Persona Review

Announce at start: "I'm using the humane:persona-review skill to stress-test this document from stakeholder perspectives."

Overview

Takes a document and reviews it from N configurable personas. Each persona reads the document independently, provides structured feedback, then optionally the document is updated to address the feedback.

Usage

/persona-review [file-path] [personas]

Arguments:

• file-path — path to the document to review (required). If omitted, ask user.
• personas — comma-separated persona names or "auto" (default: auto)

Examples:

/persona-review PRD.md engineer,designer,exec
/persona-review "Claude-Drafts/pitch-deck-script.md" auto
/persona-review  # will ask for file and use auto personas

Workflow

Step 1: Load Document

Read the target file. Extract its purpose from context (frontmatter, filename, content).

Step 2: Select Personas

If auto: Choose 3 personas most relevant to the document type:

• PRD/spec → Skeptical Engineer, UX Designer, Business Stakeholder
• Pitch/proposal → Potential Customer, Investor, Competitor
• Blog post/article → Target Reader, Editor, Subject Expert
• Teaching material → Beginner Student, Advanced Practitioner, Curriculum Designer
• Marketing copy → Target Audience Member, Brand Skeptic, SEO Specialist

If specified: Use the named personas. Interpret flexibly — "engineer" becomes "Senior Engineer who has seen too many half-baked specs."

Step 3: Review Rounds

For each persona, generate a review with this structure:

### [Persona Name]
**Perspective:** [1-line description of who they are and what they care about]

**Reaction:** [2-3 sentences — their gut reaction on first read]

**Strengths:**
- [What works well from this perspective]

**Concerns:**
- [What's missing, unclear, or problematic]

**Key Question:** [The single most important question this persona would ask]

**Suggestion:** [One specific, actionable improvement]

Step 4: Synthesis

After all persona reviews, create a synthesis section:

## Synthesis

**Consensus strengths:** [What all personas agreed works]
**Consensus gaps:** [What multiple personas flagged]
**Tensions:** [Where personas disagree — these are the interesting trade-offs]
**Priority changes:** [Top 3 changes ranked by impact]

Step 5: Ask User

Present the full review and ask:

"Apply the top changes to the document? (all / pick / none)"

• all — Apply all priority changes
• pick — Let user select which to apply
• none — Leave document unchanged, keep review as reference

Step 6: Apply (if requested)

Edit the original document to address selected feedback. Keep changes minimal and targeted. After editing, show a brief diff summary of what changed.

Step 7: Save Review

Save the review alongside the document:

• If document is path/to/doc.md, save review as path/to/doc-persona-review.md
• Add frontmatter linking back to the original document:

---
type: persona-review
source: "[[original-document]]"
personas: [list]
created_date: '[[YYYYMMDD]]'
---

Guidelines

• Each persona should have a distinct voice — don't make them all sound like the same reviewer with different labels
• Personas should be constructively critical, not adversarial
• Focus on substance (logic, completeness, clarity) not style (grammar, formatting)
• If the document is in Russian, reviews should be in Russian
• Keep each persona review under 200 words — brevity forces prioritization
• The "Key Question" is the most valuable output — it should be something the author genuinely hadn't considered