# Product Docs > Maintain product and system documentation, authority, traceability, and delivery governance across discovery, definition, delivery, real-use recovery, closure, and operations. Use when defining or revising requirements, PRDs, acceptance criteria, design specifications, architecture, development process, status, test traceability, ownership, or human/Agent responsibilities. Preserve user intent, isolate external advice, map the existing authority chain, research real routes when relevant, keep multi-axis progress and evidence honest, propagate only real consequences, and use risk-based validation. - Skill: `jadelaglace/product-docs` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jadelaglace/product-docs` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jadelaglace/product-docs/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Product & Planning - Author: jadelaglace (https://skillmd.com/u/jadelaglace) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jadelaglace/product-docs --- # Product Docs Keep user intent, product behavior, acceptance, design, implementation boundaries, delivery status, and evidence distinct. Start from the outcome the user values, then maintain the smallest coherent document chain that can govern delivery. Use this priority when deciding what to read and what to report: ```text direct user intent and current requirements -> plan and actual progress -> acceptance criteria and completion evidence -> stable architecture direction -> local design and implementation detail ``` Do not let downstream technical detail displace the user's purpose, current position, or definition of success. ## Persist New Governing Input First When new user input changes, corrects, questions, or governs ongoing work, persist it before searching backward, analyzing, editing implementation, or continuing an older plan. Classify it first so `docs-first` does not pollute the wrong authority: - Put product-specific intent, value judgments, corrections, and genuinely open product questions append-first and verbatim in the repository's recovery evidence when that role exists. Do not clean, summarize, or promote them first. - Put an interpreted current product decision in requirements only after it is actually decided; do not promote a question or an Agent recommendation. - Put cross-project working agreements, process corrections, and general follow-up obligations in the primary plan or progress control, not in product requirements or product wording evidence. If the input changes the running route, update the current item; otherwise insert it at the top of a bounded next-start queue without silently displacing the running task. Propagate it to an applicable shared Skill or process authority when the user requests reuse. - Put run facts and concrete completion state only in live status or evidence. For an empty or newly initialized repository, use the optional `references/greenfield-init.md` route to choose the smallest authority chain before generating documents. Keep this route conditional; an established repository keeps its existing chain. After any required recovery reconciliation, make the capture the first completed task action, not a promise to document later. At every full recovery boundary—new session, context loss or compaction, Agent/task handoff or interruption that may lose control/context, a long pause with uncertain execution state, or an explicit user instruction such as `continue`, `resume`, or `pick this back up`—first call an available goal/task-state API. An ordinary synchronous tool, command, or API failure that returns a clear result while the current turn and governing task remain intact is not a full recovery boundary; handle or retry it locally. For an ambiguous stateful failure, reconcile the affected external state and rerun the full hook only when control/context or task identity may also have been lost. Then immediately follow the repository's shallow recovery hook to its authoritative active plan/progress control and reconcile the single current item before reading the general authority index, current intent, older history, or queue. Treat a continue/resume instruction as authorization to continue the governing goal, not to select the most recently visible subtopic. Missing summary, checkpoint, or tool-state detail is `unknown`, not evidence that work is unfinished or authorization to change state. Preserve the current active goal and terminal states by default. A next-start item marked held, paused, or `requires-explicit-resume` remains queued after the current item reaches terminal; promote it only when its declared authority condition is satisfied. Read verbatim recovery evidence only when the normal chain cannot resolve serious drift, conflict, blockage, or an audit/recovery question. If no durable progress control exists, update the smallest existing planning/status artifact; do not create a competing authority merely to remember the instruction. Keep the active plan as a compact dynamic hot path, not a copy of stable lifecycle policy or completed history. When the goal is missing/terminal, the active