| name | afrexai-prd-engine |
| description | PRD Engine |
PRD Engine — Product Requirements That Ship
Complete product requirements methodology: from idea to spec to shipped feature. Not just a JSON template — a full system for writing PRDs that developers actually follow and stakeholders actually approve.
When to Use This Skill
- Turning a vague idea into a buildable specification
- Writing PRDs for new features, products, or major refactors
- Reviewing/improving existing PRDs before sprint planning
- Breaking epics into right-sized user stories
- Creating technical design documents alongside product specs
- Preparing specs for AI coding agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot)
Phase 1: Discovery Brief
Before writing a single requirement, answer these questions. Skip this and you'll rewrite the PRD 3 times.
Problem Validation Checklist
discovery_brief:
problem:
statement: ""
who_has_it: ""
frequency: ""
current_workaround: ""
evidence:
- type: ""
detail: ""
date: ""
impact:
users_affected: ""
revenue_impact: ""
strategic_alignment: ""
constraints:
deadline: ""
budget: ""
dependencies: ""
regulatory: ""
success_metrics:
primary: ""
secondary: []
measurement_method: ""
target: ""
timeframe: ""
Problem Statement Formula
[Persona] needs [capability] because [reason], but currently [blocker], which causes [measurable impact].
Examples:
- ❌ "Users need better onboarding" (vague, unmeasurable)
- ✅ "New free-trial users (500/month) need to reach their first 'aha moment' within 10 minutes because 73% who don't will churn within 48 hours, but currently the average time-to-value is 34 minutes due to a 12-step setup wizard, which costs us ~$18K/month in lost conversions."
Kill Criteria
Before proceeding, check these. If any are true, STOP and push back:
| Signal | Action |
|---|
| No evidence of the problem (just someone's opinion) | Demand evidence. Opinions aren't requirements. |
| Solution already decided ("just build X") | Rewind to the problem. Solutions without problems = features nobody uses. |
| Success metric is unmeasurable | Define how you'll measure it or don't build it. |
| Affects <1% of users with no revenue impact | Deprioritize. Small problems with small impact = small returns. |
| Scope keeps expanding during discovery | Scope lock. If everything is in scope, nothing is. |
Phase 2: PRD Document
PRD Template
# PRD: [Feature Name]
**Author:** [Name]
**Status:** Draft | In Review | Approved | In Progress | Shipped
**Created:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Last Updated:** YYYY-MM-DD
**Approvers:** [Names + roles]
## 1. Problem & Opportunity
[Problem statement from discovery brief — one paragraph max]
### Evidence
- [Evidence point 1 — with data]
- [Evidence point 2 — with data]
### Impact
- Users affected: [number]
- Revenue impact: [$ amount or % change]
- Strategic goal: [which one]
## 2. Solution Overview
[2-3 paragraphs max. What are we building and why this approach?]
### What This Is
- [Bullet list of what's in scope]
### What This Is NOT
- [Explicit exclusions — this prevents scope creep]
### Key Decisions Made
| Decision | Options Considered | Chosen | Rationale |
|----------|-------------------|--------|-----------|
| [Decision 1] | A, B, C | B | [Why] |
## 3. User Stories
[See Phase 3 below for story writing methodology]
## 4. Design & UX
### User Flow
1. User [action] →
2. System [response] →
3. User sees [outcome]
### Wireframes/Mockups
[Link to Figma/screenshots or describe key screens]
### Edge Cases
| Scenario | Expected Behavior |
|----------|------------------|
| [Edge case 1] | [What happens] |
| [Edge case 2] | [What happens] |
| Empty state | [What user sees with no data] |
| Error state | [What user sees on failure] |
| Slow connection | [Loading behavior] |
## 5. Technical Considerations
### Architecture Notes
- [Key technical decisions]
- [New services/APIs needed]
- [Database changes]
### Dependencies
[External service X]
[Team Y's API]
[Library Z]
Page load: <[X]ms
API response: <[X]ms
Concurrent users: [X]
[Data handling requirements]
[Auth/permissions needed]
[PII considerations]
[ ] Feature flag: [flag name]
[ ] Beta group: [who]
[ ] % rollout: [10% → 50% → 100%]
[ ] Rollback plan: [how]
[ ] QA sign-off
[ ] Analytics events implemented
[ ] Monitoring/alerts configured
[ ] Documentation updated
[ ] Support team briefed
[ ] Stakeholders notified
| Metric | Current | Target | Timeframe |
|--------|---------|--------|-----------|
| [Primary metric] | [X] | [Y] | [Z weeks] |
| [Secondary metric] | [X] | [Y] | [Z weeks] |
[What to look at]
[What to measure]
[Criteria for each]
PRD Quality Rubric (score before sharing)
| Dimension | 0-2 (Weak) | 3-4 (Adequate) | 5 (Strong) | Weight |
|---|
| Problem clarity | Vague, no data | Clear but thin evidence | Sharp statement + multiple evidence points | x4 |
| Scope discipline | Everything in scope | Some boundaries | Explicit in/out + "what this is NOT" | x3 |
| Story quality | Vague tasks | Stories with some criteria | INVEST stories + verifiable acceptance criteria | x4 |
| Edge cases | None listed | Happy path + 1-2 edges | Comprehensive: empty, error, slow, permissions, concurrent | x3 |
| Success metrics | "Improve X" | Metric + target | Metric + baseline + target + timeframe + measurement method | x3 |
| Technical feasibility | No tech section | Architecture notes | Dependencies, performance, security, migration plan | x2 |
| Release plan | None | "Ship it" | Feature flag + rollout % + rollback + launch checklist | x1 |
Scoring: Sum (score × weight). Max = 100.
