claude-skills/multi-perspective-agent.md

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

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.