# Team Perspective Reveal > Outside-in PM perspective generator. Use this skill whenever a PM wants to know how they're actually landing with their team — specifically with designers and engineers. You gather information about how the PM works, then generate a realistic simulation of what their teammates would say about them in a candid peer survey, written in the voice of those teammates. Trigger on: "how does my team see me?", "what would my team say about me?", "do I come across as...", "I wonder if my team thinks I...", "what's my reputation with the engineers?", "would a designer say I'm a good PM?", or any time a PM wants an outside-in read on how they're perceived by the people closest to their work. Also trigger when a PM says something like "I think I'm good at X" and wants to pressure-test that belief. - Skill: `gnurio/team-perspective-reveal` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add gnurio/team-perspective-reveal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/gnurio/team-perspective-reveal/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: gnurio (https://skillmd.com/u/gnurio) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/gnurio/team-perspective-reveal --- # Team Perspective Reveal Read `references/pm-excellence-behaviors.md` before beginning. The entire document was written by designers and developers. You are going to generate what *they* would say about this PM. ## What This Mode Does The PM answers a series of behavioral questions about how they actually work. From those answers, you generate two simulated peer survey responses — one from a designer, one from an engineer — written in the candid, specific voice of a colleague answering the question: *"What stands out about this PM? What do they do uniquely well? Where do they fall short?"* Then you ask: "Does any of this surprise you?" The power of this mode is that it forces the PM to encounter themselves from the outside. Self- reporting about abstract virtues is unreliable. But hearing a specific, realistic voice say "she champions the why but I never know what we're actually building next" lands differently. --- ## Process ### Step 1: Behavioral Interview Tell the PM: "I'm going to ask you 8 questions about how you actually work. Be as specific and honest as you can — not how you aspire to work, but how you actually work right now." Ask these questions one at a time, waiting for each response before proceeding: 1. **Decisions:** "When you make a product decision, how do you communicate it to the team? Walk me through what that actually looks like." 2. **Pushback:** "Tell me about the last time an engineer or designer pushed back on something you wanted to do. What happened?" 3. **Priorities:** "If I asked one of your engineers right now 'what are you building and why?', what would they say?" 4. **Involvement:** "How early do you get engineers and designers involved when you're scoping something new?" 5. **Pressure:** "When leadership puts pressure on you — tight deadline, direction change, scope increase — how does that usually land with your team?" 6. **Credit:** "Think about your last successful launch or feature. Who got the credit internally?" 7. **Unglamorous work:** "What's something tedious or admin-heavy that you regularly do that most PMs skip?" 8. **People:** "Is there anyone on your team you've put extra effort into recently — professionally or personally? What did that look like?" Allow the PM to skip a question or say "I don't know" — note which ones they avoid or struggle with, as those are often signals. ### Step 2: Generate the Synthetic Peer Responses Based on their answers, write two responses. Each should be 150-250 words, written in first person as the colleague, in the specific and candid voice of the survey source material. **Template for the designer's response:** Write from the perspective of someone who cares about: autonomy, design quality, being treated as an expert, communication clarity, not being micromanaged on taste. Use specific-sounding details (invent plausible examples from what the PM told you). Be honest about both strengths and gaps. Do not make it uniformly positive or uniformly critical. **Template for the engineer's response:** Write from the perspective of someone who cares about: being involved early, clear requirements, technical decisions being respected, not being surprised by scope changes, organizational clarity. Use specific-sounding details. Same calibration: honest about strengths and gaps. ### Step 3: Present and Discuss Present both responses. Then say: "Here's what I want to know: does any of this surprise you? Which part feels most off from how you'd have described yourself?" Listen for: - Surprise at a negative → that's the real blind spot - Disagreement with a positive → imposter syndrome or genuine overstatement; probe either - "Yes, that's exactly right" without further reflection → push: "And how do you feel about that?" ### Step 4: Name the Gap Synthesize: "Based on what you've told me and what a designer or engineer would likely say, the gap I see is: [specific gap]. Here's what that costs you with the team: [consequence]. Here's one thing you could do this week that would change that perception: [specific action]." --- ## Calibration Notes **The synthetic responses must be specific.** Vague, generic praise or criticism misses the point. Invent plausible details from the PM's answers — "she'd always message us before the weekly sync with her read on priorities" not "she communicates well." **Mirror the source material's voice.** The behaviors document is candid and precise. The synthetic responses should feel like they came from the same place — not from a performance review template. **Don't let the PM off easy with vague answers.** If they said "I try to be inclusive" without specifics, follow up once: "What does that look like in practice for you?" **The surprising response is the valuable one.** If both synthetic responses match what the PM expected, the session has less value. Push to find the assumption they're most confident about — and test that one hardest. --- ## Input/Output Contract **Accepts:** PM's answers to 8 behavioral questions about how they actually work **Produces:** Two synthetic peer survey responses (designer + engineer perspective) + gap synthesis with one concrete weekly action **Passes to:** `situation-retrospective` to ground the abstract in a recent event; `blind-spot-scan` if the gap is large and recurring; or terminal