majiayu000 PRD Creation - Business Before Technical
Foundational Principle
Business requirements (WHAT/WHY) must be fully defined before technical decisions (HOW/WHERE).
Mixing business and technical concerns creates:
- Requirements that serve implementation convenience, not user needs
- Technical constraints that limit product vision
- Inability to evaluate alternatives objectively
- Cascade failures when requirements change
The PRD answers: WHAT we're building and WHY it matters to users and business. The PRD never answers: HOW we'll build it or WHERE components will live.
Mandatory Workflow
| Phase | Activities |
|---|---|
| 0. Load Research | Check docs/pre-dev/{feature}/research.md; review codebase patterns, best practices, framework constraints; reference findings with file:line notation |
| 1. Problem Discovery | Define problem without solution bias; identify specific users; quantify pain with metrics/evidence |
| 2. Business Requirements | Executive summary (3 sentences); user personas (goals, frustrations); user stories (As/I want/So that); success metrics (measurable); scope boundaries (in/out) |
| 3. Gate 1 Validation | Problem articulated; impact quantified; users identified; features address problem; metrics measurable; scope explicit |
Explicit Rules
✅ DO Include in PRD
Problem definition and user pain points, user personas (demographics, goals, frustrations), user stories with acceptance criteria, feature requirements (WHAT not HOW), success metrics (adoption, satisfaction, KPIs), scope boundaries (in/out explicitly), go-to-market considerations
❌ NEVER Include in PRD
Architecture diagrams or component design, technology choices (languages, frameworks, databases), implementation approaches or algorithms, database schemas or API specifications, code examples or package dependencies, infrastructure needs or deployment strategies, system integration patterns
Separation Rules
- If it's a technology name → Not in PRD (goes in Dependency Map)
- If it's a "how to build" → Not in PRD (goes in TRD)
- If it's implementation → Not in PRD (goes in Tasks/Subtasks)
- If it describes system behavior → Not in PRD (goes in TRD)
Rationalization Table
| Excuse | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Just a quick technical note won't hurt" | Technical details constrain business thinking. Keep them separate. |
| "Stakeholders need to know it's feasible" | Feasibility comes in TRD after business requirements are locked. |
| "The implementation is obvious" | Obvious to you ≠ obvious to everyone. Separate concerns. |
| "I'll save time by combining PRD and TRD" | You'll waste time rewriting when requirements change. |
| "This is a simple feature, no need for formality" | Simple features still need clear requirements. Follow the process. |
| "I can skip Gate 1, I know it's good" | Gates exist because humans are overconfident. Validate. |
| "The problem is obvious, no need for personas" | Obvious to you ≠ validated with users. Document it. |
| "Success metrics can be defined later" | Defining metrics later means building without targets. Do it now. |
| "I'll just add this one API endpoint detail" | API design is technical architecture. Stop. Keep it in TRD. |
| "But we already decided on PostgreSQL" | Technology decisions come after business requirements. Wait. |
| "CEO/CTO says it's a business constraint" | Authority doesn't change what's technical. Abstract it anyway. |
| "Investors need to see specific vendors/tech" | Show phasing and constraints abstractly. Vendors go in TRD. |
| "This is product scoping, not technical design" | Scope = capabilities. Technology = implementation. Different things. |
| "Mentioning Stripe shows we're being practical" | Mentioning "payment processor" shows the same. Stay abstract. |
| "PRDs can mention tech when it's a constraint" | PRDs mention capabilities needed. TRD maps capabilities to tech. |
| "Context matters - this is for exec review" | Context doesn't override principles. Executives get abstracted version. |
Security Requirements Discovery (Business Level)
During PRD creation, identify if the feature requires access control:
| Business Question | If Yes → Document |
|---|---|
| Does this feature handle user-specific data? | "Users can only access their own [data type]" |
| Are there different user roles with different permissions? | "Admins can [X], regular users can [Y]" |
| Does this feature need to identify who performed an action? | "Audit trail required for [action type]" |
| Does this integrate with other internal services? | "Service must authenticate to [service name]" |
| Are there regulatory requirements (GDPR, PCI-DSS, HIPAA)? | "Must comply with [regulation] for [data type]" |
What to include in PRD:
- ✅ "Only authenticated users can access this feature"
- ✅ "Users can only view/edit their own records"
- ✅ "Admin approval required for [action]"
- ✅ "Must track who performed each action"
What NOT to include in PRD:
- ❌ "Use JWT tokens" (technology choice → TRD)
- ❌ "Integrate with Access Manager" (architecture → TRD)
- ❌ "OAuth2 flow" (protocol choice → TRD)
Note: The TRD (Gate 3) will translate these business requirements into authentication/authorization architecture patterns. For Go services, refer to golang.md → Access Manager Integration section during TRD creation.
