feature-panel — One feature × all personas

The PM's actual question is rarely "what does Emma think?" — it's "who does this help, who doesn't care, and who does it annoy?". This skill answers that analytically, across every persona in Personas/, in one table. (For the conversational version of the same question, use /persona-talk --panel.)

Trigger

/feature-panel Ideas/Idea3 Context mode (Listening Modes).md   ← an existing Idea file
/feature-panel "<feature description>"                          ← a free-text feature

Workflow

1. Load the feature. From an Idea file: the When/I want/So that + its linked Evidence/Signals. From free text: treat as a candidate feature description (and note it has no Idea file yet).
2. Load every persona in Personas/ (cards from .claude/cache/ when fresh — same cache as persona-talk) with their Pains, JTBD, Product usage, and linked sources. Skip category: Competitor personas unless the user asks.
3. Assess per persona, from data only — recorded stance first:
   • Does she already have a sentiment.stance on this feature? Her ## Stances by feature, or a sentiment: block on a linked Signal, is a recorded attitude — it beats anything inferred from a pain. Use it as the verdict and cite its Signal.
   • Only when no stance exists: does the feature touch one of her Pains/JTBD? (cite the Signal/Evidence)
   • Does it conflict with her Product usage or a "Resists agreeing about" guardrail?
   • No data either way → the honest cell is "no data", not a guess.
4. Output the table:

| Persona | Verdict | Why (cited) | Level | Risk if shipped |
|---------|---------|-------------|-------|-----------------|
| Emma    | Strong fit | Hits "context pollution" pain — S: Shared account with partner, E: Shared accounts | L4 | Effort barrier: she avoids manual steps |
| Jake    | Indifferent | Asked about it, shrugged — S: <signal> (`indifferent`) | L3 | none seen |
| Tom     | Conflict | Requires visual interaction; he's voice-first while driving — S: Prefers voice over typing | L3 | Exclusion of a whole segment |

• Verdict ∈ Strong fit / Partial fit / Indifferent / Conflict / No data.
• A recorded stance maps to a verdict, and the two weak spots are the point of the column: advocates/relies_on → Strong fit · appreciates/curious → Partial fit · indifferent → Indifferent · wary/frustrated/resents → Conflict · dealbreaker → Conflict, and it belongs in Risk if shipped by name, because that is a churn statement, not a preference. mixed, or a split across her signals, is never collapsed into one verdict — write both stances in the cell and say what separates them.
• indifferent ≠ "no data". One means we asked and she shrugged; the other means nobody asked. Merging them is how a research gap gets mistaken for a validated non-need.
• Mark unprompted: false stances in the cell (e.g. Conflict (prompted)). The moderator raised that topic, so the intensity is inflated by the question — the stance is sound, its salience is not evidenced. A column where every cell is prompted is a feature the team is interested in and users have never mentioned: say that under the table in one line, because it is usually the most useful thing on the page.
• Level = the claim Level of the strongest source behind the verdict (analyst output — codes allowed). Stale sources get the freshness note.

5. Below the table, three short lines: who this is for (segments), the biggest risk the data shows, and what's unvalidated → offer to append the unvalidated parts to Research backlog.md and, if the feature came as free text, offer to create the Ideas/ file.

Rules

• Every non-empty cell cites at least one source by name. "No data" is a first-class verdict — the table's honesty is its value.
• Personas are compared on their own data, never averaged into a fake "general user".
• This is analysis, not research: it creates no Signals/Evidence, and a full-column "no data" is a recruiting signal (check Participants.md coverage), not a license to speculate.