# Product Lens Reviewer

> Product-lens reviewer

- Skill: `matteotitta/product-lens-reviewer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add matteotitta/product-lens-reviewer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/matteotitta/product-lens-reviewer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: matteotitta (https://skillmd.com/u/matteotitta)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/matteotitta/product-lens-reviewer

---


# Product-lens reviewer

Review any document through a product POV. Composes with `voice-reviewer` (style/voice) and `design-reviewer` (visual/UX). Adapted from `ce-product-lens-reviewer` agent in [EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin) v3.5.0 (MIT).

This is the structural counterpart to voice-reviewer. Voice asks "does this sound right?"; product asks "does this *think* right?"

## When to run

Invoke when the user says:
- "Run product review on [doc]"
- "Review this through a product lens"
- "PM review this strategy"
- "Is this strategy any good?"
- "Pre-lock review on [strategy-doc / proposal / launch plan]"

Do NOT invoke when:
- User wants voice review → `voice-reviewer`
- User wants visual review → `design-reviewer`
- User wants code review → `engineering:code-review`

Composes with: `voice-reviewer`, `design-reviewer`, `scope-guardian-reviewer` (often run together as a review-pass family before locking strategic docs).

## Inputs

**Required:**
- The document to review (text)

**Recommended:**
- `strategy-doc` (if reviewing a strategy doc, comparing against itself; if reviewing a downstream artifact like a launch plan, comparing against the upstream strategy)
- `positioning` (cross-check differentiation defensibility)
- `icp-research` (cross-check persona focus)

## The 6 dimensions

Each dimension scores PASS / WARN / FAIL with quoted evidence.

| # | Dimension | Trigger |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | **Target-problem clarity** | Is the problem specific, recurring, expensive? Cited evidence vs. generic? |
| 2 | **Persona focus** | One persona ideally; if 3+ — FAIL (audience, not persona) |
| 3 | **Metric quality** | SMART criteria; anti-vanity-metrics rule — page views/impressions/MAU without conversion → FAIL |
| 4 | **Differentiation defensibility** | Would a skeptical buyer choose this over alternatives? Cite the alternative + why this beats it |
| 5 | **Scope discipline** | Does the doc stay in its lane? Strategy doesn't include requirements (K6); spec doesn't include strategy; proposal doesn't blur with positioning |
| 6 | **Shipping-as-experiment framing** | Is the ship treated as data generation (K1)? Hypothesis stated? Falsifiable? |

For full rule set with examples → the premium reference (deferred — created on first real run).

## Verdict logic

| Inputs | Verdict |
|---|---|
| All PASS | **Ship it** |
| Any WARN, no FAIL | **Minor fixes recommended** |
| Any FAIL | **Fix before shipping** |

## Anti-hallucination guardrails

1. **Quote the actual text** when flagging an issue. No paraphrase.
2. **Don't flag style preferences as violations.** This is product, not voice. If the issue is tone, route to voice-reviewer.
3. **Don't over-flag intentional choices.** A two-persona strategy might be intentional — check the doc's justification before flagging.
4. **Be specific about fixes.** "Sharpen the persona" is not a fix. "Drop 'marketers' — keep only 'product managers in B2B SaaS, 50-200 employees, post-Series A'" is a fix.

## Self-roast (pre-delivery)

- [ ] All 6 dimensions evaluated
- [ ] Each finding has quoted evidence
- [ ] Fixes are specific enough to implement without guessing
- [ ] Composition checked — voice/design issues routed to the right reviewer (don't report style issues here)
- [ ] At least one cross-reference to upstream artifact (strategy-doc / positioning / icp-research) when available

# Product-lens review: {doc name} ({YYYY-MM-DD})

**Verdict:** Ship it | Minor fixes | Fix before shipping

## Score table
| Dimension | Verdict | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Target-problem clarity | PASS/WARN/FAIL |... |
|... |... |... |

## Findings
**§{N} {Dimension}** — {verdict}
> "{quoted text}"
**Fix:** {specific replacement or reframe}

## Cross-references checked
- {strategy-doc / positioning / icp-research} — {alignment notes}
```

## Composition rule reference

Product-lens-reviewer is one node in the **lens-reviewer pattern** (P6). Composes with voice-reviewer (style), design-reviewer (visual), scope-guardian-reviewer (scope creep), coherence-reviewer (internal consistency, when built). See [.claude/rules/pm-loop.md](../../../../rules/pm-loop.md).

## Attribution

Adapted from [EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin](https://github.com/EveryInc/compound-engineering-plugin) v3.5.0 (MIT). Source agent: `ce-product-lens-reviewer`. Pattern: pluggable lens-reviewers applied to strategy docs (P6 from /steal Phase 4).