as subagent_type (e.g. subagent_type: engineer-reviewer). Each agent already carries its own review rubric; the frameworks below are the reference for what each covers and what to pass in. For each subagent, create a 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 brain/knowledge/ 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 brain/ingestion/interviews/ 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:
- ✅ Strengths (what's working well)
- ⚠️ Concerns or gaps (important but not blocking)
- ❌ Blockers (must fix before proceeding)
- 💡 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 `/decide` 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
Save review synthesis file
Display summary:
7-agent review complete for [PRD]! ✅ Strong areas: [X] ⚠️ Critical blockers: [Y] 💡 Key recommendations: [Z] Overall: [Ready to proceed / Needs work]Offer next steps:
- If blockers exist: "Want me to help update the PRD to address blockers?"
- If conflicts exist: "Run
/decideto 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:
/decide- Document decisions on conflicting perspectives/prd-draft- Update PRD based on feedback- Build a prototype to validate key assumptions before shipping
/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:
/decide- Document key decisions- Build a prototype based on the review 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")