| name | omh-product-brief |
| description | ["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. |
| metadata | {"hermes":{"tags":["workflow","oh-my-hermes","planning"],"category":"planning","phase":"product-brief","role":"planner","quality_tier":"planning-gated"}} |
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 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, codebase-onboarding, codegraph-refresh, +4 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.