Update to ChatPRD

{
  "description": "Review a PRD, brief, or spec the way ChatPRD's \"Review my doc\" does — a strategy-first scorecard (Strategy, Structure, Clarity, Completeness), top priorities, and 3-5 exact, quotable edit suggestions. Works on pasted or shared docs without a ChatPRD account, or on ChatPRD documents when connected. Use when the user asks to review, score, critique, pressure-test, or improve a document.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "review-doc",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: review-doc\ndescription: Review a PRD, brief, or spec the way ChatPRD's \"Review my doc\" does — a strategy-first scorecard (Strategy, Structure, Clarity, Completeness), top priorities, and 3-5 exact, quotable edit suggestions. Works on pasted or shared docs without a ChatPRD account, or on ChatPRD documents when connected. Use when the user asks to review, score, critique, pressure-test, or improve a document.\n---\n\n# Review my doc\n\n## Workflow\n\n1. Find the document:\n   - If the user pasted the document or shared a file, review that directly. No ChatPRD account is needed.\n   - If the user names a ChatPRD document, use `search_documents` with keywords from the name.\n   - If they say \"latest\" or \"most recent\", use `list_documents`.\n   - If the document is in a project, `list_projects` and `list_project_documents` can help narrow it down.\n   - If several documents match, ask the user which one to review.\n2. For a ChatPRD document, fetch the full content with `get_document`.\n3. Analyze **strategy first (about 60% of your effort)**. Great formatting means nothing without strong product thinking. Rate each 1-10:\n   - **Problem clarity**: Is the problem or opportunity clearly defined and compelling?\n   - **Solution strength**: Is the proposed solution well thought out?\n   - **Value proposition**: Is the value to users or customers clear?\n   - **Feasibility**: Is this realistic to build?\n   - **Differentiation**: Does it stand apart from alternatives?\n4. Then analyze **presentation (about 40%)**:\n   - **Structure**: organization, heading hierarchy, logical flow.\n   - **Clarity**: readability, undefined jargon and acronyms, ambiguous phrasing.\n   - **Completeness**: detect the document type (PRD, brief, spec, general) and list missing sections, undefined terms, and unanswered questions for that type.\n5. Score each category 1-10 using the rubric below, then give an **overall score** weighted most heavily toward Strategy. A poorly structured doc with a great idea beats a well-formatted doc with weak thinking.\n6. Write **3-5 suggestions**, strategic gaps first. For each one:\n   - **Section** it applies to.\n   - **Original**: an exact, verbatim quote from the document (including markdown such as `**` or `-`), so the user can find it. Never paraphrase the quote. For a missing section, quote the heading it should follow.\n   - **Suggested**: the improved or added text.\n   - **Why**: written as an action the user should take (\"Set measurable goals by adding a target and timeframe\"), not a description of the change (\"This sets clearer goals\").\n   - **Priority**: high, medium, or low.\n7. For a section with major problems, include a full rewrite to show what good looks like.\n8. Offer to apply the suggestions. Only change a ChatPRD document after the user confirms, and follow the `update-prd` skill when you do. For a pasted or shared document, return the revised version as Markdown.\n\n## Output format\n\n```markdown\n## Review: <document title>\n\n**Overall: <n>/10** — <one-sentence executive summary>\n\n| Category | Score | Summary |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Strategy | n/10 | ... |\n| Structure | n/10 | ... |\n| Clarity | n/10 | ... |\n| Completeness | n/10 | ... |\n\n**What's working:** <2-3 specific strengths>\n\n**Top priorities**\n1. ...\n2. ...\n3. ...\n\n### Suggestions\n**1. <Section> — <priority>**\n> <exact original text>\n\n**Suggested:** <replacement or addition>\n**Why:** <action to take>\n```\n\n## Scoring rubric\n\n**Strategy** (most important)\n- 9-10: Compelling problem, innovative solution, clear value, realistic execution\n- 7-8: Strong thinking with minor gaps in reasoning or differentiation\n- 5-6: Decent idea but the problem or solution needs sharper definition\n- 3-4: Weak product thinking, unclear value, or feasibility concerns\n- 1-2: Fundamentally flawed approach or missing core rationale\n\n**Structure**\n- 9-10: Clear hierarchy and logical flow · 7-8: Well organized, minor improvements possible · 5-6: Adequate · 3-4: Confusing, hard to follow · 1-2: No clear organization\n\n**Clarity**\n- 9-10: Clear to any reader · 7-8: Occasional jargon or ambiguity · 5-6: Understandable with effort · 3-4: Frequently confusing · 1-2: Very hard to understand\n\n**Completeness**\n- 9-10: Addresses all aspects · 7-8: Minor gaps · 5-6: Missing some important details · 3-4: Significant gaps · 1-2: Missing critical information\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Be specific. Reference the document's actual text instead of giving generic advice.\n- Balance criticism with recognition of what's working.\n- Judge the document as the type it is; don't penalize a brief for lacking PRD sections, or items marked out of scope or future work.\n- Don't modify any document during a review unless the user explicitly asks.\n"
}