marker is empty, and live conversation contains an explicit new request, finish recovery there and read only the authorities that request actually needs. Reconcile three recovery layers: live conversation, goal runtime state, and durable documents. The live layer is newest but most vulnerable to compaction damage; the goal layer carries the short- or medium-term scope across sessions and may pause; documents preserve the same scope's durable state and hard boundaries but may lag one terminal writeback. Before selecting work, exclude instruction instances already proved terminal. Then select unfinished work in this closed order: ```text newest unfinished user instruction established from live conversation at recovery -> started goal -> current executable instruction in durable documents -> paused goal -> compacted recovery context -> pre-compaction instruction ``` A lower-ranked candidate cannot displace a higher-ranked one. Compacted context and pre-compaction instructions are locating evidence only until reconciled with live, goal, or document authority; stop rather than infer authorization when their identity or state cannot be verified. Treat completion evidence as an increasingly durable replay prohibition: ```text explicit completion report in live conversation < goal progress marked terminal < durable documents marked terminal or removed by successful terminal cleanup ``` Every level forbids rerunning the same instruction instance unless the user explicitly reissues it as a new instruction or new verifiable evidence invalidates its terminal. A later level cannot be weakened by an older `in progress` message or compacted summary. When live evidence proves completion but goal or documents lag, perform only the missing terminal writeback and goal/stage completion; do not rerun the work, tests, publication, release, or closure. Read `references/intent-plan-lifecycle.md` for reconciliation cases. Change the current active goal only after an explicit user override, a valid terminal that promotes the agreed next item, or an authority-approved replan for a real blocker. A blocker alone marks the current item blocked; it does not authorize replacing it. Do not reopen `resolved`, `superseded`, or `closed` work because context is incomplete, an Agent wants to re-audit it, or the result can still be improved. Reopen only on an explicit user instruction or new verifiable evidence that invalidates the terminal, and preserve the prior terminal plus the reopen source and impact. After each user-numbered subtask or declared stage terminal, update the active item before starting the next one. Record each active-goal transition with a closed type enum such as `user-explicit-goal-start`, `user-explicit-goal-override`, `legal-terminal-auto-promote`, or `authority-approved-blocker-replan`, plus an affirmative evidence sentence whose prefix matches that type. Reject keyword-only or negated transition text. After analysis forms a conclusion that changes the remaining route, after a declared execution terminal, when a shared blocker invalidates downstream work, or before long/context-heavy work or handoff, update the corresponding active item with a concise Agent-attributed temporary subplan. Record the conclusion, next action, protected boundary, and evidence entry point—not private chain of thought, every command, or every local check. Use this threshold: losing the update would make the next Agent take a different route or repeat substantial work. Treat a plan/progress capture made only to anchor a bounded read-only request as a temporary execution record, not permanent product history. At the request's explicit terminal: 1. Promote any durable decision, correction, unresolved obligation, run fact, failure, or handoff evidence to its proper authority first. 2. Delete the temporary anchor when the work succeeded, no obligation remains, and deleting it loses no evidence needed for audit, recovery, or handoff. 3. Keep and mark it terminal when the primary progress authority intentionally preserves history, or when the request failed, was blocked, was interrupted, or still has a follow-up obligation. Record the terminal reason. 4. When the progress authority uses a next-start queue, promote only an item whose declared policy permits automatic promotion. Keep held, paused, or explicit-resume items queued; an empty current slot is correct when every remaining item requires new authority. Never delete direct-wording evidence, an adopted decision, live status, or completion evidence merely because the task that captured it ended. Do not let temporary anchors accumulate as a shadow backlog, and do not delete one before its durable consequences have been promoted. Read `references/intent-plan-lifecycle.md` before creating or substantially changing current-intent, verbatim-recovery, active-plan, or progress-control roles, and before designing their curation, size, status, or terminal cleanup. Read `references/greenfield-init.md` before initializing an empty repository or choosing an initial authority chain. ## Establish Authority And Mode Before assessing, reporting, or editing: 1. Read local instructions and discover the repository's authority index or equivalent documents. Do not assume filenames, numbering, or one file per role. 2. Check whether root-level local instructions or README expose a mandatory, explicitly bounded recovery-hook block to the active-plan authority. When recovery safety matters and no shallow hook exists, add the smallest bounded link-and-order hook that preserves the deeper document as the sole lifecycle authority. Validate that Goal/task-state API occurs before the Active Plan link inside the block, and add a mutation that reverses that order. 