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.md

Overview

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-deliverables skill 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