- 80-100: Ship-ready. Get approvals.
- 60-79: Solid but missing pieces. Fill gaps before review.
- 40-59: Needs work. Major sections incomplete.
- <40: Start over or go back to discovery.
Phase 3: User Story Methodology
Story Format
story:
id: "US-001"
title: ""
persona: ""
narrative: "As a [persona], I want [capability] so that [benefit]"
acceptance_criteria:
- criterion: ""
type: "functional"
priority: 1
size: ""
status: "todo"
notes: ""
depends_on: []
blocked_by: []
INVEST Checklist (every story must pass)
| Letter | Criterion | Test |
|---|
| I — Independent | Can be built without other incomplete stories | No circular dependencies |
| N — Negotiable | Details can flex (the "what" is fixed, the "how" is flexible) | Multiple implementation approaches exist |
| V — Valuable | Delivers user or business value on its own | Would a user/stakeholder care if only this shipped? |
| E — Estimable | Team can size it | No major unknowns (if unknowns exist, add a spike first) |
| S — Small | Completable in one sprint (or one context window for AI agents) | 1-3 days of work max |
| T — Testable | Has verifiable acceptance criteria | Can write a test for each criterion |
Acceptance Criteria Rules
Good criteria are:
- Binary (pass/fail, not subjective)
- Specific (numbers, not adjectives)
- Independent (testable in isolation)
| ❌ Bad | ✅ Good |
|---|
| "Works correctly" | "Returns 200 with JSON body containing id, name, status fields" |
| "Fast enough" | "API responds in <200ms at p95 with 100 concurrent users" |
| "User-friendly" | "Form shows inline validation errors within 100ms of field blur" |
| "Secure" | "Endpoint returns 403 for users without admin role" |
| "Handles errors" | "On network timeout, shows retry button + cached data if available" |
Always include these universal criteria:
Typecheck passes (tsc --noEmit --strict) (for TypeScript projects)
All existing tests still pass
New functionality has test coverage
Story Sizing Guide
| Size | Scope | Time | Example |
|---|
| XS | Config change, copy update, env var | <2 hours | "Update error message text" |
| S | Single component/function, no new deps | 2-4 hours | "Add date picker to form" |
| M | Feature slice: DB + API + UI | 1-2 days | "Add task priority with filter" |
| L | Multi-component feature, new patterns | 2-3 days | "Add real-time notifications" |
| XL | Too big. Split it. | — | — |
Story Ordering: The Dependency Pyramid
Always order stories bottom-up:
Level 1: Schema & Data (migrations, models, seed data)
↑
Level 2: Backend Logic (services, APIs, business rules)
↑
Level 3: Integration (API routes, auth, middleware)
↑
Level 4: UI Components (forms, tables, modals)
↑
Level 5: UX Polish (animations, empty states, loading)
↑
Level 6: Analytics & Monitoring (events, dashboards)
Each level depends ONLY on levels below it. Never build UI before the API exists.
Splitting Strategies
When a story is too big, split using one of these patterns:
| Strategy | When to Use | Example |
|---|
| By layer | Full-stack feature | "Add schema" → "Add API" → "Add UI" |
| By operation | CRUD feature | "Create task" → "Read/list tasks" → "Update task" → "Delete task" |
| By persona | Multi-role feature | "Admin creates template" → "User fills template" → "Viewer sees results" |
| By happy/sad path | Complex flows | "Successful payment" → "Payment declined" → "Payment timeout" |
| By platform | Cross-platform | "iOS support" → "Android support" → "Web support" |
| Spike + implement | High uncertainty | "Spike: evaluate auth libraries (2h)" → "Implement auth with chosen library" |
Phase 4: PRD for AI Coding Agents
When the PRD will be executed by AI agents (Claude Code, Cursor, Copilot Workspace, etc.), add these adaptations:
Agent-Optimized Story Format
agent_story:
id: "US-001"
title: "Add priority field to tasks table"
context: |
The tasks table is in src/db/schema.ts using Drizzle ORM.
Priority values should be: high, medium, low (default: medium).
See existing fields for naming conventions.
acceptance_criteria:
- "Add `priority` column to `tasks` table in src/db/schema.ts"
- "Type: enum('high', 'medium', 'low'), default 'medium', not null"
- "Generate migration: `npx drizzle-kit generate`"
- "Run migration: `npx drizzle-kit push`"
- "Verify: `tsc --noEmit --strict` passes"
- "Verify: existing tests pass (`npm test`)"
files_to_touch:
- src/db/schema.ts
- drizzle/ (generated migration)
commands_to_run:
- "npx drizzle-kit generate"
- "npx drizzle-kit push"
- "tsc --noEmit --strict"
- "npm test"
done_when: "All verify commands pass with exit code 0"
Agent-Specific Rules
- Be explicit about file paths. Agents can't guess your project structure.
- Include verification commands. Agents need a "definition of done" they can check.
- One context window per story. If a story needs the agent to remember more than ~50 files, it's too big.
- List files to touch. Reduces agent exploration time and prevents hallucination.
- Order matters even more. Agents execute sequentially — wrong order = compounding errors.
- Include the commands. Don't say "run the migration" — say
npx drizzle-kit push.
Project Context File
For AI agent execution, create a PROJECT_CONTEXT.md alongside the PRD:
# Project Context
## Stack
- Framework: [Next.js 14 / Express / etc.]
- Language: [TypeScript strict mode]
- Database: [PostgreSQL via Drizzle ORM]
- Testing: [Vitest + Testing Library]
- Styling: [Tailwind CSS]
## Key Directories
- src/db/ — Database schema and migrations
- src/api/ — API routes
- src/components/ — React components
- src/lib/ — Shared utilities
- tests/ — Test files (mirror src/ structure)
## Conventions
- File naming: kebab-case
- Component naming: PascalCase
- Max file length: 300 lines
- Max function length: 50 lines
- All exports typed, no `any`
## Commands
- `npm run dev` — Start dev server
- `npm test` — Run tests
- `npm run build` — Production build
- `tsc --noEmit --strict` — Type check
- `npx drizzle-kit generate` — Generate migration
- `npx drizzle-kit push` — Apply migration
## Current State
- [What exists today relevant to the PRD]
- [Any tech debt or gotchas the agent should know]
Phase 5: Review & Approval
Review Checklist (before sharing the PRD)
Completeness:
Quality:
Readability:
Approval Flow
Author writes PRD
↓
Self-review (score with rubric — must be ≥60)
↓
Peer review (another PM or tech lead)
↓
Engineering review (feasibility + sizing)
↓
Stakeholder approval (PM lead or product director)
↓
Status → Approved
↓
Sprint planning (stories → backlog)
Common Review Feedback (and how to fix it)
| Feedback | Fix |
|---|
| "What problem does this solve?" | Your problem statement is weak. Add evidence. |
| "This is too big" | Split into phases. Ship the smallest valuable slice first (MVP). |
| "How do we know it worked?" | Your success metrics are vague. Add numbers + timeframe. |
| "What about [edge case]?" | Your edge case table is incomplete. Add it. |
| "When does this ship?" | Add timeline with milestones, not just a deadline. |
| "Who approved this?" | Add approvers field and get explicit sign-offs. |
Phase 6: Tracking & Iteration
PRD Status Lifecycle
Draft → In Review → Approved → In Progress → Shipped → Post-Launch Review
↓ ↓
Rejected Iterate / Kill
Progress Tracking
Track story completion in the PRD itself or a linked tracker:
progress:
total_stories: 12
done: 7
in_progress: 2
blocked: 1
todo: 2
completion: "58%"
blocked_items:
- story: "US-008"
blocker: "Waiting for payments API access from finance team"
since: "2025-01-15"
escalation: "Pinged finance lead, follow up Friday"
velocity:
stories_per_week: 3.5
estimated_completion: "2025-02-01"
Post-Launch Review Template
post_launch:
shipped_date: ""
review_date: ""
metrics:
primary:
metric: ""
baseline: ""
target: ""
actual: ""
verdict: ""
secondary:
- metric: ""
actual: ""
verdict: ""
qualitative:
user_feedback: []
support_tickets: ""
unexpected_outcomes: []
process_retro:
what_went_well: []
what_didnt: []
estimation_accuracy: ""
scope_changes: ""
decision: ""
next_actions: []
Quick Commands
| Command | What It Does |
|---|
| "Write a PRD for [feature]" | Full PRD from discovery through stories |
| "Break this into stories" | Takes a feature description → user stories |
| "Review this PRD" | Scores against quality rubric + gives specific feedback |
| "Make this agent-ready" | Converts PRD stories to agent-optimized format |
| "What's missing from this PRD?" | Gap analysis against the template |
| "Split this story" | Takes a large story → smaller INVEST-compliant stories |
| "Score this PRD" | Quality rubric scoring with dimension breakdown |
| "Create project context for [project]" | Generates PROJECT_CONTEXT.md for AI agent execution |
| "Post-launch review for [feature]" | Generates review template with metrics |
| "Track progress" | Updates completion stats from story statuses |