3. Identify the lifecycle mode: discovery, definition, delivery, real-use/recovery, closure, or operations. 4. Classify the request by its highest affected role: intent/requirements, product behavior, plan/progress, acceptance/evidence, architecture, design, or verification. 5. Identify which decisions belong to the user and which routine work belongs to Agents. 6. Read the highest affected authority before its downstream interpretations. 7. Start with the smallest source set that can answer the request. Expand only when a real semantic dependency appears. Use this routing guide: | Task | Start with | Expand only when needed | | --- | --- | --- | | Change intent or requirements | Latest direct wording and current requirements | Product behavior and acceptance | | Update plan or progress | Primary live status and relevant acceptance | Verification or real-use evidence | | Judge completion | Acceptance criteria and completion evidence | Requirements and verification cases | | Research an external route | Requirements, acceptance, and route authority | Official source, tool evidence, fallback | | Change architecture direction | Requirements, acceptance, and current architecture | Governance, research, and implementation | | Repair local wording | Target section and its direct authority | Downstream roles only if meaning changed | | Create or reorganize documents | Authority index and neighboring roles | Full chain only when boundaries change | Lifecycle mode changes delivery emphasis, not product truth. A mature product in closure or recovery should not be pushed back into broad architecture discovery because a local implementation choice is imperfect. When sources conflict, use this order unless the repository defines a stricter one: ```text latest direct user instruction -> current product authority -> explicitly adopted decision -> external reference -> implementation convenience ``` ## Protect User Intent And External Boundaries Keep these categories visibly distinct: ```text direct user wording and value judgment current interpreted requirements external research, advisor, or AI suggestion implementation candidate explicitly adopted decision ``` - Treat the latest direct user instruction as higher authority than older requirements. Preserve genuinely open choices as open. - Keep requirements readable and current. Do not turn them into a transcript, sprint plan, architecture inventory, or technology argument. - Preserve concrete priorities, examples, corrections, and unresolved tension when removing them would narrow what the user wants. - If raw wording is retained, select exact attributable excerpts that preserve decisions, values, examples, or corrections. Raw evidence detects drift; it is not a second current requirements authority. - Do not silently rewrite, translate, or attribute an Agent or AI summary to the user. Keep enough date and source context to distinguish direct wording, external material, and later interpretation. - Keep external material labeled until the user or an authorized decision process adopts it. An external language, framework, model, or workflow recommendation is not a product decision by proximity. Read `references/intent-preservation.md` before accepting a new or substantially rewritten requirements authority. ## Map And Shape The Document Chain Map existing files to roles rather than forcing a numbered template. A common direction is: ```text requirements / intent -> product behavior or PRD -> observable acceptance -> interface design when applicable -> architecture and ownership -> delivery process and live status -> verification cases and evidence -> implementation ``` For each authority, make its purpose, exclusions, upstream basis, downstream consumers, and update trigger discoverable through an index, opening, headings, or links. - Give each fact one primary authority. Reference or interpret it elsewhere; do not maintain competing editable copies. - Keep one primary source for live plan and progress. - Keep reusable operating behavior in product authority and concrete execution facts in live status or evidence. A preview/dry-run, pilot mode, template/profile, or complete processing of an authorized scope can be repeatable product behavior; a particular run, denominator, batch, accepted instance, or completion claim is not. - Local instructions and working notes provide operational context unless the repository explicitly makes them product authority. - Put current truth and the reader's next decision before history and detailed