Prd Development

Purpose

Guide product managers through structured PRD (Product Requirements Document) creation by orchestrating problem framing, user research synthesis, solution definition, and success criteria into a cohesive document. Use this to move from scattered notes and Slack threads to a clear, comprehensive PRD that aligns stakeholders, provides engineering context, and serves as a source of truth—avoiding ambiguity, scope creep, and the "build what's in my head" trap.

This is not a waterfall spec—it's a living document that captures strategic context, customer problems, proposed solutions, and success criteria, evolving as you learn through delivery.

Input

Works best with: The feature or initiative the PRD covers. Also useful: Discovery notes, problem statements, user research, success metrics, and constraints — paste whatever exists; the workflow slots it into the right phases and skips what's already answered.

Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The workflow starts at problem definition and builds up from there.

Example invocation: Build a PRD for self-serve workspace provisioning — here are my discovery notes and the OKR it ladders to.

Key Concepts

What is a PRD?

A PRD (Product Requirements Document) is a structured document that answers:

1. What problem are we solving? (Problem statement)
2. For whom? (Target users/personas)
3. Why now? (Strategic context, business case)
4. What are we building? (Solution overview)
5. How will we measure success? (Metrics, success criteria)
6. What are the requirements? (User stories, acceptance criteria, constraints)
7. What are we NOT building? (Out of scope)

PRD Structure (Standard Template)

# [Feature/Product Name] PRD

## 1. Executive Summary
- One-paragraph overview (problem + solution + impact)

## 2. Problem Statement
- Who has this problem?
- What is the problem?
- Why is it painful?
- Evidence (customer quotes, data, research)

## 3. Target Users & Personas
- Primary persona(s)
- Secondary persona(s)
- Jobs-to-be-done

## 4. Strategic Context
- Business goals (OKRs)
- Market opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM)
- Competitive landscape
- Why now?

## 5. Solution Overview
- High-level description
- User flows or wireframes
- Key features

## 6. Success Metrics
- Primary metric (what we're optimizing for)
- Secondary metrics
- Targets (current → goal)

## 7. User Stories & Requirements
- Epic hypothesis
- User stories with acceptance criteria
- Edge cases, constraints

## 8. Out of Scope
- What we're NOT building (and why)

## 9. Dependencies & Risks
- Technical dependencies
- External dependencies (integrations, partnerships)
- Risks and mitigations

## 10. Open Questions
- Unresolved decisions
- Areas requiring discovery

Why This Works

• Alignment: Ensures everyone (PM, design, eng, stakeholders) understands the "why"
• Context preservation: Captures research and strategic rationale for future reference
• Decision log: Documents what's in scope, out of scope, and why
• Execution clarity: Provides engineering with user stories and acceptance criteria

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

• Not a detailed spec: PRDs frame the problem and solution; they don't specify UI pixel-by-pixel
• Not waterfall: PRDs evolve as you learn; they're not frozen contracts
• Not a substitute for collaboration: PRDs complement conversation, not replace it

When to Use This

• Starting a major feature or product initiative
• Aligning cross-functional teams on scope and requirements
• Documenting decisions for future reference
• Onboarding new team members to a project

When NOT to Use This

• For small bug fixes or trivial features (overkill)
• When problem and solution are already clear and aligned (just write user stories)
• For continuous discovery experiments (use Lean UX Canvas instead)

Facilitation Source of Truth

When running this workflow as a guided conversation, use workshop-facilitation as the interaction protocol.

It defines:

• session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
• one-question turns with plain-language prompts
• progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
• interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
• numbered recommendations at decision points
• quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include Other (specify) when useful)

This file defines the workflow sequence and domain-specific outputs. If there is a conflict, follow this file's workflow logic.

