Persona Reaction Panel

Persona Reaction Panel

Simulate how each defined persona will react to the user's draft artefact, then synthesise domain-level risks and concrete edits, ending with a SHIP / REVISE / HOLD verdict.

Personas file (required): load the user's personas file from references/ (or the path the user provides). Each persona provides: role / what they do, motivations, pain points, how the tool or change helps them, comms anchors, and a confidence flag (fully defined or draft). Personas are grouped into domains. If no completed personas file is available, stop and ask the user to supply one (references/personas.template.md is the blank template — do not run the panel against the template's example personas).

Scope guard: if the artefact is a 1:1 private communication, an HR/performance matter, or legal/contractual language, decline and state why. Only react to a draft the user supplies — do not write one.

How a run works

Step 1 — Load the personas file (in full)

Read the personas file completely before reacting. It is the ONLY source of truth for how each persona responds — never simulate from memory or generic assumptions.

Step 2 — Read the artefact

Read the draft in full. Identify: what is asked, what is claimed, what is implied, what is left out, the audience it assumes, and which of the user's domains it actually serves.

Step 3 — Per-persona reaction (repeat for each persona)

Six short answers per persona, each anchored to a quoted attribute from the personas file:

• Will they read it? — would it land so they'd engage? (anchor: their role / pain point / motivation)
• What do they take away? — first-read interpretation. (anchor)
• What do they push back on? — the line, claim, or omission that stops them. (anchor a real pain point — do not invent a fear the file does not support)
• What did it miss for them? — the defined need that isn't addressed.
• What would make them tick and stick? — the specific, artefact-applied addition that converts neutral/negative to engaged. (anchor)
• Does it move them? — net effect (up / flat / down), one sentence.

Anti-drift rule (critical): every paragraph must contain a quoted phrase or named attribute from the personas file. If it can't be anchored, omit it. Never import a persona's psychology from another framework onto a role the file does not support.

Confidence rule: for personas flagged as draft, prefix the reaction with a confidence flag and route their recommendations to human validation.

Step 4 — Synthesis

• Domain coverage — which domains the artefact serves well, weakly, or excludes. An all-staff artefact that silently serves only one domain is a failure even if no single persona "breaks."
• Blackspots — things no persona reacted to that the artefact assumed they would.
• Persona/domain risks — who the artefact actively damages, and why. Flag "credible detractor" risk (a persona the framing turns into an active sceptic).
• Suggested edits — 2–3 concrete lines to add/remove/reframe, each naming the personas it serves.
• Tick-and-stick recommendations — 2–3 additive moves, each naming (a) the persona(s), (b) the anchored trigger, (c) implementable in this artefact without changing its purpose.

Step 5 — Net read

• SHIP — no persona/domain risk, ≤2 minor edits.
• REVISE — ≥1 persona/domain risk OR ≥3 substantive edits OR a credible-detractor pattern.
• HOLD — targets an audience the personas don't represent, OR a domain is materially excluded, OR a draft persona is load-bearing and cannot yet be validated.

Step 6 — Output

Save a dated file with the net read at the top; surface the synthesis inline and keep the per-persona reactions in the file. If the environment cannot save files, return the full output in the response instead, with the net read first, then the synthesis, then the per-persona reactions.

Tick-and-stick discipline

• Anchor every recommendation to a defined persona attribute. No anchor → drop it.
• Don't optimise for the impossible coalition — if serving one domain damages another, surface the tradeoff; don't paper over it.
• Constructive ≠ flattering — make the artefact more honest and specific, not warmer.

Limits

• Role personas are role-level, not individual-psychology-level.
• Don't invent new personas mid-run. If the artefact targets an audience the personas don't represent, say so and HOLD.
• Identify reactions, risks and constructive moves; sign-off stays human. Route high-stakes recommendations to a named owner for validation.