PRD Stress Test
Run a multi-agent PRD review to answer: "Is this PRD ready to build?" Three reviewers analyze different dimensions in parallel, cross-reference findings, and deliver a consolidated review report.
Usage
/agent-teams:prd-stress-test path/to/prd.mdOverview
This command spawns three specialist reviewers to stress-test a PRD from different angles:
- market-fit-reviewer: Does this solve a real problem for a real market?
- feasibility-reviewer: Are the requirements clear and buildable?
- scope-reviewer: Is this appropriately sized for V1?
After parallel review, reviewers cross-reference findings to catch conflicts (e.g., scope-reviewer wants to cut a feature that market-fit-reviewer considers critical). The lead compiles everything into a consolidated review report with per-dimension scores and an actionable revision checklist.
What you get:
- Three independent review dimensions scored 1-5
- Blocking issues (must fix before building)
- Suggestions (nice to fix)
- Conflicts between reviewers
- Overall verdict: READY TO BUILD / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REWORK
- Specific revision checklist
PRD to Review
Read the PRD at: $ARGUMENTS
Instructions
Pre-Flight Check
- Verify Agent Teams is available in your Claude Code version. If teammates cannot be spawned, display:
This command requires Claude Code's Agent Teams feature. Check https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code for setup instructions.If not available, stop. - Read the PRD file from the path in the "PRD to Review" section above.
- If file not found, display error and stop: Error: PRD file not found at [path]. Please provide a valid path to a PRD markdown file.
Phase 1: PRD Intake
- Parse the PRD content and identify key sections (features, requirements, target users, etc.).
- Check for existing product context:
- Read .claude/product-context/product-info.md if it exists - Read .claude/product-context/competitive-landscape.md if it exists
- Display briefing:
── PRD Stress Test ────────────────────────────────────────
PRD: [file path]
Title: [extracted title or first heading]
Assembling your review team:
1. market-fit-reviewer → Market fit and differentiation
2. feasibility-reviewer → Technical feasibility and requirements clarity
3. scope-reviewer → Scope appropriateness and MVP sizing
Phase 1: Parallel Review (3 reviewers working simultaneously)
Phase 2: Cross-Reference (reviewers check each other's findings)
Phase 3: Consolidated Report (verdict with revision checklist)
Starting review...
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Phase 2: Parallel Review
Spawn 3 teammates simultaneously using Agent Teams:
Teammate 1: market-fit-reviewer
Prompt: "Review this PRD for market fit. Score 1-5.
PRD CONTENT:
[full PRD content]
[Include any product context found in Phase 1]
Your job: Evaluate target user clarity, problem validation, value proposition,
differentiation, and market context. Use your market-fit-reviewer expertise.
Deliver your review in the standard market-fit-reviewer output format.
Score 1-5 using the team-deliverables rubric."Teammate 2: feasibility-reviewer
Prompt: "Review this PRD for technical feasibility and requirements clarity. Score 1-5.
PRD CONTENT:
[full PRD content]
Your job: Evaluate requirements clarity, acceptance criteria, technical
feasibility, edge cases, and integration points. Flag every ambiguity.
Use your feasibility-reviewer expertise.
Deliver your review in the standard feasibility-reviewer output format.
Score 1-5 using the team-deliverables rubric."Teammate 3: scope-reviewer
Prompt: "Review this PRD for scope appropriateness. Score 1-5.
PRD CONTENT:
[full PRD content]
Your job: Assess total scope, classify every feature as MUST-HAVE / CUT FROM V1 /
DEFER TO V2, identify scope creep, and estimate effort reduction from cuts.
Use your scope-reviewer expertise. Apply the 3-Feature MVP Rule.
Deliver your review in the standard scope-reviewer output format.
Score 1-5 using the team-deliverables rubric."Wait for all three reviewers to complete their reviews.
Phase 3: Cross-Reference
Send each reviewer the other two reviewers' findings to flag conflicts.
To market-fit-reviewer:
"Here are your fellow reviewers' findings. Flag any conflicts with your review.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
[feasibility-reviewer output]
SCOPE REVIEW:
[scope-reviewer output]
Specifically check:
- Are features you consider critical for differentiation marked 'CUT' by scope-reviewer?
- Do feasibility concerns affect market-critical features?
Flag conflicts and explain your position."To feasibility-reviewer:
"Here are your fellow reviewers' findings. Flag any conflicts with your review.
MARKET FIT REVIEW:
[market-fit-reviewer output]
SCOPE REVIEW:
[scope-reviewer output]
Specifically check:
- Do features market-fit-reviewer considers critical have clear requirements?
- Do scope cuts remove technically risky components (positive) or create gaps?
Flag conflicts and explain your position."To scope-reviewer:
"Here are your fellow reviewers' findings. Flag any conflicts with your review.
MARKET FIT REVIEW:
[market-fit-reviewer output]
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
[feasibility-reviewer output]
Specifically check:
- Are features you marked 'CUT' considered critical by market-fit-reviewer?
- Do your cuts align with feasibility concerns?
Flag conflicts and explain your position. Be willing to reconsider cuts if
market-fit evidence is strong."Wait for all three cross-reference responses.
Phase 4: Consolidated Report
As the lead agent, compile all findings into the PRD Review Report.
- Read all review reports and cross-reference responses.
- Invoke the
team-deliverablesskill for the PRD review report template. - Score each dimension using the rubrics from
team-deliverables:
- Market Fit (1-5): From market-fit-reviewer - Feasibility (1-5): From feasibility-reviewer - Scope (1-5): From scope-reviewer
- Compile blocking issues from all three reviewers.
- Document reviewer conflicts:
- Where scope-reviewer and market-fit-reviewer disagree on cuts - Where feasibility-reviewer flags risks in market-critical features - Provide resolution recommendation for each conflict
- Determine verdict:
- READY TO BUILD: All scores 4+, no blocking issues, conflicts resolved - NEEDS REVISION: Average score 3+, blocking issues are fixable, no fundamental problems - MAJOR REWORK: Any score below 2, or fundamental problems across dimensions
- Generate revision checklist:
- Must Fix (Blocking): Issues from all reviewers marked as blocking - Should Fix (Important): Non-blocking but significant improvements - Nice to Fix (Polish): Minor improvements
- Present the completed report to the user.
Phase 5: Cleanup
- Shut down all three teammates.
- Display completion:
PRD stress test complete.
Verdict: [READY TO BUILD / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REWORK]
Scores: Market Fit [X]/5 | Feasibility [X]/5 | Scope [X]/5
[If NEEDS REVISION or MAJOR REWORK]:
Use the revision checklist above to address the findings,
then run the stress test again to verify.Error Handling
- If a reviewer fails to produce output, note the gap in the report and proceed with available reviews.
- If the PRD is very short or missing major sections, note this upfront but still run the review (the reviews will surface the gaps).
- If the PRD file is not markdown, attempt to read it anyway and note any parsing issues.
Related
/agent-teams:validation-sprint- Validate the idea before writing a PRD/agent-teams:competitive-war-room- Research competitors referenced in the PRD