Red Flags - STOP
If you catch yourself writing or thinking any of these in a PRD, STOP:
- Technology product names (PostgreSQL, Redis, Kafka, AWS, etc.)
- Framework or library names (React, Fiber, Express, etc.)
- Words like: "architecture", "component", "service", "endpoint", "schema"
- Phrases like: "we'll use X to do Y" or "the system will store data in Z"
- Code examples or API specifications
- "How we'll implement" or "Technical approach"
- Database table designs or data models
- Integration patterns or protocols
When you catch yourself: Move that content to a "technical notes" section to transfer to TRD later. Keep PRD pure business.
Gate 1 Validation Checklist
| Category | Requirements |
|---|---|
| Problem Definition | Problem articulated (1-2 sentences); impact quantified/qualified; users specifically identified; current workarounds documented |
| Solution Value | Features address core problem; success metrics measurable; ROI case documented; user value clear per feature |
| Scope Clarity | In-scope items explicit; out-of-scope with rationale; assumptions documented; business dependencies identified |
| Market Fit | Differentiation clear; value proposition validated; business case sound; go-to-market outlined |
Gate Result: ✅ PASS → Feature Map | ⚠️ CONDITIONAL (address gaps) | ❌ FAIL (return to discovery)
Common Violations
| Violation | Wrong | Correct |
|---|---|---|
| Tech in Features | "FR-001: Use JWT tokens for session, bcrypt for passwords, OAuth2 with Google" | "FR-001: Users can create accounts and securely log in. Value: Access personalized content. Success: 95% authenticate first attempt" |
| Implementation in Stories | "As user, I want to store data in PostgreSQL so queries are fast" | "As user, I want dashboard to load in <2 seconds so I can quickly access information" |
| Architecture in Problem | "Our microservices architecture doesn't support real-time notifications" | "Users miss important updates because they must manually refresh. 78% report missing time-sensitive info" |
| Authority-Based Bypass | "MVP: Stripe for payments, PostgreSQL (we already use it)" | "Phase 1: Integrate with existing payment vendor (2-week timeline); leverage existing database infrastructure. TRD will document specific vendor selection" |
Confidence Scoring
| Factor | Points | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Market Validation | 0-25 | Direct user feedback: 25, Market research: 15, Assumptions: 5 |
| Problem Clarity | 0-25 | Quantified pain: 25, Qualitative evidence: 15, Hypothetical: 5 |
| Solution Fit | 0-25 | Proven pattern: 25, Adjacent pattern: 15, Novel: 5 |
| Business Value | 0-25 | Clear ROI: 25, Indirect value: 15, Uncertain: 5 |
Action: 80+ autonomous | 50-79 present options | <50 ask discovery questions
Output & After Approval
Output to: docs/pre-dev/{feature-name}/prd.md
- ✅ Lock the PRD - no changes without formal amendment
- 🎯 Use as input for Feature Map (
ring:pre-dev-feature-map) - 🚫 Never add technical details retroactively
- 📋 Keep business/technical strictly separated
The Bottom Line
If you wrote a PRD with technical details, delete it and start over.
The PRD is business-only. Period. No exceptions. No "just this once". No "but it's relevant".
Technical details go in TRD. That's the next phase. Wait for it.
Follow the separation. Your future self will thank you.