Application

Use template.md as the fill-in document. The template includes:

• Per-section coaching blocks — each section has its own Instructions, Steps, Contributing Skills, and Activities so the template is self-guiding even without this workflow.
• Inline gap tagging — tag every gap as 🔶 Assumption (plausible but unvalidated) or 🔵 Open Question (unknown, needs discovery). Tag inline where the gap appears, not just at the end.
• Cross-section recommendation prompts — after completing each section, a "Before moving on" block checks consistency with prior sections and warns about what the next section will need.
• Self-assessment — after Section 10, a diagnostic captures the strongest section, weakest section, top assumptions to validate, and the recommended next step before sharing the PRD.
• Skill cross-reference table — maps 15 skills to the specific sections they feed (e.g., problem-framing-canvas → Section 2, epic-breakdown-advisor → Section 7).

This workflow orchestrates 8 phases over 2-4 days, using multiple component and interactive skills. The phases below describe the facilitation sequence; the template captures the output.

Phase 1: Executive Summary (30 minutes)

Goal: Write a one-paragraph overview for skimmers.

Activities

1. Draft Executive Summary

• Format: "We're building [solution] for [persona] to solve [problem], which will result in [impact]."

• Example:

  "We're building a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical small business owners to solve the problem of 60% drop-off in the first 24 hours due to lack of guidance, which will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% and reduce churn by 10%."

• Participants: PM

• Duration: 30 minutes

• Output: One-paragraph summary

Tip: Write this first (forces clarity), but refine it last (after other sections are complete).

Phase 2: Problem Statement (60 minutes)

Goal: Frame the customer problem with evidence.

Activities

1. Write Problem Statement

• Use: skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md (component)
• Input: Discovery insights from skills/discovery-process/SKILL.md or skills/problem-framing-canvas/SKILL.md
• Participants: PM
• Duration: 30 minutes
• Output: Structured problem statement

Example Problem Statement:

## 2. Problem Statement

### Who has this problem?
Non-technical small business owners (solopreneurs, 1-10 employees) who sign up for our SaaS product.

### What is the problem?
60% of users abandon onboarding within the first 24 hours because they don't know what to do first. They see an empty dashboard with no guidance, get overwhelmed by options, and leave.

### Why is it painful?
- **User impact:** Wastes time (30-60 min trying to figure out product), never reaches "aha moment," churns before experiencing value
- **Business impact:** 60% activation rate → high churn, low LTV, poor word-of-mouth

### Evidence
- **Interviews:** 8/10 churned users said "I didn't know what to do first" (discovery interviews, Feb 2026)
- **Analytics:** 60% of signups complete 0 actions within 24 hours (Mixpanel, Jan 2026)
- **Support tickets:** "How do I get started?" is #1 support question (350 tickets/month)
- **Customer quote:** "I logged in, saw an empty dashboard, and thought 'now what?' I gave up and went back to my spreadsheet."

2. Add Supporting Context (Optional)

• Customer journey map: If problem spans multiple touchpoints
• Use: skills/customer-journey-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md output
• Jobs-to-be-done: If motivations are key
• Use: skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md output

Outputs from Phase 2

• Problem statement: Who, what, why, evidence
• Supporting artifacts: Journey map, JTBD (if relevant)

Phase 3: Target Users & Personas (30 minutes)

Goal: Define who you're building for.

Activities

1. Document Personas

• Use: skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md (component) output
• Participants: PM
• Duration: 30 minutes
• Format: Include persona name, role, goals, pain points, behaviors

Example:

## 3. Target Users & Personas

### Primary Persona: Solo Entrepreneur Sam
- **Role:** Freelance consultant, solopreneur
- **Company size:** 1 person (no IT support)
- **Tech savviness:** Low (uses email, spreadsheets, basic SaaS)
- **Goals:** Get value from software fast without technical expertise
- **Pain points:** Overwhelmed by complex UIs, no time to watch tutorials, needs immediate value
- **Current behavior:** Signs up for products, tries for 1 day, churns if not immediately useful

### Secondary Persona: Small Business Owner (5-10 employees)
- **Role:** Owner-operator, manages team
- **Needs:** Onboard team members quickly
- **Differs from primary:** More tolerant of complexity, willing to invest setup time

Outputs from Phase 3

• Primary persona: Detailed profile
• Secondary personas: (if applicable)

Phase 4: Strategic Context (45 minutes)

Goal: Explain why this matters to the business and why now.

