talgacapri Why this exists, and what I'd change
Why it exists. A single-perspective review misses the angle you're weakest on. Seven sub-agents (engineer, designer, exec, legal, UXR, skeptic, customer voice) catch what one reviewer misses. The whole loop runs in about 90 seconds.
Design tradeoffs.
- Seven fixed personas instead of dynamic reviewers. Each agent has a defined lens and a defined checklist. Cost: if your PRD really needs a "data scientist" or "compliance" view, you add a new sub-agent file before running this.
- Output is seven separate critiques plus a synthesis. Not one merged review. Cost: nine paragraphs to read instead of one. Readers skim the synthesis and miss specific findings.
- Severity isn't ranked across agents. Every critique is equal weight in the output. Cost: a tiny UX nit and a fatal legal flaw look the same on the page.
What I'd change. Auto-rank the seven critiques by severity so the top three issues across all reviewers surface first. You can stop reading after that if time is short.
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:
outputs/prds/- Active PRDs to reviewcontext-library/prds/- Reference PRDs and past reviewssub-agents/- The 7 reviewer personascontext-library/strategy/- Strategic context for executive reviewcontext-library/research/- User research for UXR validation
Sub-agents available:
- engineer-reviewer.md - Technical feasibility, complexity, dependencies
- designer-reviewer.md - UX/UI feedback, user experience
- executive-reviewer.md - Strategic alignment, business impact
- legal-advisor.md - Compliance, risk, regulatory concerns
- uxr-analyst.md - User research synthesis, validation
- skeptic.md - Devil's advocate, challenge assumptions
- customer-voice.md - Simulate user perspective
Workflow
Step 1: PRD Selection
If user specified PRD name:
- Look for it in
outputs/prds/andcontext-library/prds/ - If found: Proceed
- If not found: List available PRDs, ask user to choose
- Look for it in
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?"
- Scan
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 single message with multiple Task tool calls for parallel execution.
For each sub-agent, create 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 context-library/strategy/ 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 context-library/research/ 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:
- ✅ Strengths (what's working well)
- ⚠️ Concerns or gaps (important but not blocking)
- ❌ Blockers (must fix before proceeding)
- 💡 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:
---
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 `/decision-doc` 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
Save review synthesis file
Display summary:
7-agent review complete for [PRD]! ✅ Strong areas: [X] ⚠️ Critical blockers: [Y] 💡 Key recommendations: [Z] Overall: [Ready to proceed / Needs work]Offer next steps:
- If blockers exist: "Want me to help update the PRD to address blockers?"
- If conflicts exist: "Run
/decision-docto 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:
/decision-doc- Document decisions on conflicting perspectives/prd-draft- Update PRD based on feedback/prototype- Build prototype for validation/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:
/decision-doc- Document key decisions/prototype- Build based on 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")