Playbook for auditing PM-health across 15 dimensions (Discovery, Strategy, Prioritization, Roadmap, Specs, Metrics, Launch, Measure, Comms, Decisions, Pricing, Competitive, Feedback, AI-PM, Governance) and producing a structured report. The brain behind pm-auditor.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add VandanaAjayDubey111/great-pm --skill pm-audit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Pm Audit?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/vandanaajaydubey111-pm-audit)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: pm-audit
description: Playbook for auditing PM-health across 15 dimensions (Discovery, Strategy, Prioritization, Roadmap, Specs, Metrics, Launch, Measure, Comms, Decisions, Pricing, Competitive, Feedback, AI-PM, Governance) and producing a structured report. The brain behind pm-auditor.
when_to_use: |
Use when running /pm-audit on a product, an initiative, or the whole great-pm
setup. The rubric is also useful for any agent reviewing PM maturity
generally.
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Glob, Grep, WebFetch, WebSearch, Bash
---
# PM-Audit — the 15-dimension rubric
Assess PM maturity honestly. False alarms are not insights. A clean "this is
healthy" verdict is a real outcome.
## Severity scale
| | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 🟥 **Critical** | Actively breaks product quality, security, or commitments. Fix now. |
| 🟧 **High** | Material gap that compounds — fix this cycle. |
| 🟨 **Medium** | Worth fixing but not blocking. Quick-win or scheduled. |
| 🟦 **Info** | Context for the founder. No action required. |
Reserve 🟥 for genuine emergencies — misuse poisons future audits.
## PM-maturity fingerprint — set the stage FIRST
| Stage | Markers |
|---|---|
| **Discovery** | No PMF yet; pre-paid users; multiple pivots in play. PRDs and tight metrics are inappropriate now. |
| **Pre-PMF** | Some paid users / strong intent; product still finding its shape. Lightweight PRDs OK. |
| **Scaling** | PMF reached; growth pressure. Full PRDs, A/B tests, OKRs expected. |
| **Optimization** | Mature product. Heavy metrics, tight launch hygiene, ADR discipline. |
Set the stage FIRST. Then judge dimensions against that stage's expectations.
A "no PRDs" finding is 🟦 in Discovery but 🟧 in Scaling. Severity is
stage-relative.
## The 15 dimensions
### 1. Discovery
- Real user interviews documented? When was the last one?
- JTBD named (job + trigger + current alternative)?
- Problem validated or assumed?
- Personas based on data or imagination?
🟥 Building without ever talking to a user. 🟧 No interviews in 3+ months at
Scaling. 🟨 JTBD undocumented. 🟦 Light at Discovery stage.
### 2. Strategy
- Vision in one honest sentence?
- Differentiation thesis is structural (not a feature list)?
- 2–3 multi-quarter bets named?
- Build-vs-buy direction stated?
🟥 No strategy at Scaling+. 🟧 Strategy that says "everything to everyone".
🟨 Differentiation is a feature list. 🟦 Strategy in flux at Discovery.
### 3. Prioritization
- Scoring method used (RICE / ICE / Kano / WSJF / etc.)?
- Inputs to scores sourced (data) or guessed (assumption)?
- Ranked backlog exists?
🟧 Backlog ordered by gut. 🟨 Mixed sourced/guessed without labels. 🟦
Method-light at Discovery.
### 4. Roadmap
- Now / Next / Later structure?
- OKRs tied to strategy?
- Themes (not just feature lists)?
- Capacity check done?
🟧 Overstuffed "Now" with no capacity reality. 🟨 OKRs without measurable
KRs ("increase delight"). 🟦 Roadmap fluid at Discovery.
### 5. Specs / PRDs
- For shipped features, do PRDs exist?
- Non-goals listed? Acceptance criteria testable?
🟧 Major features shipped without a spec. 🟨 PRDs exist but have TBDs / vague
adjectives. 🟦 Light at Discovery.
### 6. Metrics
- North Star defined and tied to a strategy bet?
