prd-review
Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Review a brief, PRD, or spec draft before anyone else sees it. Checks the argument, the evidence, and the user's own quality bar, then returns prioritized findings. Use when the user says "review this" about a product document.
16 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jikefan/product-manager-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- ritamgh/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wuyining0130/c-roomtheir own version, first seen Oct 15, 2026
- osac-project/osac-ai-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- sashabogi/trantortheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-systemtheir own version, first seen Sep 14, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use design-review and security-review.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
dillonluiSkilldesign-review
Review a view or flow for UX and UI issues. Provides severity-ranked, actionable findings grounded in established design heuristics. Use when the user asks for design feedback, UX review, or UI critique.
Also in 3 projects that use this
SentrySkillsecurity-review
Finds exploitable application security vulnerabilities in code changes. Use for Warden security scans, appsec review, OWASP-style checks, authentication or authorization bugs, injection, XSS, SSRF, path traversal, secrets, unsafe crypto, webhook verification, open redirects, or sensitive data exposure.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions16 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 16
- cenconq25/claude-code-app-studio★ 40same name
- TayaIntelligence/skills★ 32same name
- caiaffa/claude-code-ultimate-engineering-system★ 17same name
- andrewthetechie/andrew-skills★ 6same name
- yihannangua/prd-review-skill★ 5same name
- jikefan/product-manager-skills★ 4same name
- shitiandou83-maker/claude-skills★ 2same name
- janellecipriano/pm-skills★ 1same name
- mikeweib/claude-skills★ 1same name
- sashabogi/trantor★ 1same name
6 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- file-feedbackSkill
- interview-synthesisSkill
- setup-workspaceSkill
- status-updateSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 11 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 12
Load the bar: Read context/preferences.md (writing preferences and corrections log), context/users.md (who this is ultimately for), and the …
- Distinctive: line 13
Read the document end to end: before flagging anything.
- Distinctive: line 17
The evidence: Every claim needs a source, a number, or a named observation.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 11 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
PRD review
Be the demanding colleague who reads the draft before the real audience does. Findings, not a rewrite.
Steps
- Load the bar. Read
context/preferences.md(writing preferences and corrections log),context/users.md(who this is ultimately for), and the project'sbrief.mdif the document belongs to a project. - Read the document end to end before flagging anything.
- Review against four lenses, in order of importance:
- The problem. Is it stated with evidence, or assumed? Would someone who disagrees be convinced there's a problem at all?
- The decision. What is this document asking the reader to decide or accept? If you can't find it, that's the first finding.
- The evidence. Every claim needs a source, a number, or a named observation. Flag each claim that has none.
- The edges. What's out of scope, what could go wrong, what's the cost of being wrong? Silent edges get flagged.
- Check it against the user's own rules. Anything in the corrections log that this draft violates gets flagged with the rule quoted.
Output
Prioritized findings: must-fix first, then should-fix, then nits. Each finding quotes the passage, says what's wrong in one line, and proposes the concrete fix. Cap at ten findings; if there are more, the top ten are the review. End with the one-line verdict you'd give the user across a desk: ready to share, or not yet, and why.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.