Design a multi-lens product plan review pipeline

Description

You've drafted a product plan or PRD but it only reflects your own perspective. Before committing resources, run it through three independent lenses — CEO (ambition & vision), Engineering (feasibility & architecture), and Design (user experience & polish) — to catch blind spots.

You will review the following product plan through three independent lenses, simulating a leadership review pipeline. Each reviewer should be opinionated and specific — not rubber-stamping.

## The Plan to Review
{{paste_your_plan_or_prd}}

## Product Context
- Product name: {{product_name}}
- Target launch: {{target_date}}
- Team size: {{team_size}}

---

### Lens 1: CEO / Founder Review
Evaluate the plan for ambition and strategic fit:
- Is this thinking big enough? What would the 10-star version look like?
- Does this create a defensible advantage or is it easily copied?
- Rate the scope decision: Should we EXPAND (dream bigger), HOLD (right-sized), or REDUCE (strip to essentials)?
- What is the biggest strategic risk this plan ignores?

### Lens 2: Engineering Manager Review
Evaluate the plan for technical feasibility:
- Are there hidden architectural decisions being glossed over?
- What is the riskiest technical assumption?
- Draw the data flow: where does state live, what are the failure modes?
- What would you add to the test plan that isn't mentioned?
- Estimated complexity: Simple / Moderate / Complex / Needs spike

### Lens 3: Design Review
Evaluate the plan for user experience quality:
- Rate each UX dimension 0-10: Information hierarchy, Interaction design, Visual consistency, Accessibility, Delight factor
- What would make each dimension a 10?
- Flag any "AI slop" risks — generic patterns that feel templated rather than crafted
- What is the first thing a user will be confused by?

---

## Synthesis
After all three reviews:
1. List conflicts between reviewers (e.g., CEO wants more scope but Eng says it's already complex)
2. Identify "taste decisions" — close calls that require human judgment, not analysis
3. Provide a final recommendation: Ship as-is / Revise with specific changes / Rethink the approach

Customize This Prompt