Review Prd Quality.prompt

---
description: "Review a Product Requirements Document (PRD), score completeness and requirement quality, and provide prioritized improvements."
name: "Review PRD Quality"
argument-hint: "Path to PRD file or PRD text to review"
agent: "agent"
---

Review the PRD provided by the user and produce a structured quality assessment.

## Scope
- Evaluate product requirement quality, not technical architecture correctness.
- Identify gaps that block implementation-ready product alignment.

## Review Steps
1. Confirm the PRD context:
   - Feature/problem being solved
   - Target users
   - Intended outcomes
2. Score completeness and requirement quality using the rubric below.
3. List critical gaps and ambiguities.
4. Provide prioritized edits that improve quality without adding implementation design.

## Scoring Rubric (0-100)
- Problem and user clarity (15)
  - Is the problem explicit and user-centered?
- Scope definition (15)
  - Are in-scope and out-of-scope boundaries clear?
- Functional requirement quality (25)
  - Are requirements specific, testable, and unambiguous?
- Non-functional coverage (10)
  - Are performance, reliability, security/privacy, and compliance addressed where relevant?
- Success metrics and acceptance criteria (20)
  - Are outcomes measurable and validation-ready?
- Dependencies, risks, and open questions (15)
  - Are external dependencies and decision blockers documented?

## Requirement Quality Checks
For each requirement set, verify:
- Atomic: one requirement per statement
- Verifiable: can be objectively tested
- Unambiguous: avoids vague terms
- Outcome-focused: states what, not how
- Consistent: uses stable terminology and IDs

## Output Format
Return the review in this structure:

### PRD Quality Score
- Overall score: <0-100>
- Rating: <Excellent|Good|Needs Work|High Risk>
- Summary: <2-4 sentences>

### Score Breakdown
| Category | Score | Max | Notes |
|---|---:|---:|---|
| Problem and user clarity | <n> | 15 | <notes> |
| Scope definition | <n> | 15 | <notes> |
| Functional requirement quality | <n> | 25 | <notes> |
| Non-functional coverage | <n> | 10 | <notes> |
| Success metrics and acceptance criteria | <n> | 20 | <notes> |
| Dependencies, risks, open questions | <n> | 15 | <notes> |

### Critical Findings
- <highest-priority issue>
- <next issue>

### Recommended Fixes (Priority Ordered)
1. <fix 1>
2. <fix 2>
3. <fix 3>

### Missing Information to Request
- <question 1>
- <question 2>