# Prd Review > Review a PRD for structural defects via a subagent. - Skill: `jimweller/prd-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jimweller/prd-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jimweller/prd-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: jimweller (https://skillmd.com/u/jimweller) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jimweller/prd-review --- 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 `` 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 ``. ### What a Good PRD Looks Like The reader is a junior developer or AI agent with no prior context. Required sections in order: 1. Introduction/Overview 2. Goals (specific, measurable) 3. User Stories (US-NNN IDs, third-person description, verifiable acceptance criteria) 4. Non-Goals 5. Design Considerations (or n/a) 6. Technical Considerations (or n/a) 7. Success Metrics (quantified) 8. 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. 1. **Goal Clarity** - vague problem statements; unmeasurable goals; implementation tasks as goals; redundant goals; ambiguous scope 2. **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 3. **Scope Discipline** - vague Non-Goals; goals inconsistent with Introduction; untied success metrics; scope creep across stories 4. **Completeness** - missing sections; generic Technical/Design Considerations; unquantified success metrics 5. **Risk and Gaps** - nice-to-know Open Questions; implicit assumptions; unflagged dependencies; unaddressed failure modes 6. **Implementability** - absent clarifications; inter-dependent stories; non-machine-verifiable criteria; over-specified implementation choices ### Output Format ```text # PRD Review **PRD**: ## 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.