// 01 · what it does

Review without politeness.

doc-review evaluates any PM document — a PRD, a ticket, a project brief, a tech spec — and returns structured feedback with severity-rated issues and a smell test. You paste in the document (or point to a file), and the skill identifies what's missing, what's vague, and what would cause problems downstream if left unaddressed. It auto-detects the document type, so you don't need to specify format before running it.

PMs produce and review documents constantly, but the review rarely happens with the same rigor as the writing. Teams approve PRDs with undefined success metrics, ship tickets with no edge cases, and brief engineers against specs that leave out the most important constraints. doc-review applies a consistent quality bar — the one a strong senior PM would apply — to every artifact you run it against, without fatigue or politeness.

Day 2 uses the PRD you produced on Day 1 as input. That sequence is intentional — you see your own work evaluated by the same standard you'll hold all future documents to. After today, you'll know what questions to ask before you draft, not after.

// 02 · sample prompts

Two ways in.

prompt.basic.txt
/doc-review

Review this PRD and tell me what's missing:

[paste any existing PRD or spec here]
prompt.advanced.txt
/doc-review

Review this PRD. I'm the Adventurer Experience PM at Terrain, a two-sided marketplace for bookable outdoor experiences — guides list surf lessons, alpine climbs, foraging walks; adventurers discover and book them. The PRD is for a guide listing setup guidance feature intended to raise guide activation from 62% to 75% by Q3. I need this reviewed before I walk Jordan Lee, Aisha Nkomo, Chris Okafor, and the cross-squad engineering group through it on Thursday — flag anything that would cause confusion or require a follow-up meeting to resolve.

[paste the PRD you produced on Day 1 here]
Don't have a Day 1 PRD? Paste any existing spec, ticket, or project brief. The skill auto-detects document type.
// 03 · reflection

Three questions.

  1. 01What did the skill flag that you would have missed or let slide in a peer review?
  2. 02Which severity-high issues surprised you — and why do you think they weren't caught when the document was first written?
  3. 03Where in your current work do you have documents that would benefit from this level of review before they go to engineering or leadership?