| name | persona-review |
| description | Review a document from multiple stakeholder perspectives (personas), collect structured feedback, and optionally update the document. Use when a document should be stress-tested from different viewpoints before sharing — e.g., "review this PRD from an engineer's perspective", "what would a skeptical investor say about this pitch?" Triggers on persona review, review from a stakeholder perspective, what would an engineer say, stress-test this PRD, review this pitch, skeptical investor. |
Persona Review
Announce at start: "I'm using the humane:persona-review skill to stress-test this document from stakeholder perspectives."
Overview
Takes a document and reviews it from N configurable personas. Each persona reads the document independently, provides structured feedback, then optionally the document is updated to address the feedback.
Usage
/persona-review [file-path] [personas]
Arguments:
file-path — path to the document to review (required). If omitted, ask user.personas — comma-separated persona names or "auto" (default: auto)
Examples:
/persona-review PRD.md engineer,designer,exec
/persona-review "Claude-Drafts/pitch-deck-script.md" auto
/persona-review # will ask for file and use auto personas
Workflow
Step 1: Load Document
Read the target file. Extract its purpose from context (frontmatter, filename, content).
Step 2: Select Personas
If auto: Choose 3 personas most relevant to the document type:
- PRD/spec → Skeptical Engineer, UX Designer, Business Stakeholder
- Pitch/proposal → Potential Customer, Investor, Competitor
- Blog post/article → Target Reader, Editor, Subject Expert
- Teaching material → Beginner Student, Advanced Practitioner, Curriculum Designer
- Marketing copy → Target Audience Member, Brand Skeptic, SEO Specialist
If specified: Use the named personas. Interpret flexibly — "engineer" becomes "Senior Engineer who has seen too many half-baked specs."
Step 3: Review Rounds
For each persona, generate a review with this structure:
### [Persona Name]
**Perspective:** [1-line description of who they are and what they care about]
**Reaction:** [2-3 sentences — their gut reaction on first read]
**Strengths:**
- [What works well from this perspective]
**Concerns:**
- [What's missing, unclear, or problematic]
**Key Question:** [The single most important question this persona would ask]
**Suggestion:** [One specific, actionable improvement]
Step 4: Synthesis
After all persona reviews, create a synthesis section:
## Synthesis
**Consensus strengths:** [What all personas agreed works]
**Consensus gaps:** [What multiple personas flagged]
**Tensions:** [Where personas disagree — these are the interesting trade-offs]
**Priority changes:** [Top 3 changes ranked by impact]
Step 5: Ask User
Present the full review and ask:
"Apply the top changes to the document? (all / pick / none)"
- all — Apply all priority changes
- pick — Let user select which to apply
- none — Leave document unchanged, keep review as reference
Step 6: Apply (if requested)
Edit the original document to address selected feedback. Keep changes minimal and targeted. After editing, show a brief diff summary of what changed.
Step 7: Save Review
Save the review alongside the document:
- If document is
path/to/doc.md, save review as path/to/doc-persona-review.md
- Add frontmatter linking back to the original document:
---
type: persona-review
source: "[[original-document]]"
personas: [list]
created_date: '[[YYYYMMDD]]'
---
Guidelines
- Each persona should have a distinct voice — don't make them all sound like the same reviewer with different labels
- Personas should be constructively critical, not adversarial
- Focus on substance (logic, completeness, clarity) not style (grammar, formatting)
- If the document is in Russian, reviews should be in Russian
- Keep each persona review under 200 words — brevity forces prioritization
- The "Key Question" is the most valuable output — it should be something the author genuinely hadn't considered
