Discuss a community-edition product requirement with the user, draft a bilingual (Chinese + English) PRD for review, then — after explicit user approval — create the English-only issue on GitHub (<OWNER/REPO>). Use whenever the user wants to turn a requirement (from a Feishu doc, a meeting note, a customer ask, or a rough idea) into a GitHub issue. Triggers on phrases like "create requirement doc", "create a requirement", "put this requirement on GitHub", "create new feature issue", "draft an issue for...", or anytime the user describes a product feature/improvement they want tracked. The format is opinionated (Background / Goal / Spec / Verification / Related, NO implementation details, draft shown bilingually for human review, issue itself written in English only).
Discuss a community-edition product requirement with the user, draft a bilingual (Chinese + English) PRD for review, then — after explicit user approval — create the English-only issue on GitHub (<OWNER/REPO>). Use whenever the user wants to turn a requirement (from a Feishu doc, a meeting note, a customer ask, or a rough idea) into a GitHub issue. Triggers on phrases like "create requirement doc", "create a requirement", "put this requirement on GitHub", "create new feature issue", "draft an issue for...", or anytime the user describes a product feature/improvement they want tracked. The format is opinionated (Background / Goal / Spec / Verification / Related, NO implementation details, draft shown bilingually for human review, issue itself written in English only).
Product Requirement Issue (PRD)
This skill helps a PM and an AI agent collaborate on a product requirement, draft it bilingually for review, and only then publish the English version as a GitHub issue. The issues are read by both human developers and Claude Code, so the body sticks to product logic plus concrete verification cases — never implementation details.
How this skill works
The skill is a conversation, not a one-shot generator. The flow is:
Discuss — user describes a requirement (often roughly). Agent asks clarifying questions if needed.
Research before drafting — agent searches GitHub issues, PR history (especially closed/abandoned PRs), and repo code to ground Background in real product state — not just the items the user linked.
Draft bilingually — agent produces a draft in Chinese + English side-by-side, so the user (Chinese-speaking PM) can review fluently.
Iterate with cross-section consistency — when one section changes, agent proactively checks whether sibling sections need updating too.
Validate & publish — agent re-checks each linked issue is still relevant (drops stale/tangential links), then creates the English-only GitHub issue, adds it to Project #3, and closes any old issues fully subsumed by the new PRD with a "Tracked in #NEW" note. The Chinese gloss is review-only and does NOT enter the issue body.
Why this format
Pure product logic, no code: The PRD describes WHAT and WHY in product terms. HOW (file paths, libraries, data structures, code patterns) is left entirely to engineers and Claude Code at implementation time.
Spec + Verification, complementary not redundant: Spec describes the rules (declarative). Verification gives concrete inputs/outputs and edge cases that prove the rules hold. If a Verification bullet 1:1 mirrors a Spec bullet, it's noise — delete it.
Concise: 5 sections only. No "Out of Scope" (unless explicitly called out by the user), no traditional QA-style "Acceptance Criteria", no team assignments.
Bilingual draft, English issue: PM reviews in Chinese (catches nuance fast); Claude Code and international contributors consume the published issue in English.
Linked feedback: Real user-reported issues (#xxxx) ground the requirement in actual pain.
The template (English — what gets published)
## Background
(1-3 sentences. The user pain. Why does this need to exist? Concrete scenarios beat abstractions — name the symptom users see. Must reflect verified product state, not guessed behavior.)
## Goal
(One sentence. The product outcome — what users will be able to do after this ships.)
## Spec
(3-6 bullets. The product-level logic, written as user-observable behavior — the *rules*. Each bullet is a behavior the product exhibits. NO file paths, NO data structures, NO library names, NO "use Redux", NO "modify X.ts".)
## Verification
(3-8 bullets. Concrete *instances* that prove the Spec works. Different from Spec — Spec is rules, Verification is specific cases. Focus on:
- Specific input → expected observable output (named values, not abstract "X → Y")
- Multi-step sequences (first do A, then B, expect C)
- Edge cases: empty / very long / concurrent / offline / multi-window
- Negative checks (after X, Y should NOT happen)
- Target screenshot description for UI work — describe what the user sees, not which component renders it
If a Verification bullet 1:1 mirrors a Spec bullet, delete it. Verification stays at the product/UX level too.)
## Related
(Linked GitHub issues that report the same pain or are tangential. Format as `#1234 #5678 ...`. PRs go on a separate line prefixed `PRs:`.)
Title format: [Feature]: <Title in Title Case>
Bilingual review format
When showing the user a draft, use this layout. English is the source of truth (it's what gets published); Chinese is the gloss for review.
End every draft with: "Confirm this version goes to GitHub. Which sentence needs changing?" (or English equivalent if the user is using English).
Workflow
1. Discuss & gather input
If the user opens with a vague requirement, ask up to 3 clarifying questions before drafting. Useful questions:
Background details: What kind of user encounters this problem in what scenario?
Scope: Does this requirement cover X only, or Y as well?
关联反馈：有哪些 social feedback / GitHub issue 是这个需求的来源？(if not provided, offer to search via gh issue list --search)
Priority / Milestone — these go into Project #3 fields, NOT the issue body, but record them for later.
If the user already gives enough detail — or if the requirement is concrete enough that you can pick a research keyword without asking — skip questions and go straight to step 2 (research). Don't gate research behind clarifying questions; partial research findings are often the best clarifying questions.
2. Research & ground in real product state (REQUIRED)
Do this every time, even when the requirement looks obvious. Three parallel searches, then synthesize before drafting. This phase is what prevents misframed Backgrounds — and surfaces related work the user didn't mention.
gh api graphql -f query='query{organization(login:"<OWNER>"){projectV2(number:3){items(first:50){nodes{content{__typename ... on Issue{number title state}}}}}}}'
Look for: actual user pain (not just title), workarounds users mention (they reveal the real gap), and closed issues with similar titles (often contain the proposed-but-not-shipped solution).
If a strong duplicate exists, recommend reusing it: "Issue #N already covers this — I suggest updating its body rather than creating a duplicate. Proceed with reuse?" Only create new if the user explicitly chooses.
2B. PR history — find prior attempts
gh search prs "<keyword>" --repo <OWNER/REPO> --state all --limit 20
For any closed-but-not-merged PR that looks related, read it:
The "why was this abandoned" answer is often the real constraint behind the new requirement. Merged PRs that touch the same area also matter — they tell you what already shipped, so Background doesn't claim "users can't do X" when X partially works.
2C. Repo code — verify current product state
If you have the product repo checked out locally, use the Grep tool. Otherwise:
Look for what's actually wired up in packages/aiCore/, the feature area's components, and any feature flags. The point is to know the current shape of the product before claiming what's missing.
2D. Synthesize and surface findings before drafting
After 2A+2B+2C, post a short brief to the user — do NOT skip straight to a draft:
Research findings before I draft:
Related open issues: #1234 (same pain, 12 reactions), #5678 (adjacent — UI for X)
Closed PR #9012 attempted this in 2024-08, abandoned because
Current state in code: feature is gated by and only handles
Draft against this picture, or did I miss/misframe something?
If findings contradict the user's framing, flag it explicitly — don't paper over it:
"I read #13625 and the agent code — the real constraint is X, not Y as we discussed. Should I draft against that?"
Concrete failure mode this prevents: the OpenAI/Anthropic interop PRD almost shipped with a generic "endpoint format mismatch" framing until research revealed the real pain was Agent mode's hard dependency on Anthropic-format endpoints — a much sharper, more actionable framing.
3. Draft the bilingual version
Write English first (it's the source of truth), then mirror in Chinese for review.
Default examples / lexicon when concrete values are needed:
Frontier OpenAI model example: latest available (e.g. gpt-5.5 at time of writing — not gpt-4o, which is too old to be a credible Agent example)
Anthropic model example: Claude Sonnet (most recent generation)
Gemini model example: latest stable Gemini at time of writing
If unsure what's "current", ask the user or grep packages/aiCore/ for what's actively wired up
Stale or off-brand examples damage the document's credibility — readers calibrate trust on whether the PM/agent knows what shipped recently.
Keep these instincts in mind:
Background describes the pain users feel, not the technical gap. "Users frequently hit X" beats "the system lacks Y".
Goal is a single sentence about user-visible outcome.
Spec bullets describe behavior at the product level — the rules. Free of implementation language.
Verification bullets describe specific cases, not rules. Concrete enough to be mechanically checked.
4. Self-check before showing to user
Run this checklist mentally on every draft:
Grounded in research: Background and Related reflect findings from Step 2 — at least one issue/PR/code fact discovered during research, not only items the user pre-supplied. If research turned up nothing, say so explicitly rather than skipping the check.
No code references: Body contains no file paths, function names, library names, or framework references. (Common offenders: src/, packages/, .ts, .tsx, useEffect, Redux, Drizzle.)
Spec ≠ Verification redundancy: For each Verification bullet, scan the Spec list. If any Verification bullet just rephrases a Spec rule with different words, delete it. Verification should add specifics (named inputs, edge cases, negative checks) that Spec doesn't already imply.
Examples are current: Provider examples use <PrimaryProvider> as primary; model examples are the latest generation, not legacy.
No filler: Phrases like "provide a great user experience", "improve user satisfaction", "TBD", "more details to come" — strip them.
5. Iterate with cross-section consistency
When the user revises one section, proactively check whether sibling sections need updating before re-showing the draft.
Trigger questions to ask the user when appropriate:
Background changed → "Background now emphasizes . Should Goal or Spec be re-aligned to match?"
Goal narrowed → "Goal now scopes to X only. Should we drop the Y bullets from Spec / Verification?"
A new Verification case added that contradicts existing Spec → flag it: "this Verification bullet implies Spec needs another rule. Add it?"
Don't blindly carry old sections forward when the framing shifts. The OpenAI/Anthropic interop PRD went through exactly this — Background was sharpened (Agent unlock as primary pain), and Goal/Spec/Verification all needed re-pivoting to match.
Loop until explicit confirmation ("confirm / OK / ship it / yes ship it"). Don't auto-create on a single "looks good" — wait for an unambiguous "build it" signal.
6. Re-validate Related links before submit
After the user has said "build it" but beforegh issue create — do one last pass on the Related line. The list often grew across iterations, and an issue that seemed relevant at draft time may turn out tangential, already-fixed, or duplicated by another link on closer read.
For each #NNNN in Related (and any PRs on a PRs: line):
Still relevant — does the issue actually describe the same user pain, or only adjacent? If it's tangential, drop it.
Not stale — if the issue is closed with stateReason: COMPLETED, the pain it reports may already be fixed; either drop it or keep it with a note ("originally raised in #X, partially shipped, this requirement extends it").
No redundancy — two linked issues that say the same thing add noise. Pick the higher-signal one (more reactions / clearer report) and drop the other.
Fully subsumed? — if the new PRD completely covers the pain in an old open issue (the old issue's reporter would consider their problem fully solved by what this PRD ships), mark it as a subsume candidate. These get closed and pointed at the new issue in Step 8 — but only after the user confirms each one.
If any link is weak, or any look subsumable, surface it before submitting:
"Re-checked Related:
#11420 still spot-on, keeping.
#12057 is actually about exporting memory, not persistence — different feature. Drop from Related?
#6388 and #11420 look fully covered by this PRD. Close them after we create the new issue, with a Tracked in #NEW comment? (Or keep them open if you want to preserve the discussion threads.)"
After the user confirms the final Related list and the subsume list, proceed to Step 7. Do not silently re-write Related or pre-commit to closing old issues without telling the user — they may have a reason for keeping a tangential link (e.g., a stakeholder asked for it) or for keeping an old thread open.
This step is fast (most lists are 2-4 items) and catches a common embarrassment: shipping an issue that lists #X as "Related" when #X was actually closed last week as fixed.
7. Create the issue (English only)
Once confirmed, write the English-only body to a temp file and create:
If the user has already specified a milestone, add --milestone "v2.1.0".
After creation, immediately add the issue to Project #3 and set its fields. This is part of the skill's job — do not leave it as "manual TODO for the user".
PROJECT_ID="PVT_kwDOCzFCf84A1VHU"
STATUS_FIELD="PVTSSF_lADOCzFCf84A1VHUzgq0WB4"
FEATURE_TODO_OPTION="78aaad35"
PRIORITY_FIELD="PVTSSF_lADOCzFCf84A1VHUzgq0WFk"# Priority option IDs: P0=55393b39, P1=c2301f11, P2=dcd3a7ad
ISSUE_NODE=$(gh api repos/<OWNER/REPO>/issues/<NUMBER> -q ".node_id")
ITEM_ID=$(gh api graphql -f query="mutation{addProjectV2ItemById(input:{projectId:"$PROJECT_ID",contentId:"$ISSUE_NODE"}){item{id}}}" -q ".data.addProjectV2ItemById.item.id")
gh api graphql -f query="mutation{
s:updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue(input:{projectId:"$PROJECT_ID",itemId:"$ITEM_ID",fieldId:"$STATUS_FIELD",value:{singleSelectOptionId:"$FEATURE_TODO_OPTION"}}){projectV2Item{id}}
p:updateProjectV2ItemFieldValue(input:{projectId:"$PROJECT_ID",itemId:"$ITEM_ID",fieldId:"$PRIORITY_FIELD",value:{singleSelectOptionId:"<PRIORITY_OPTION_ID>"}}){projectV2Item{id}}
}"
Then output the issue URL with a one-line confirmation: "Added to Project #3 with Status=Feature Todo, Priority=Px, Milestone=vX.Y.Z."