evidence. Move useful history to a supplement when it obscures the decision path. - Split when authority, primary reader, update cadence, reusable contract, or historical evidence creates a durable independent boundary. - Keep material together when it shares authority, reader, and cadence and must be read continuously. Do not split merely because a file is long. - Keep candidate plans and adopted decisions visibly different. A candidate supplement cannot silently become current architecture or requirements. - Do not let a specialized pilot narrow the general product or Skill authority to one dataset, source, customer, course, or other trial instance. - Do not create a document, layer, identifier, trace matrix, service, or formal handoff that cannot prevent meaningful drift or support a real decision. - Create a design specification only when a user-visible or interactive interface exists; do not invent UI scope to fill a template. Read `references/document-chain.md` before creating, renaming, renumbering, moving, splitting, combining, or substantially reorganizing authority documents, and before repairing their navigation. ## Divide Human And Agent Responsibility Unless the user specifies another model, keep human authority over: - requirements and priority; - success criteria, decisions about whether observed progress is sufficient, product-scope completion, and final acceptance; - value judgments and scope tradeoffs; - irreversible choices with material product, security, legal, financial, or data-authority consequences. Agents should own the routine delivery burden: - measure, maintain, and report evidence-backed live status and observed progress without promoting them to product completion or acceptance; - research and compare implementation options and existing routes; - make reversible technical choices within established boundaries; - implement, review, test, and gather evidence; - report progress and gaps in the user's outcome language. Once the user has given a clear authorized scope, let the Agent navigate, collect, retry, and converge without asking for routine per-item confirmation. Pause and escalate for permission or semantic judgment, an ambiguous requirement, an irreversible boundary, a material security/data-authority risk, or a blocked acceptance decision. Routine architecture review is not a permanent human gate. ## Run Coherent Rounds, Then Converge Use an execution round when repeated or multi-stage delivery would otherwise be fragmented by per-item checks. Keep narrow, reversible work proportional; do not add round machinery when one edit and one relevant check already reach the real terminal. Before a round, freeze: - the authorized scope or denominator and input identity; - the intended terminal, stage sequence, and acceptance matrix; - the implementation and configuration identity used by the round; - the small set of risks that invalidate the round immediately. During the round, treat checkpoints as observations, not automatic repair gates. Record non-invalidating defects and continue all independent work to explicit terminal states. Fail fast only when continuing risks data loss or irrecoverable change, crosses authority or authorization, creates a material security issue, detects frozen-input drift, or makes downstream evidence untrustworthy. A fail-closed item, package, or branch does not stop unrelated work unless the failure is shared and invalidating. At the declared terminal: 1. Evaluate the whole acceptance matrix once and record every stage and item as succeeded, failed, skipped, blocked, or another explicit terminal state. 2. Produce one defect ledger and preserve the actual terminal, evidence, and gaps without promoting the round to completion. 3. Cluster defects by root cause, owner, and blast radius; form a bounded repair set instead of patching each symptom as it appears. 4. Use targeted checks during repair for fast feedback. These checks prove the repair, not the batch, phase, release, or user outcome. 5. After implementation, configuration, input, or acceptance changes, start a new round from clean staging and run to the same terminal. Resume an existing round only when its frozen state is unchanged. 6. Run broader gates before merge, release, closure, or acceptance at a cadence appropriate to blast radius and feedback cost. Keep checkpoint, repair-test, terminal-gate, and user-acceptance evidence distinct. Do not hard-code a universal check count. Increase observation frequency when data corruption, security, authority, or shared-contract risk rises; decrease it for repetitive, reversible work protected by cheap checks. A status claim must cite the terminal evidence threshold that permits it; update the claim and supporting evidence together or link them explicitly. Do not promote status merely because code, files, interfaces, fixtures, or targeted tests exist. ## Research Existing Routes When Relevant When the outcome depends on importing data, integrating providers, or minimizing custom development, research proven existing routes before designing adapters, protocols, or handoff formats. Compare official APIs and