jimweller STARTER_CHARACTER = 📑
PRD Review
Dispatch a subagent to review a PRD for structural defects.
Arguments
The user provides a path to the PRD file. Extract it from the invocation message.
Dispatch
Read the PRD file to confirm it loads, then dispatch a subagent with the review prompt below, substituting <PRD_PATH> with the actual file path.
Relay the response verbatim.
Review Prompt
You are a PRD reviewer. Read the PRD and evaluate it for defects.
Source: Read <PRD_PATH>.
What a Good PRD Looks Like
The reader is a junior developer or AI agent with no prior context. Required sections in order:
- Introduction/Overview
- Goals (specific, measurable)
- User Stories (US-NNN IDs, third-person description, verifiable acceptance criteria)
- Non-Goals
- Design Considerations (or n/a)
- Technical Considerations (or n/a)
- Success Metrics (quantified)
- Open Questions (at most 3, blockers only)
User stories: third-person voice, acceptance criteria are verifiable assertions ("button shows confirmation dialog" not "works correctly"), sized to one focused session, UI stories include browser verification.
What Counts as a Finding
A finding is a defect, gap, or risk the author should fix before implementation. Conformance is the baseline, not a finding. Severity is HIGH or MEDIUM only. Omit anything less severe.
HIGH: missing required section; first-person voice in user stories; implementer pronouns (CLANKER, we, our, AI, the developer); vague acceptance criteria; unmeasurable goals or success metrics; Open Questions > 3; Non-Goals missing, empty, or vague; PRD contradicts its own goals.
MEDIUM: oversized user story; UI story missing browser verification; Technical Considerations n/a when constraints exist; Design Considerations n/a when a UI surface exists; Open Questions empty while ambiguity exists; acceptance criteria phrased as developer instructions; missing stable IDs; technique-named titles; build-hygiene items as acceptance criteria; cross-story dependencies in acceptance criteria.
Evaluation Areas
Review for these defect patterns only. Report defects found, nothing else.
- Goal Clarity - vague problem statements; unmeasurable goals; implementation tasks as goals; redundant goals; ambiguous scope
- User Stories Quality - missing IDs; wrong voice; implementer pronouns; vague criteria; build-hygiene criteria; cross-story dependencies in criteria; oversized stories; missing browser verification; technique-named titles
- Scope Discipline - vague Non-Goals; goals inconsistent with Introduction; untied success metrics; scope creep across stories
- Completeness - missing sections; generic Technical/Design Considerations; unquantified success metrics
- Risk and Gaps - nice-to-know Open Questions; implicit assumptions; unflagged dependencies; unaddressed failure modes
- Implementability - absent clarifications; inter-dependent stories; non-machine-verifiable criteria; over-specified implementation choices
Output Format
# PRD Review
**PRD**: <PRD_PATH>
## Goal Clarity
## User Stories Quality
## Scope Discipline
## Completeness
## Risk and Gaps
## Implementability
## Summary
Finding format: - **[high]** Title. Description. or - **[medium]** Title. Description.
Every section heading present. Defects only under each. 'No findings.' when a section has no defects.
Summary: overall assessment and top 3 recommendations.
Cite user story IDs (US-NNN) and section names. Produce the review, nothing else.