pm-artifact-review

name	pm-artifact-review
description	Use when completing PM artifacts (PRDs, user stories, roadmaps) or before sharing with stakeholders to verify quality and completeness

PM Artifact Review

Dispatch a PM reviewer subagent to catch gaps and quality issues in PM artifacts before they reach engineering, stakeholders, or leadership. The reviewer gets precisely crafted context — never your session history.

Core principle: Review PM artifacts before they cascade into commitments. A flawed PRD costs 10x more to fix after engineering starts.

Announce at start: "I'm using the pm-artifact-review skill to review [artifact type]."

When to Request Review

Mandatory:

• After completing a PRD (before user story breakdown)
• After completing user stories (before sprint planning)
• After completing a roadmap (before stakeholder presentation)
• After completing a discovery doc (before PRD)

Optional but valuable:

• When the artifact is strategically critical
• When multiple stakeholders will commit resources based on it
• When you want a fresh perspective before an executive review

The Process

Step 1: Identify What to Review

Ready to review:

• PRD: Check against Amazon PR/FAQ format, discovery findings, and PM quality standards
• User Stories: Check INVEST criteria, acceptance criteria format, edge case coverage
• Roadmap: Check outcome-based structure, Now/Next/Later format, OKR alignment
• Discovery Doc: Check completeness of opportunity assessment, research evidence, JTBD mapping

Step 2: Dispatch PM Reviewer Subagent

Use the template at pm-artifact-review/artifact-reviewer-prompt.md.

Fill these placeholders:

• {DESCRIPTION} — Brief summary of the artifact (e.g., "PRD for onboarding redesign")
• {PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS} — What it should address (discovery doc path, or requirements list)
• {ARTIFACT_CONTENT_OR_PATH} — Full path to the artifact file

Step 3: Act on Feedback

• Fix Critical issues immediately — these block progress
• Fix Important issues before proceeding to next step
• Note Minor issues for later polish
• If the reviewer found gaps in the underlying spec/discovery, go back and fix those first

Two-Stage Review

The reviewer checks two dimensions:

Stage 1 — Spec Compliance Does the artifact follow the required format and cover all required sections?

Stage 2 — PM Quality Is the thinking sound? Are there gaps in problem clarity, metrics, scope, user centricity, or executability?

Always complete Stage 1 before Stage 2. A perfectly written artifact (Stage 2) that misses required sections (Stage 1) still fails review.

Example

You: "PRD complete. Let me review before breaking into stories."

[Review discovery doc to ensure it's current]
[Dispatch PM reviewer subagent]
  DESCRIPTION: PRD for new onboarding flow — aims to improve activation from 40% to 65%
  PLAN_OR_REQUIREMENTS: docs/product-superpowers/discovery/2026-05-20-onboarding.md
  ARTIFACT_CONTENT_OR_PATH: docs/product-superpowers/prds/2026-05-22-onboarding.md

[Subagent returns]:

  Strengths:
  - Strong press release with clear customer benefit
  - Metrics are specific and time-bound

  Issues:
  Critical: (none)
  Important:
  1. Missing FAQ internal question about support team training
  2. Out-of-scope section doesn't mention mobile (will engineering assume it's in scope?)
  3. No accessibility requirements specified
  Minor:
  1. Customer quote could be more specific to target persona

  Assessment: Ready with fixes

You: [Fix Important issues]
You: [Invoke user-story-writing skill]

Red Flags

Never:

• Skip review because "it's a simple feature"
• Proceed with unfixed Critical issues
• Forward unreviewed artifacts to stakeholders
• Ignore Important issues — they compound
• Argue with valid PM quality feedback

If reviewer wrong:

• Push back with evidence (research data, user quotes, strategy documents)
• Show how the artifact addresses the concern
• Request clarification on what specifically is missing

Integration with Workflow

Discovery → PRD pipeline:

• Review discovery doc before writing PRD
• Review PRD before breaking into stories
• Review stories before sprint planning

Roadmap work:

• Review roadmap before presenting to stakeholders

Strategic artifacts:

• Review competitive analysis before strategy decisions
• Review strategy doc before roadmap alignment

Common Mistakes

Skipping review: "The PRD is solid, let's just start writing stories" Reality: You're too close to the work. Fresh eyes catch what you missed.

Review-only at the end: Reviewing a full PRD + stories + roadmap at once Reality: Review at each stage. Fixing early saves rework.

Vague review prompt: "Review this PRD" with no context Reality: Provide the discovery doc, format requirements, and quality standards.

Ignoring reviewer: Noting issues but not fixing them Reality: Every ignored Important issue will resurface as a stakeholder or engineering complaint.