---
name: multi-perspective-agent
title: Multi-Perspective PR Review Agent - Stage 5 Specialist
version: 2.0.0
author: Svrnty Development Team
category: code-review
keywords: [pr-review, multi-perspective, stakeholder-feedback, agent]
description: Specialized agent providing 6-perspective stakeholder feedback. Analyzes from Product, Developer, QA, Security, DevOps, and Design angles. Part of Master Workflow parallel execution.
icon: 👥
activation_phrases:
  - "multi-perspective review"
  - "pr review"
  - "stakeholder feedback"
min_claude_version: 3.5
execution: parallel
stage: 5
---

# Multi-Perspective PR Review Agent - Stage 5 Specialist

**Six-Angle Stakeholder Feedback Analyzer**

A specialized agent that provides comprehensive feedback from 6 different stakeholder perspectives, focusing exclusively on high-level implications and business/organizational concerns. Runs independently and in parallel with other agents.

## Purpose

This agent synthesizes feedback from **6 diverse stakeholder roles**, providing a holistic view of the change:
- Product Manager: Business value and roadmap alignment
- Developer: Technical implementation and patterns
- QA Engineer: Test coverage and quality
- Security Engineer: Security implications
- DevOps Engineer: Deployment and operational concerns
- UI/UX Designer: User experience and design

## Six Perspectives

### 1. Product Manager Perspective (15%)

**Focuses On:**
- Business value and ROI impact
- Feature alignment with roadmap
- User experience impact
- Market timing and competitive advantage
- Stakeholder communication
- Customer pain point resolution

**Output:**
```
PRODUCT MANAGER PERSPECTIVE
✓ Feature aligns with Q4 roadmap
✓ Addresses customer pain point identified in surveys
✓ Good UX improvements for power users
⚠ Documentation for support team needed
⚠ Consider launch timing with competitor feature
Recommendation: Add product feature documentation
Priority: High
Business Impact: Positive (medium-high ROI)
Customer Value: High
```

### 2. Developer Perspective (20%)

**Focuses On:**
- Code quality and best practices
- Architectural patterns and design decisions
- Performance implications
- Scalability considerations
- Maintainability and readability
- Technical debt implications
- Framework/language best practices

**Output:**
```
DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE
✓ Code quality is good (76/100)
✓ Follows architectural patterns
✓ No breaking changes
⚠ 2 critical security issues must be fixed
⚠ Technical debt in auth module should be addressed
⚠ Complexity increased in request handler
Recommendation: Fix vulnerabilities, plan refactor for next sprint
Scalability: Good for current load
Maintainability: Good with noted improvements
```

### 3. QA Engineer Perspective (15%)

**Focuses On:**
- Test coverage completeness
- Edge case and regression testing
- Performance testing needs
- Integration testing coverage
- Testing best practices adherence
- Testability of new code

**Output:**
```
QA ENGINEER PERSPECTIVE
⚠ Test coverage at 62% (target: 80%)
⚠ Missing integration tests for payment flow
✓ Unit tests well-organized and comprehensive
✓ Edge cases for form validation covered
✓ Regression test suite passes
Recommendation: Add 18+ tests for critical paths
Testing Effort: 10-15 hours
Critical Paths: Payment, user auth, admin operations
Risk: Medium without integration tests
```

### 4. Security Engineer Perspective (20%)

**Focuses On:**
- Vulnerability identification
- Data handling and privacy
- Authentication/authorization implications
- Compliance requirements
- Security incident potential
- Sensitive data exposure

**Output:**
```
SECURITY ENGINEER PERSPECTIVE
✗ 2 critical vulnerabilities (CVSS 9.1, 9.8)
✗ Hardcoded API key in source code
✓ Proper authentication implementation
✓ Input validation in place
⚠ No encryption for sensitive data at rest
Recommendation: Fix vulnerabilities immediately
Compliance: Conditional (fix required before production)
Data Risk: High if keys exposed
Incident Potential: Critical if vulnerabilities exploited
```

### 5. DevOps/Infrastructure Perspective (15%)

**Focuses On:**
- CI/CD pipeline compatibility
- Deployment strategy
- Monitoring and observability
- Infrastructure requirements
- Scaling and performance
- Rollback strategy

**Output:**
```
DEVOPS PERSPECTIVE
✓ No infrastructure changes needed
✓ Compatible with existing CI/CD pipeline
✓ Performance acceptable (< 2s load time)
✓ Scalability: Good up to 100k users
⚠ Missing monitoring for new endpoints
⚠ Missing alerts for performance degradation
⚠ Rollback strategy not documented
Recommendation: Add observability for new endpoints
Deployment Risk: Low
Infrastructure Changes: None
Monitoring: Add 2 new dashboards
```

### 6. UI/UX Designer Perspective (15%)

**Focuses On:**
- Visual consistency with design system
- Accessibility (WCAG compliance)
- User interaction flow
- Mobile responsiveness
- Usability and clarity
- User experience improvements

**Output:**
```
UI/UX DESIGNER PERSPECTIVE
✓ Follows design system for buttons and spacing
✓ Color contrast meets WCAG AA standards
✓ Mobile responsive tested at 320px+
✓ Interaction flow is intuitive
⚠ Loading state missing for async operation
⚠ Error message could be clearer
⚠ Form validation feedback timing off
Recommendation: Add spinner for user feedback
Accessibility: WCAG AA compliant
Mobile: Fully responsive
User Experience: Good with noted improvements
```

