To Prd

This skill takes the current conversation context and codebase understanding and produces a PRD. Do NOT interview the user — just synthesize what you already know. If the conversation has not produced enough context yet, say so explicitly and suggest /grill-with-docs first; do not start interviewing from this skill.

Process

1. Domain glossary check. Before drafting the PRD:

   • If the project has a CONTEXT.md / domain glossary, read it and use the glossary's vocabulary throughout the PRD.
   • If CONTEXT.md does NOT exist, surface this once — say: "No CONTEXT.md yet. The PRD will use the most domain-precise terms I can extract from the conversation; want me to also seed a CONTEXT.md with the 3-5 load-bearing terms before publishing?" Don't block — proceed if AFK.
   • If docs/adr/ exists, respect any ADRs in the area you're touching.

2. Sketch the major modules you will need to build or modify to complete the implementation. Actively look for opportunities to extract deep modules that can be tested in isolation.

   A deep module (as opposed to a shallow module) is one which encapsulates a lot of functionality in a simple, testable interface which rarely changes. (See improve-codebase-architecture/LANGUAGE.md for the full vocabulary.)

   Check with the user that these modules match their expectations. Check with the user which modules they want tests written for.

3. Write the PRD using the template below, then save it:

   • Default: save to docs/prds/PRD-{slug}.md and tell the user the path.
   • Publish as a GitHub issue only if the user asked for it, or confirms when you offer. gh auth status succeeding means you can publish, not that you should — an issue on a shared or public repo is outward-facing.

   When publishing, apply the triage label vocabulary if one is configured (e.g. ready-for-agent). Otherwise, no label.

Problem Statement

The problem that the user is facing, from the user's perspective.

Solution

The solution to the problem, from the user's perspective.

User Stories

A LONG, numbered list of user stories. Each user story should be in the format of:

1. As an , I want a , so that

This list of user stories should be extremely extensive and cover all aspects of the feature.

Implementation Decisions

A list of implementation decisions that were made. This can include:

• The modules that will be built/modified
• The interfaces of those modules that will be modified
• Technical clarifications from the developer
• Architectural decisions
• Schema changes
• API contracts
• Specific interactions

Do NOT include specific file paths or code snippets. They may end up being outdated very quickly.

Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it within the relevant decision and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.

Testing Decisions

A list of testing decisions that were made. Include:

• A description of what makes a good test (only test external behavior, not implementation details)
• Which modules will be tested
• Prior art for the tests (i.e. similar types of tests in the codebase)

Out of Scope

A description of the things that are out of scope for this PRD.

Further Notes

Any further notes about the feature.

Use with

• grill-with-docs — the interview counterpart to this skill. Run grill-with-docs first when the conversation hasn't established enough context; run to-prd to crystallise that context once it has. If the PRD's Implementation Decisions contain hard-to-reverse architectural choices, those should also become ADRs (criteria and format in its ADR-FORMAT.md).
• deep-plan — once the PRD is published, run deep-plan to turn it into a phased implementation plan.

Origin

Adapted from mattpocock/skills — engineering/to-prd. License: MIT.