product-spec

name	product-spec
description	Use when the user wants to write a "product spec" or "product specification", frame a "product bet", or define a falsifiable hypothesis before building. Also triggers on "replace the PRD", "retire the PRD", "the PRD is too long / too vague", "tighten this spec for an engineer or agent", "what's the bet", "what problem are we solving", "acceptance criteria", "success criteria", "kill / scale / graduate thresholds", "measurement plan", or when scoping a feature's problem, bet, success behaviors, and evaluation before any behavioral spec. Part of the spec-dd workflow; precedes /spec-dd:spec.
disable-model-invocation	false

Product Spec

Overview

A Product Spec is a one-page artifact built for the people who actually consume it — engineers, designers, and AI agents — so they can ship without 12 follow-up questions. It replaces the PRD. It is not a PRD: no Background section, no Goals section, no Customers section, no seven pages of feature descriptions, no throat-clearing.

A Product Spec is exactly four mandatory pieces, in order, and nothing else:

1. The problem — who is hurting, what they do today, why now.
2. The bet — a falsifiable hypothesis.
3. The success criteria — the concrete behaviors we will see when this works.
4. The evaluation — how we measure it, and the kill / scale / graduate thresholds.

Core principle: a Product Spec earns its place only if it is falsifiable. If nothing in it could ever prove the team wrong, it is a PRD wearing a new name — start over.

This skill interrogates the user for each of the four pieces. You do not write the document from assumptions, and you do not draft it until all four pieces pass their acceptance test below.

When to Use

• Before building a feature, when the team needs a tight, shippable spec.
• When someone hands you a long, vague PRD and wants it sharpened into a bet.
• When the request is "what are we actually betting on here?"
• As Phase 0 of spec-dd — the Product Spec frames the problem and bet; the behavioral specification (/spec-dd:spec) then defines what the system does.

Not for: describing how a system works (that is the behavioral spec), or producing exhaustive feature catalogs (that is the PRD you are replacing).

Artifact

One file per feature, matching the spec-dd convention:

docs/specs/<feature>-product-spec.md

If no feature name is given, ask for one before writing.

Interrogation Protocol

Interrogate the four pieces one at a time, in order. Do not batch all four into one questionnaire, and do not move to the next piece until the current one passes its acceptance test.

For each piece:

1. Ask 1–3 targeted questions. Offer selectable options where the answer space is finite (who is hurting, time horizon, threshold direction) plus a free-text escape; use free text for narrative answers.
2. Push back on vague answers using that piece's Reject when list. Name the specific gap and re-ask. Do not accept an adjective where a behavior is required, or a wish where a number is required.
3. Restate the captured piece in its required form and get explicit confirmation before advancing.

Only after all four pass do you assemble the document, then run the Shippable gate below.

For a per-piece bad-vs-good library, a full worked example, and a ready-to-use question bank, read references/examples.md.

Piece 1 — The Problem

Must contain: (a) a specific hurting party — a named role or segment, not "users" or "everyone"; (b) what they do today to cope — the current workaround, tool, or manual step; (c) why now — what changed that makes this urgent now and not a year ago.

Done when: a stranger could point at exactly who is hurting, describe their current workaround, and explain the trigger that makes this the moment to act.

Reject when:

• The sufferer is "users", "customers", "people", or "the business".
• No current behavior is described. Real pain has a coping mechanism — if you cannot find the workaround, you have not found the problem.
• "Why now" is "it would be nice" or "competitors have it" with no trigger.

Piece 2 — The Bet

Required form (fill every slot concretely):

If we ship X, then [specific user] will [observable change] within [time], measured by [metric].

• X — the specific thing shipped.
• [specific user] — the same hurting party from Piece 1, not a new vague group.
• [observable change] — a behavior visible in data, never an attitude ("loves it", "is satisfied", "finds it intuitive").
• [time] — a real window (days or weeks), not "eventually".
• [metric] — a named, instrumented number, with its current baseline if known.

Done when: it is falsifiable — you can state the result that would prove the bet wrong.

Reject when:

• You cannot name what outcome would falsify it.
• The change is a feeling, not a behavior.
• There is no time window, or the metric is not something you can actually count.

Piece 3 — The Success Criteria

Must contain: 2–5 concrete behaviors you would observe when this is working — things people do, visible in logs, usage, or support load. Not adjectives, not internal milestones.

Done when: each criterion is something you could literally watch happen.

Reject when:

• It is an adjective or feeling ("delightful", "fast", "engaging").
• It describes team output, not user behavior ("we shipped it", "it's live" — shipping is not success).
• It cannot be observed without asking someone how they feel.

Piece 4 — The Evaluation

Must contain: (a) the measurement method — the actual instrument, query, dashboard, or event that is the source of truth; (b) the review window — when you look and decide; (c) three thresholds, each a number with a decision attached:

• Kill — below this, stop. The bet was wrong.
• Scale — at or above this, invest more. The bet paid off.
• Graduate — the middle band: keep iterating, or promote from experiment to default.

Done when: every threshold is a concrete number tied to a decision, and a kill number exists.

Reject when:

• No instrument is named ("we'll see how it goes", "we'll know it when we see it").
• Thresholds have no numbers.
• There is no kill condition — a bet you can never lose is not a bet.

Shippable Gate

Before declaring the Product Spec done, apply the test that defines the artifact:

Could an engineer or an AI agent take this and ship the feature without 12 follow-up questions?

Read it back as if you were the implementer. If a slot is still vague, name the question that would be asked and loop back to that piece. This gate is advisory — if the user consciously accepts a gap, note it and proceed.

Artifact Template

Keep the whole document to roughly one page. If it grows past a page, you are re-writing a PRD — cut, do not expand.

# <Feature> — Product Spec

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Owner | <name> |
| Date  | <today's date> |
| Status | Draft / Active / Killed / Scaled |

## The Problem
Who is hurting: <specific role or segment>.
What they do today: <current workaround>.
Why now: <the trigger>.

## The Bet
If we ship **<X>**, then **<specific user>** will **<observable change>**
within **<time>**, measured by **<metric>** (baseline: <current value>).

## Success Criteria
We will see these behaviors when it is working:
- <observable behavior 1>
- <observable behavior 2>
- <observable behavior 3>

## