Product Brief
This is a Hermes-native product-brief workflow skill.
Why This Exists
product-brief turns product evidence into a reviewable PRD and prioritization frame before delivery planning without treating a draft as an accepted roadmap commitment.
Do Not Use When
- The input is unprocessed feedback, bug reports, or feature asks that first need clustering and evidence boundaries; use
feedback-triage.
- The product evidence is unvalidated, synthetic, or a founder belief and the problem gate has not returned validated; use
product-discovery-validation before a PRD.
- The input is a growth hypothesis that still needs an experiment and readout before it becomes a product requirement; use
lifecycle-growth.
- The user needs a company or product strategy decision across high-level options rather than a requirements or roadmap artifact; use
strategy-brief.
- The request is an accepted, code-ready change with repository constraints and verification needs; use
ralplan or ultrawork rather than recreating a PRD.
- The user asks to create or update Jira, Linear, Aha!, or a roadmap system directly; use
connector-operator with explicit target, approval, and observed evidence.
Examples
Good example:
- Prompt: Create a PRD and prioritization options for reducing first-time user drop-off in onboarding.
- Expected behavior: Prepare the product problem, user and metric brief, PRD, roadmap options, tradeoffs, and downstream prerequisites.
- Why: The request needs a decision-ready requirements and prioritization artifact before delivery planning.
Bad example:
- Prompt: Implement the accepted onboarding PRD and open a PR.
- Expected behavior: Route to
ultrawork or ralplan, not product-brief.
- Why: Accepted implementation work should move into planning or delivery rather than recreate a PRD.
Completion Checklist
- The plan names goals, non-goals, assumptions, acceptance criteria, and verification shape.
- Draft recommendations, accepted decisions, and executor handoffs are separate states.
- Rejected options or unresolved tradeoffs are recorded before handoff.
Recovery Notes
- If acceptance criteria or verification are missing, route back to clarification before handoff.
- If assumptions materially affect the plan, keep them visible and avoid treating the plan as accepted.
Workflow Lane
- Current lane: Intent -> plan (
oh-my-hermes, meta-router, deep-interview, context, plan, ralplan, adversarial-consensus, codebase-onboarding, +9 more) - clarify, plan, ship, or loop goals.
- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to
oh-my-hermes or name the adjacent workflow.
- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules:
omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md.
Use When
Use when a product owner needs a problem frame, user/outcome definition, PRD, prioritization/roadmap options, dependencies, acceptance shape, and decision record before delivery planning.
Strong routing signals: `product requirements document`, `PRD`, `roadmap prioritization`, `제품 요구사항 문서`, `제품 기획서`, `로드맵 우선순위`
Catalog Metadata
Category: planning
Phase: product-brief
Hermes role: planner
Quality tier: planning-gated
Reasoning demand: standard
Quality bar:
- Name problem, user, metric, goals, non-goals, requirements, dependencies, risks, and acceptance shape.
- Preserve decision owner and downstream prerequisite boundaries.
Handoff policy:
Keep domain framing, clarification, source/evidence synthesis, draft outputs, and next-work routing in Hermes. A prepared brief, review, reply, or plan is not an external action, approval, filing, send, publish, data mutation, implementation, review, CI, or merge claim. Prepare a connector, file, coding, or human-review handoff only when the user explicitly accepts that next step; report it only from observed evidence. A PRD or roadmap is prepared planning, not stakeholder acceptance, Jira or Linear mutation, implementation, test evidence, delivery, or a market commitment.
Required inputs:
- product evidence
- problem and user
- goal and non-goals
- decision owner
Expert clarification questions:
product evidence
- English: What product evidence should anchor this brief?
- Korean: 이 브리프의 근거가 될 제품 증거는 무엇인가요?
Expected outputs:
- problem, user, evidence, metric, goal, and non-goal brief
- PRD with requirements, open questions, risks, dependencies, and acceptance shape
- prioritization/roadmap options with tradeoffs and decision owner
- explicit downstream route to ralplan, strategy-brief, or ultrawork only when its prerequisite is satisfied
Artifact expectations:
- prepared product brief or PRD when a wrapper captures it
Safety rules:
- Separate product evidence, assumptions, prioritization options, and stakeholder acceptance.
- Do not claim roadmap-system mutation, implementation, test evidence, delivery, or market commitment.
Runtime Evidence
Preferred harness for this skill: planning.
omh runtime record --skill product-brief --harness planning --status started
Record observed delegation results; otherwise return not_available or not_observed.
Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.
1---
2name: "omh-product-brief"
3description: "[omh] Turn product evidence into a decision-ready PRD, prioritization frame, and roadmap brief. Use when the user says: product requirements document, PRD, roadmap prioritization, 제품 요구사항 문서, 제품 기획서, 로드맵 우선순위."
4metadata:
5 hermes:
6 tags: [workflow, oh-my-hermes, planning]
7 category: planning
8 phase: product-brief
9 role: planner
10 quality_tier: planning-gated
11---
12
13# Product Brief
14
15This is a Hermes-native `product-brief` workflow skill.
16
17## Why This Exists
18
19`product-brief` turns product evidence into a reviewable PRD and prioritization frame before delivery planning without treating a draft as an accepted roadmap commitment.
20
21## Do Not Use When
22
23- The input is unprocessed feedback, bug reports, or feature asks that first need clustering and evidence boundaries; use `feedback-triage`.
24- The product evidence is unvalidated, synthetic, or a founder belief and the problem gate has not returned validated; use `product-discovery-validation` before a PRD.
25- The input is a growth hypothesis that still needs an experiment and readout before it becomes a product requirement; use `lifecycle-growth`.
26- The user needs a company or product strategy decision across high-level options rather than a requirements or roadmap artifact; use `strategy-brief`.
27- The request is an accepted, code-ready change with repository constraints and verification needs; use `ralplan` or `ultrawork` rather than recreating a PRD.
28- The user asks to create or update Jira, Linear, Aha!, or a roadmap system directly; use `connector-operator` with explicit target, approval, and observed evidence.
29
30## Examples
31
32Good example:
33
34- Prompt: Create a PRD and prioritization options for reducing first-time user drop-off in onboarding.
35- Expected behavior: Prepare the product problem, user and metric brief, PRD, roadmap options, tradeoffs, and downstream prerequisites.
36- Why: The request needs a decision-ready requirements and prioritization artifact before delivery planning.
37
38Bad example:
39
40- Prompt: Implement the accepted onboarding PRD and open a PR.
41- Expected behavior: Route to `ultrawork` or `ralplan`, not `product-brief`.
42- Why: Accepted implementation work should move into planning or delivery rather than recreate a PRD.
43
44## Completion Checklist
45
46- The plan names goals, non-goals, assumptions, acceptance criteria, and verification shape.
47- Draft recommendations, accepted decisions, and executor handoffs are separate states.
48- Rejected options or unresolved tradeoffs are recorded before handoff.
49
50## Recovery Notes
51
52- If acceptance criteria or verification are missing, route back to clarification before handoff.
53- If assumptions materially affect the plan, keep them visible and avoid treating the plan as accepted.
54
55## Workflow Lane
56
57- Current lane: **Intent -> plan** (`oh-my-hermes`, `meta-router`, `deep-interview`, `context`, `plan`, `ralplan`, `adversarial-consensus`, `codebase-onboarding`, `+9 more`) - clarify, plan, ship, or loop goals.
58- If intent belongs to another lane, hand back to `oh-my-hermes` or name the adjacent workflow.
59- Shared product, routing, compatibility, and evidence rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`.
60
61## Use When
62
63Use when a product owner needs a problem frame, user/outcome definition, PRD, prioritization/roadmap options, dependencies, acceptance shape, and decision record before delivery planning.
64
65 Strong routing signals: `product requirements document`, `PRD`, `roadmap prioritization`, `제품 요구사항 문서`, `제품 기획서`, `로드맵 우선순위`
66
67## Catalog Metadata
68
69Category: `planning`
70Phase: `product-brief`
71Hermes role: `planner`
72Quality tier: `planning-gated`
73Reasoning demand: `standard`
74
75Quality bar:
76
77- Name problem, user, metric, goals, non-goals, requirements, dependencies, risks, and acceptance shape.
78- Preserve decision owner and downstream prerequisite boundaries.
79
80Handoff policy:
81
82Keep domain framing, clarification, source/evidence synthesis, draft outputs, and next-work routing in Hermes. A prepared brief, review, reply, or plan is not an external action, approval, filing, send, publish, data mutation, implementation, review, CI, or merge claim. Prepare a connector, file, coding, or human-review handoff only when the user explicitly accepts that next step; report it only from observed evidence. A PRD or roadmap is prepared planning, not stakeholder acceptance, Jira or Linear mutation, implementation, test evidence, delivery, or a market commitment.
83
84Required inputs:
85
86- product evidence
87- problem and user
88- goal and non-goals
89- decision owner
90
91Expert clarification questions:
92- `product evidence`
93 - English: What product evidence should anchor this brief?
94 - Korean: 이 브리프의 근거가 될 제품 증거는 무엇인가요?
95
96Expected outputs:
97
98- problem, user, evidence, metric, goal, and non-goal brief
99- PRD with requirements, open questions, risks, dependencies, and acceptance shape
100- prioritization/roadmap options with tradeoffs and decision owner
101- explicit downstream route to ralplan, strategy-brief, or ultrawork only when its prerequisite is satisfied
102
103Artifact expectations:
104
105- prepared product brief or PRD when a wrapper captures it
106
107Safety rules:
108
109- Separate product evidence, assumptions, prioritization options, and stakeholder acceptance.
110- Do not claim roadmap-system mutation, implementation, test evidence, delivery, or market commitment.
111
112## Runtime Evidence
113
114Preferred harness for this skill: `planning`.
115
116```sh
117omh runtime record --skill product-brief --harness planning --status started
118```
119
120Record observed delegation results; otherwise return `not_available` or `not_observed`.
121Prepared OMH routing is not execution, review, CI, merge-readiness, or merge evidence.
122- Treat wrapper memory/context summaries as advisory local context, not proof of opaque Hermes memory reads or changes.
123Preserve workflow intent and stop conditions; verify before claiming completion.
124
125Use Hermes-native subagent/delegation features when available: native subagents -> Hermes delegation when available, otherwise sequential lanes.
126
127Shared product, compatibility, topology, memory, harness, and execution rules: `omh-routing/references/skill-common-rail.md`. Load it when applicable; otherwise name an unavailable capability.