Activities

1. Document Business Goals

• Source: Company OKRs, strategic memos, roadmap
• Format: Link feature to business outcomes
• Example:

  "This initiative supports our Q1 OKR: Reduce churn from 15% to 8%. Improving onboarding activation directly impacts retention."

2. Size Market Opportunity (Optional)

• Use: skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (interactive) output
• When: For major initiatives, new products, exec presentations
• Example:

  "TAM: 50M small businesses globally. SAM: 5M using SaaS tools. SOM: 500K solopreneurs in our target segments. Improving onboarding could unlock 30% of SAM (1.5M potential customers)."

3. Document Competitive Landscape (Optional)

• Source: Competitor research, G2/Capterra reviews
• Example:

  "Competitors (Competitor A, B) have guided onboarding. Our lack of guidance is cited as a churn reason in exit surveys."

4. Explain "Why Now?"

• Rationale: Why prioritize this now vs. later?
• Example:

  "Churn spiked 15% in Q4. Onboarding is the #1 driver (60% churn in first 30 days). Fixing this is critical to hitting retention OKR."

Outputs from Phase 4

• Business goals: OKRs or strategic initiatives
• Market opportunity: TAM/SAM/SOM (if applicable)
• Competitive context: How competitors address this
• Why now: Urgency rationale

Phase 5: Solution Overview (60 minutes)

Goal: Describe what you're building (high-level, not detailed spec).

Activities

1. Write Solution Description

• Format: High-level overview, 2-3 paragraphs
• Example:

## 5. Solution Overview

We're building a **guided onboarding checklist** that walks new users through core workflows step-by-step when they first log in.

**How it works:**
1. User signs up and logs in for the first time
2. Modal appears: "Let's get you set up! Complete these 3 steps to get started."
3. Checklist shows:
   - ☐ Create your first project
   - ☐ Invite a teammate (optional)
   - ☐ Complete a sample task
4. As user completes each step, checklist updates with checkmarks
5. After completion, celebration modal: "You're all set! Here's what to do next."

**Key features:**
- Minimal: Only 3 core steps (not overwhelming)
- Dismissible: Users can skip if they prefer to explore
- Progress tracking: Visual progress bar (1/3, 2/3, 3/3)
- Celebration: Positive reinforcement when complete

2. Add User Flows or Wireframes (Optional)

• Use: Design tools (Figma, Sketch), or hand-drawn sketches
• When: For complex features requiring visual explanation
• Output: Embedded in PRD or linked

3. Reference Story Map (Optional)

• Use: skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md output
• When: For complex features with multiple release slices
• Output: Link to story map

Outputs from Phase 5

• Solution description: High-level overview
• User flows/wireframes: (if applicable)
• Story map: (if applicable)

Phase 6: Success Metrics (30 minutes)

Goal: Define how you'll measure success.

Activities

1. Define Primary Metric

• Question: What is the ONE metric this feature must move?
• Example: "Activation rate (% of users completing first action within 24 hours)"
• Target: "Increase from 40% to 60%"

2. Define Secondary Metrics

• Question: What else should we monitor (but not optimize for)?
• Examples:
  • Time-to-first-action (reduce from 3 days to 1 day)
  • Completion rate of onboarding checklist (target: 80%)
  • Support ticket volume (reduce "How do I get started?" tickets by 50%)

3. Define Guardrail Metrics

• Question: What should NOT get worse?
• Example: "Sign-up conversion rate (don't add friction to signup flow)"

Example:

## 6. Success Metrics

### Primary Metric
**Activation rate** (% of users completing first action within 24 hours)
- **Current:** 40%
- **Target:** 60%
- **Timeline:** Measure 30 days after launch

### Secondary Metrics
- **Time-to-first-action:** Reduce from 3 days to 1 day
- **Onboarding checklist completion rate:** 80% of users complete all 3 steps
- **Support tickets:** Reduce "How do I get started?" tickets from 350/month to 175/month

### Guardrail Metrics
- **Sign-up conversion rate:** Maintain at 10% (don't add friction to signup)

Outputs from Phase 6

• Primary metric: What you're optimizing for
• Secondary metrics: Additional success indicators
• Guardrail metrics: What shouldn't regress

Phase 7: User Stories & Requirements (90-120 minutes)

Goal: Break solution into user stories with acceptance criteria.