- Leading + lagging KPIs?
- Events instrumented and verified firing?
- Success thresholds set as NUMBERS (not "improve")?
🟥 No instrumentation in a Scaling product. 🟧 No North Star. 🟧 Thresholds
are aspirations, not numbers. 🟨 Some KPIs missing.
### 7. Launch
- Phased rollouts or big-bang?
- Rollback criteria as specific signals (numbers)?
- Beta cohorts with feedback loops?
🟥 No rollback path for a high-traffic feature. 🟧 Big-bang launches with no
canary. 🟨 Beta cohort without a feedback channel.
### 8. Measure / Learn
- Post-launch read-outs happening?
- Funnels + retention cohorts reviewed?
- NPS verbatims read (not just scores)?
🟧 Ship-and-forget pattern. 🟨 Read-out happens but no next-Discover
questions surfaced.
### 9. Stakeholder comms
- Regular exec / team / investor updates?
- Same facts in every framing (not different facts)?
🟧 Long silences between updates. 🟨 Updates skip risks. 🟦 Solo founder
context allows lighter cadence.
### 10. Decision history
- ADR / decision log / lessons.md present?
- Critical calls have a written rationale?
🟧 Architectural decisions made invisibly. 🟨 No log of why things were
chosen.
### 11. Pricing
- Model documented (subscription / usage / freemium / one-time / hybrid)?
- Willingness-to-pay rationale cites a method (not just a number)?
🟧 No pricing model defined post-PMF. 🟨 WTP is a guess unlabelled as one.
🟦 Pricing TBD at Discovery.
### 12. Competitive
- Recent teardown of competitors?
- Market sized with a stated method?
🟨 No teardown in 6+ months. 🟨 Market size cited without method. 🟦 Light
at Discovery.
### 13. Feedback intake
- Support / review / survey channels exist?
- Themes synthesized regularly?
🟧 Feedback pile unread. 🟨 Themes identified but no action loop.
### 14. AI-PM (if `ai_pm_pack: true`)
Six additional sub-dimensions:
- Eval set defined, with golden examples?
- Reliability guardrails (hallucination mitigation, grounding)?
- Cost-per-inference tracked?
- Hallucination rate measured?
- Responsible-AI audit (bias, EU AI Act if applicable)?
- Human-in-the-loop design — confidence thresholds, escalation, review queues?
🟥 Shipping an AI feature with no evals. 🟧 No hallucination rate measured.
🟧 No cost-per-inference tracking. 🟨 Eval set thin.
### 15. Governance
- Critical-decision review cadence?
- Gates honoured (pm-reviewer's verdict travels to the human)?
- Read-only audits run regularly?
🟧 Gates routinely passed without pm-reviewer attention. 🟨 No quarterly
strategy review.
## Output sections — every audit has all of these
1. **Executive summary** (1 paragraph).
2. **PM-maturity fingerprint** (the stage).
3. **15-dimension status table** (🟩 / 🟨 / 🟧 / 🟥 per dimension).
4. **Findings** sorted by severity, each with source + fix + cost.
5. **Top 5 if-you-fix-nothing-else** — genuinely top 5, not "everything is top".
6. **Quick wins** — each under 1 hour.
7. **Things-that-look-bad-but-fine** — honest false-positive list. Trust-builder.
8. **Open questions for the founder** — unknowns only they can answer.
9. **Remediation plan** — concrete next steps (filed as Beads tasks unless
`--read-only`).
## Anti-patterns — never do these
- Inflating severity to sound impactful.
- Padding sections with manufactured concerns.
- Judging Discovery-stage products against Scaling-stage expectations.
- Inventing findings without a source.
- Skipping the "things-look-bad-but-fine" section (it's the trust-builder).
- Re-doing PM work in the audit (you assess; you do not replace).
## Output shape
The report uses `templates/PM-AUDIT-template.md`. Fill it; do not invent your
own structure. Consistency across audits matters more than creativity.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!