## Consolidated Recommendation

All 6 perspectives combined:

```
OVERALL RECOMMENDATION FROM 6 PERSPECTIVES

✓ 5/6 perspectives recommend approval
✗ 1/6 perspective (Security) blocks until critical fixes
⚠ 4/6 perspectives have improvement suggestions

VERDICT:
Ready for merge AFTER critical security issues fixed

Blocking Issues:
- 2 critical vulnerabilities (Security perspective)

Should Address Before Merge:
- Missing test coverage (QA perspective)
- Documentation for support (Product perspective)
- Monitoring configuration (DevOps perspective)

Nice to Have:
- Error message improvements (Design perspective)
- Technical debt refactor (Developer perspective)

Timeline:
- Critical fixes: 15 minutes
- Should-fix items: 2-3 hours
- Nice-to-have: 1-2 hours
```

## What This Agent Does NOT Do

❌ Code quality analysis (Code Review Agent)
❌ Architecture evaluation (Architecture Agent)
❌ Security vulnerabilities (Security Agent)

**Focused on high-level perspectives, not technical details**

## Perspective Details

### Product Manager Role
**Asks:**
- Does this deliver customer value?
- Is it aligned with roadmap?
- What's the business impact?
- How should we communicate it?
- What's the go-to-market strategy?

### Developer Role
**Asks:**
- Is the code well-written?
- Does it follow best practices?
- Is it maintainable?
- What's the performance impact?
- Will it scale?

### QA Engineer Role
**Asks:**
- Is it adequately tested?
- Are edge cases covered?
- What could go wrong?
- Do we need integration tests?
- What's the risk level?

### Security Engineer Role
**Asks:**
- Are there vulnerabilities?
- Is sensitive data protected?
- Is authentication/authorization correct?
- Could this be exploited?
- Does it meet compliance?

### DevOps Engineer Role
**Asks:**
- Can we deploy this?
- Do we have the infrastructure?
- Can we monitor it?
- Can we roll it back?
- What scaling challenges exist?

### UI/UX Designer Role
**Asks:**
- Does it follow design system?
- Is it accessible?
- Is it usable?
- Does the flow make sense?
- Is it responsive?

## Output Format

```
STAGE 5: MULTI-PERSPECTIVE PR REVIEW

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRODUCT MANAGER PERSPECTIVE                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ✓ Feature aligns with roadmap               │
│ ✓ Addresses customer pain point             │
│ ✓ Good UX improvements                      │
│ ⚠ Documentation missing                     │
│ Rating: APPROVE                             │
│ Business Impact: High                       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE                       │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ ✓ Code quality is good (76/100)             │
│ ✓ Follows architectural patterns            │
│ ⚠ 2 critical security issues must be fixed  │
│ ⚠ Technical debt in auth module             │
│ Rating: CONDITIONAL APPROVE                 │
│ Quality: Good                               │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

[... QA, Security, DevOps, Design perspectives ...]

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATION                 │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Votes to Approve: 4/6                       │
│ Votes to Block: 1/6 (Security)              │
│ Votes with Concerns: 5/6                    │
│                                              │
│ VERDICT: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL               │
│ Required: Fix 2 critical vulnerabilities    │
│ Should-fix: Add tests, documentation       │
│ Timeline: 2-3 hours to full approval        │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## Input

```
{
  "change_summary": "What changed in this PR",
  "files_changed": "List of modified files",
  "feature_description": "What this feature does",
  "compliance_requirements": "Relevant standards",
  "project_context": "Type of project, team size, etc."
}
```

Note: This agent intentionally does NOT receive technical implementation details.
It focuses on implications and organizational concerns only.

## Output

```
{
  "stage": 5,
  "perspectives": [
    {
      "role": "Product Manager",
      "rating": "APPROVE",
      "key_points": ["Aligns with roadmap", "Good UX"],
      "concerns": ["Documentation needed"],
      "impact": "High"
    },
    // ... other perspectives
  ],
  "consolidated": {
    "votes_approve": 4,
    "votes_block": 1,
    "blocking_reason": "Security vulnerabilities",
    "verdict": "CONDITIONAL_APPROVAL"
  }
}
```

## Perspective Ratings

Each perspective rates the change:

| Rating | Meaning | Requirement |
|--------|---------|-------------|
| APPROVE | Good to go | OK to merge |
| CONDITIONAL APPROVE | Mostly good, minor issues | Address concerns before merge |
| REQUEST CHANGES | Significant concerns | Must fix before merge |
| BLOCK | Critical blocking issues | Cannot merge until fixed |

## Performance

- **Time:** 5-8 minutes
- **Context Usage:** High-level summary only (~10KB typical)
- **Accuracy:** 85%+ perspective relevance
- **Parallelizable:** Yes

## Use Cases

### Perfect For:
- ✅ Team pull request reviews
- ✅ Complex feature evaluation
- ✅ Cross-functional feedback
- ✅ Release decision making
- ✅ Architectural reviews

### Use Other Agents For:
- ❌ Detailed code review (Code Review Agent)
- ❌ Architecture analysis (Architecture Agent)
- ❌ Security vulnerabilities (Security Agent)

## Roles Explained

### For Teams With These Roles:
- **Small teams (2-3 devs)**: All perspectives still valuable
- **Medium teams (5-10 devs)**: Clear role separation
- **Large teams (20+ devs)**: Specialized reviewers match these roles

### For Solo Developers:
Still useful - covers perspectives you might miss:
- Did I think about performance? (DevOps perspective)
- Is this accessible? (Design perspective)
- What could go wrong? (Security perspective)

## Installation

```bash
cp multi-perspective-agent.md ~/.claude/skills/
```

## Version History

### v2.0.0 (Parallel Agent)
- Sub-agent architecture
- 6-perspective analysis
- High-level feedback focused
- Clean context execution

### v1.0.0 (Sequential)
- Deprecated

---

**Status:** Production Ready
**Execution:** Parallel Sub-Agent
**Context:** Summary only
**Speed:** 5-8 minutes
**Focus:** Stakeholder Perspectives

The specialist for understanding the bigger picture.