# Prd Review Panel > Multi-agent PRD review (7 perspectives) - Skill: `brainally/prd-review-panel` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add brainally/prd-review-panel` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/brainally/prd-review-panel/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: brainAlly (https://skillmd.com/u/brainally) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/brainally/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. `outputs/prds/` - Active PRDs to review 2. `brain/knowledge/product/features/` - Reference PRDs and past reviews 3. `.claude/agents/` - The 7 registered reviewer subagents (delegate via `subagent_type`) 4. `brain/knowledge/` - Strategic context for executive review 5. `brain/ingestion/interviews/` - 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 `brain/knowledge/product/features/` - 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 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:** 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:** ```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 `/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 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 `/decide` 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`:** - `/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")