multi-persona-reviewlisted

# Multi-Persona Review (다면페르소나 워크플로우 리뷰) Run a small panel of realistic target-user personas over one artifact, independently and in parallel, then synthesize their findings into a deduped, prioritized fix list. This is how the user actually works: "작성글을 사용자 관점의 페르소나를 여러명 만들어서 손넷 모델정도로 피드백 받아바" and "이부분도 다면 리뷰 해볼까?" — 4-5 Sonnet-tier personas across 1-2 passes over a launch post, yielding P0~P2 prioritized fixes. ## When to use - A draft is "done" but you want blind spots an author is fatigue-blind to: launch post, README, PRD/plan, doc, marketing copy, a design. - The user names personas or "다면 리뷰" / "여러 관점" / "multi-persona" / "panel review". - You want **reproducible, severity-ranked** feedback, not one reviewer's gut reaction. Do **not** use this for whole-codebase quality work — that's `ultracode-service-audit`. This skill is deliberately lighter: one artifact, one panel, one synthesis. For surfacing missing user journeys end-to-end, this feeds the UX lens of `gap-analysis-e2e`. ## Why a panel beats one reviewer (the evidence) The whole method rests on one empirical fact: **independent reviewers find largely non-overlapping problems.** - **Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen & Molich) + the 3-5 evaluator rule** — a single evaluator catches only ~35% of usability issues; aggregating independent evaluators raises coverage to ~85% at five, with sharp diminishing returns beyond. The value comes from *low overlap between perspectives*, not any one reviewer being thor