Activities

1. Write Epic Hypothesis

• Use: skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md (component)
• Participants: PM
• Duration: 30 minutes
• Output: Epic hypothesis statement

Example:

"We believe that adding a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical users will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% because users currently drop off due to lack of guidance. We'll measure success by activation rate 30 days post-launch."

2. Break Down Epic into User Stories

• Use: skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md (interactive - with Richard Lawrence's 9 patterns)
• Participants: PM, design, engineering
• Duration: 90 minutes
• Output: User stories split by patterns (workflow, CRUD, business rules, etc.)

3. Write User Stories

• Use: skills/user-story/SKILL.md (component)
• Participants: PM
• Duration: 30 minutes per story
• Format: User story + acceptance criteria

Example User Stories:

## 7. User Stories & Requirements

### Epic Hypothesis
We believe that adding a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical users will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% because users currently drop off due to lack of guidance.

### User Stories

**Story 1: Display onboarding checklist on first login**
As a new user, I want to see a guided checklist when I first log in, so I know what to do first.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user logs in for the first time, modal appears with checklist
- [ ] Checklist shows 3 steps: "Create project," "Invite teammate," "Complete task"
- [ ] Modal is dismissible (close button)
- [ ] If dismissed, checklist doesn't reappear (user preference saved)

**Story 2: Track checklist progress**
As a new user, I want to see my progress as I complete checklist steps, so I feel a sense of accomplishment.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user completes step 1, checkmark appears next to "Create project"
- [ ] Progress bar updates (1/3 → 2/3 → 3/3)
- [ ] Checklist persists across sessions (if user logs out and back in)

**Story 3: Celebrate checklist completion**
As a new user, I want to receive positive feedback when I complete the checklist, so I feel confident using the product.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user completes all 3 steps, celebration modal appears
- [ ] Message: "You're all set! Here's what to do next: [suggested next actions]"
- [ ] Confetti animation (optional, nice-to-have)

4. Document Constraints & Edge Cases

• Technical constraints: Platform limitations, browser support, etc.
• Edge cases: What if user skips step 2? What if they complete steps out of order?

Outputs from Phase 7

• Epic hypothesis: Testable statement
• User stories: 3-10 stories with acceptance criteria
• Constraints: Technical limitations, edge cases

Phase 8: Out of Scope & Dependencies (30 minutes)

Goal: Define what you're NOT building and what you depend on.

Activities

1. Document Out of Scope

• Format: List features/requests explicitly excluded
• Rationale: Why not building now?

Example:

## 8. Out of Scope

**Not included in this release:**
- **Advanced onboarding personalization** (e.g., different checklists per persona) — Adds complexity, test simple version first
- **Video tutorials embedded in checklist** — Resource-intensive, validate checklist concept first
- **Gamification (badges, points)** — Nice-to-have, focus on core workflow guidance

**Future consideration:**
- Mobile-optimized onboarding (desktop-first for now)

2. Document Dependencies

• Technical dependencies: Platform upgrades, API changes required
• External dependencies: Third-party integrations, partnerships
• Team dependencies: Design handoff, data pipeline work

Example:

## 9. Dependencies & Risks

### Dependencies
- **Design:** Wireframes for checklist UI (ETA: Week 1)
- **Engineering:** No technical dependencies (uses existing modals framework)

### Risks & Mitigations
- **Risk:** Users dismiss checklist immediately, never see it
  - **Mitigation:** Track dismissal rate; if >50%, iterate on messaging or timing
- **Risk:** Checklist steps are too generic, don't resonate with all personas
  - **Mitigation:** Start with primary persona (Solo Entrepreneur Sam), personalize later