If the GraphQL call fails with a permissions error, ask the user to grant the current gh account Write access on Project #3, then retry. Do not silently fall back to "user does it manually" — that loses the workflow.
8. Close superseded issues (post-create housekeeping)
If Step 6 produced a confirmed subsume list — old issues whose pain is fully covered by the new PRD — close them now, after the new issue exists (so we can reference its number).
For each subsumed issue #OLD:
# 1. Comment on the old issue, pointing to the new one
gh issue comment <OLD> --repo <OWNER/REPO> --body "Tracked in #<NEW> — the new requirement fully covers the pain reported here. Closing as superseded; please follow #<NEW> for progress, and reopen this if you feel anything is missing."# 2. Close it as not-planned (since it's superseded, not literally completed by code)
gh issue close <OLD> --repo <OWNER/REPO> --reason "not planned"
Notes:
Use --reason "not planned" — completed implies code shipped, which isn't true yet at this point. not planned (with a clear comment) reads correctly as "we're tracking this elsewhere now".
The comment should always be posted before the close, so subscribers to the old issue see context in their notifications, not just a silent close.
The new issue's Related line should still list these old issue numbers — the link in both directions makes it findable from either end.
If the user explicitly asked to keep an old thread open (e.g., active discussion), respect that and skip the close even if the PRD subsumes it. Step 6 should have already settled this.
After this step, output a one-liner:
"Created #, added to Project #3, closed # # as superseded."
**Title (英)**: [Feature]: Cross-session Memory
**Title (Chinese)**: Cross-session Memory
---
### Background / 背景 (Background)**EN:**> The product's existing Memory feature only retains information within a single conversation. Users who switch topics or start new sessions lose context they've shared (preferences, ongoing project details, recurring facts), forcing them to re-explain themselves repeatedly.**ZH:**> The product's existing Memory only retains information within a single session. When users switch topics or start new sessions, previously shared preferences, project details, and long-term facts are lost, forcing users to repeat themselves.### Goal / 目标 (Goal)**EN:**> Users can persist memory across all conversations, so the AI naturally remembers preferences, facts, and context regardless of which topic the user is in.**ZH:**> Users can persist memory across all conversations, so the AI remembers preferences, facts, and context regardless of topic.### Spec / 具体逻辑 (Spec)**EN:**> - Users can explicitly mark information to be remembered across sessions, surfaced in the conversation when the AI commits it to long-term memory.> - In any new conversation, the AI automatically retrieves relevant cross-session memory and incorporates it into responses.> - Users can view, edit, and delete cross-session memory entries from a dedicated settings panel.> - Cross-session memory persists across app restarts.**ZH:**> - Users can explicitly mark information to remember across sessions, with the AI indicating in conversation when it commits to long-term memory.> - In any new conversation, the AI automatically retrieves relevant cross-session memory and incorporates it into responses.> - Users can view, edit, and delete cross-session memory entries from a dedicated settings panel.> - Cross-session memory persists across app restarts.### Verification / 验证 (Verification)**EN:**> - In conversation A, user says "I'm a data scientist, I mainly use Python." Start conversation B and ask "recommend me learning resources" — response should target data science / Python without re-asking the user's role.
Notes
This skill is for community edition requirements only. Enterprise requirements stay in the Feishu bitable.
Project assignment (Project #3 fields like Status, Priority) IS done by this skill — see workflow step 7.
If the user is creating many issues in a session, run the duplicate check once at the start by listing all open issues, then check against that list — saves repeated gh calls.
Out of scope sections are NOT added by default. Only include an explicit "Out of scope" line if the user names something specific they want kept off-limits.
The PRD never prescribes implementation. No file paths, no library names, no architecture choices.
The bilingual draft is review-only. Only the English version is published to GitHub.
> - User toggles cross-session memory off in settings → new conversations show no retrieved memory entries and behave like a clean session.
> - Conflicting statements: in conversation A say "I use Python", later say "I use Go" — subsequent conversations should reflect the most recent statement, not both.
**ZH:**
> - In conversation A, user says "I am a data scientist, mainly use Python". New conversation B asks "recommend learning resources" — response should target data science/Python without re-asking user role.
> - User toggles cross-session memory off in settings → new conversations show no retrieved memory entries and behave like a clean session.
> - Conflicting statements: conversation A says "I use Python", later says "I use Go" — subsequent conversations should reflect the most recent statement, not both.
