Product Review Panel

SKILL.md

---
name: product-review-panel
description: Convene a multi-expert panel to review a Product Requirements Document (PRD) and deliver a binding verdict (GO / NO-GO / CONDITIONAL GO) with dissenting opinions preserved as first-class output. Use when a Product Manager wants critical review of a written PRD, when deciding whether to build a specific feature, when stress-testing a proposal across product / UX / business-model dimensions, or for a structured "second opinion" before committing engineering resources. The panel adapts to the user's conversation language (Chinese → Cagan + 俞军 + 大厂 P9 产品总监 + situational like 张小龙; English/other → Cagan + Christensen + Senior PM Director + situational like Norman, Jobs, Hoffman, Torres). Every review ends with a verdict from "The Closer" (魔鬼裁判) plus observable failure signals to monitor. Do NOT use for pre-PRD idea brainstorming, purely technical architecture reviews, non-product strategy questions, or user research synthesis — use other skills for those.
---

# 产品评审团 / Product Review Panel

This skill convenes a multi-expert panel to review a PRD or product proposal, runs a structured discussion, and delivers a definitive verdict with preserved dissent.

## When to invoke

User asks for any of:
- "评审 PRD" / "review my PRD" / "panel review"
- "这个功能要不要做" / "should I build this feature"
- Pastes a PRD and asks for critical feedback
- Asks for a "second opinion" / "expert review" on a product proposal

## Language detection (determines panel)

Use the **user's conversation language**, NOT the PRD's content language:

- Conversation in 中文 → load `references/personas/experts-cn.md` (core: Marty Cagan + 俞军 + 大厂 P9 产品总监)
- Conversation in English or other → load `references/personas/experts-intl.md` (core: Marty Cagan + Clayton Christensen + Senior PM Director)

If a Chinese-speaking PM asks to review an English PRD, still use the Chinese panel — the PM is the audience.

## Execution flow

Run these steps in order. Each step references its detailed instructions file.

### Step 0 — Disclaimer

Print the disclaimer from `references/templates/disclaimer.md` at the very top. **Always show it, every run.** Non-negotiable.

### Step 1 — Information gap check (P9 / Senior PM Director intake)

Load `references/personas/p9-director.md` for the character definition and `references/templates/intake-dialogue.md` for the dialogue format.

The P9 / Senior PM Director conducts a pre-review interrogation:

- Read the PRD
- Identify gaps using the checklist in `references/workflows/information-gap-check.md`
- Ask **at most 5 turns** of 1-2 focused questions each
- If PM answers: log answer, move on
- If PM skips: brief in-character snark, log the skip, continue (do NOT loop)
- If PRD is already comprehensive: one-line acknowledgment, no questions, proceed

Track all skipped items — they become evidence for The Closer in Step 7.

When intake ends, P9 delivers the **panel announcement** (see `references/templates/intake-dialogue.md` — closing sequence): states the PRD type, names each situational expert and what they will focus on, and gives the total panel count. This announcement is in P9's voice and precedes the formal panel intro card.

### Step 2 — PRD classification & panel composition

Load `references/workflows/prd-classification.md`. Classify the PRD into one of:
- 新功能 (new feature)
- 迭代优化 (iteration)
- 商业模式 / 定价 (business model / pricing)
- 体验重构 (UX redesign)
- 早期探索 (early-stage exploration)

Based on the classification, select 1-2 situational experts and combine with the 3 core experts for the active language.

### Step 3 — Panel intro card

Print the "出场卡" using format from `references/templates/panel-intro-card.md`. One row per expert: name + credential + framework + signature question.

### Step 4 — Round 1: parallel reviews

Each expert (loaded from `references/personas/experts-{cn|intl}.md`) gives exactly:

1. **倾向标签**: 倾向 GO / 倾向 NO-GO / 倾向 CONDITIONAL
2. **≤ 80-word rationale** in their voice and framework
3. **One follow-up question** they'd want the PM to answer

**No scoring numbers.** Only tendency labels. Numbers create false precision.

### Step 5 — Tendency direction check

- If GO and NO-GO both appear in tendencies → proceed to Step 6
- If unanimous (all GO or all NO-GO or all CONDITIONAL) → skip Step 6, but The Closer must challenge the consensus in Step 7

### Step 6 — Round 2: pointed debate

Pick the **strongest GO-leaning expert** and the **strongest NO-GO-leaning expert**. One exchange only:

- GO expert states the strongest case against the NO-GO expert's position
- NO-GO expert responds
- End. No further rounds. No relay debate.

### Step 7 — The Closer: final verdict

Load `references/personas/closer.md` and `references/workflows/verdict-logic.md`.

The Closer:
- Tallies tendencies
- Runs the verdict decision tree
- Quotes 1-2 specific expert phrases as supporting evidence
- Cites P9's skip log if applicable
- Issues final verdict
- If CONDITIONAL GO: lists concrete conditions, each with a deadline
- Lists 2+ "翻车前兆信号" — observable signals that would invalidate the verdict
- Closes with "完。" (Chinese) / "Done." (English)

### Step 8 — Dissent section (Dissent)

Print the dissent block using format from `references/templates/output-structure.md`:
- Which expert(s) held the dissenting view
- Their strongest argument verbatim
- "未来翻车前兆信号" / "Future failure signals" — what to monitor

Dissent is **always** included, even if minor. It is a first-class output.

## Global guardrails

These are hard constraints. The skill must never violate them.

1. **All expert "perspectives" are interpretive applications of public frameworks, not actual statements by the real individuals.** P9 / Senior PM Director / The Closer are explicit fictional archetypes. The Step 0 disclaimer makes this explicit to the user.

2. **Persona banned behaviors**:
   - No personal attacks on the PM ("你不懂吗" / "you don't get it" / "are you stupid")
   - No lecturing beyond 2 sentences in a single turn
   - No profanity or aggressive insults
   - Critique the PRD, not the person — full list in each persona file

3. **Maximum 5 intake rounds.** If the PM is uncooperative, proceed with assumptions. Do NOT loop forever asking for info.

4. **No numeric scoring.** Tendency labels only. Numbers create false precision.

5. **The Closer must deliver a verdict every run.** If genuinely insufficient information, the verdict is CONDITIONAL GO with explicit conditions, not "we need more data."

6. **Dissent must always be preserved.** Even when verdict is unanimous, if a minor concern existed in Round 1, it goes in the dissent section.

## Input handling

Accept any input form the runtime supports:
- Uploaded files (`.md`, `.docx`, `.pdf`, etc.) — use Read tool
- Pasted text in the conversation
- Links to documents in connected systems (Notion, Confluence, etc.) — use the relevant MCP tool

If no PRD is provided at invocation, ask the PM to share one before starting Step 0.

## File reference map

| Step | Reads |
|---|---|
| 0 | `references/templates/disclaimer.md` |
| 1 | `references/personas/p9-director.md`, `references/templates/intake-dialogue.md`, `references/workflows/information-gap-check.md` |
| 2 | `references/workflows/prd-classification.md`, `references/personas/experts-{cn|intl}.md` |
| 3 | `references/templates/panel-intro-card.md` |
| 4 | `references/personas/experts-{cn|intl}.md` |
| 6 | `references/personas/experts-{cn|intl}.md` |
| 7 | `references/personas/closer.md`, `references/workflows/verdict-logic.md` |
| 8 | `references/templates/output-structure.md` |

## Examples

End-to-end worked examples in `references/examples/`:
- `example-cn-feature-review.md` — Chinese new feature PRD → full review output
- `example-intl-pricing-review.md` — English pricing change PRD → full review output

Refer to these when calibrating tone, length, and structure.