3. Document Open Questions

• Unresolved decisions: Areas requiring discovery or discussion

Example:

## 10. Open Questions

- Should checklist be mandatory or optional? (Decision: Optional, dismissible)
- Should we A/B test checklist vs. no checklist? (Decision: Yes, show to 50% of new users)
- What happens if user completes steps out of order? (Decision: Allow any order, update checklist dynamically)

Outputs from Phase 8

• Out of scope: What we're NOT building
• Dependencies: What we need before starting
• Risks: Potential blockers and mitigations
• Open questions: Unresolved decisions

Complete Workflow: End-to-End Summary

Day 1:
├─ Phase 1: Executive Summary (30 min)
├─ Phase 2: Problem Statement (60 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
├─ Phase 3: Target Users & Personas (30 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md
└─ Phase 4: Strategic Context (45 min)
   └─ Use: skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (optional)

Day 2:
├─ Phase 5: Solution Overview (60 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (optional)
├─ Phase 6: Success Metrics (30 min)
└─ Phase 7: User Stories & Requirements (90-120 min)
   ├─ Use: skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md
   ├─ Use: skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md
   └─ Use: skills/user-story/SKILL.md

Day 3:
├─ Phase 8: Out of Scope & Dependencies (30 min)
└─ Review & Refine (60 min)
   └─ Read full PRD, polish, get feedback

Day 4 (Optional):
└─ Stakeholder Review & Approval
   └─ Present PRD to stakeholders, incorporate feedback

Total Time Investment:

• Fast track: 1.5-2 days (straightforward feature, clear requirements)
• Typical: 2-3 days (includes discovery synthesis, stakeholder review)
• Complex: 3-4 days (major initiative, multiple personas, extensive user stories)

Examples

See examples/sample.md for full PRD examples.

Mini example excerpt:

## 2. Problem Statement
- 60% of trial users drop off in first 24 hours
## 6. Success Metrics
- Activation rate: 40% → 60%

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: PRD Written in Isolation

Symptom: PM writes PRD alone, presents finished doc to team

Consequence: No buy-in, team doesn't understand rationale

Fix: Collaborate on Phase 7 (user stories) with design + eng; review draft PRD before finalizing

Pitfall 2: No Evidence in Problem Statement

Symptom: "We believe users have this problem" (no data, no quotes)

Consequence: Team questions whether problem is real

Fix: Use discovery insights from skills/discovery-process/SKILL.md; include customer quotes, analytics, support tickets

Pitfall 3: Solution Too Prescriptive

Symptom: PRD specifies exact UI, pixel dimensions, button colors

Consequence: Removes design collaboration, becomes waterfall spec

Fix: Keep Phase 5 high-level; let design own UI details

Pitfall 4: No Success Metrics

Symptom: PRD defines problem + solution but no metrics

Consequence: Can't validate if feature succeeded

Fix: Always define primary metric in Phase 6 (what you're optimizing for)

Pitfall 5: Out of Scope Not Documented

Symptom: No section on what's NOT being built

Consequence: Scope creep, stakeholders expect features not planned

Fix: Explicitly document out of scope in Phase 8

References

Related Skills (Orchestrated by This Workflow)

Phase 2:

• skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md (component)
• skills/problem-framing-canvas/SKILL.md (interactive, for context)
• skills/customer-journey-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 3:

• skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md (component)
• skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md (component, optional)

Phase 4:

• skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 5:

• skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 7:

• skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md (component)
• skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md (interactive)
• skills/user-story/SKILL.md (component)

External Frameworks

• Martin Eriksson, "How to Write a Good PRD" (2012) — PRD structure
• Marty Cagan, Inspired (2017) — Product spec principles
• Amazon, "Working Backwards" (PR/FAQ format) — Alternative to PRD

Dean's Work

• [If Dean has PRD templates, link here]

Skill type: Workflow Suggested filename: prd-development.md Suggested placement: /skills/workflows/ Dependencies: Orchestrates 8+ component and interactive skills across 8 phases