exports, maintained tools, attainable content and metadata, authentication, re-collection behavior, automation suitability, limitations, and fallback. Read `references/governance-rules.md` before creating or revising a route registry, classifying route evidence, or judging runtime availability. Use this preference: ```text proven existing capability -> thin invocation or normalization -> narrow implementation for a demonstrated gap -> manual fallback when normal routes are unavailable ``` Record route evidence and its limitations. Search results, repository names, placeholder files, fixture envelopes, locator-only records, and plausible tool names are not real-path evidence. Keep fallback, unavailable, and disabled capabilities visibly distinct from the normal route. Do not turn the easiest fixture or fallback into the claimed product workflow. Probe the selected route when access and safety permit. ## Keep Completion And State Honest Separate these claims: ```text intent documented option or route researched engineering scaffold present mechanism tested with fixtures engineering boundary or gate passed real authorized path proven user-visible outcome achieved accepted and operationally closed ``` Do not collapse independent dimensions such as authorization, input completeness, registration/readiness, processing, availability, and acceptance into one `complete` flag. Report the dimensions that matter for the user's decision. For repeated or per-item work, preserve explicit `success`, `partial`, `skipped`, `blocked`, `retryable failed`, `non-retryable failed`, `changed`, `unchanged`, `inaccessible`, and `removed` outcomes when applicable. Retry only the affected object, preserve successful work, and make unchanged recollection idempotent: it must not create a false revision, asset, or fact. Compilation, file counts, interfaces, or fixture tests cannot by themselves prove a product workflow or phase complete. Report first what the user can now do, what evidence supports that claim, what remains, and whether the user has accepted the result. Read `references/governance-rules.md` before a closure audit or an evidence-based claim that a scope is complete. ## Apply Architecture And Data Governance Conditionally When ownership, storage, provenance, recovery, security, repository/service topology, or an acceptance-enabling contract is in scope, read `references/governance-rules.md`. Architecture should explain stable information flow, ownership, permitted writers, irreversible transformations, recovery boundaries, and contracts required for acceptance. Preserve an established architecture unless evidence shows that it blocks acceptance, violates an authority boundary, creates material security or recovery risk, or no longer matches a real lifecycle boundary. For meaningful data classes, identify one authority and its permitted writers. Keep raw/source evidence, canonical records, processed derivatives, published outputs, runtime state, and credentials distinct. Preserve source identity, integrity, processing identity/status, dependencies, and output integrity when traceability matters. Derived data, indexes, views, and outputs must be deletable/rebuildable without changing the authoritative source. Quarantine or clearly mark incomplete, failed, restricted, or provenance-free results. Create a repository, service, protocol, module boundary, or formal handoff only when a real lifecycle, deployment, access, ownership, release, scale, security, or consumer boundary requires it. Keep volatile behavior replaceable behind narrow contracts and harden it after real use stabilizes the behavior and the added safety or performance benefit is demonstrated. Language, framework, library, algorithm, and file layout are implementation choices unless they materially affect those durable boundaries. ## Change Documents Deliberately And Report Clearly 1. Classify the request as intent, behavior, acceptance, design, architecture, delivery/status, or verification work. 2. Update the highest affected authority role first. 3. Preserve selected direct wording only when it materially governs the result. 4. Inspect downstream roles that could be affected; update only changed semantics, contracts, status, or evidence. 5. Record important reviewed-but-unchanged roles instead of manufacturing edits. 6. Validate in proportion to authority, blast radius, reversibility, and evidence risk. For live or runtime claims, reconcile documentation against the real command, API, registry, or system of record. A checker proves only the rules it actually covers. Run broader gates before merge, release, or acceptance. Report in this order: ```text user goal and whether it changed -> current actual progress -> evidence, status dimensions, and remaining acceptance gap -> stable architecture direction and boundary impact -> changed authorities and important reviewed-but-unchanged roles -> unresolved decisions and next action ``` Keep the work proportional. A delivery update does not automatically rewrite requirements or architecture, and a local implementation change does not automatically change product acceptance.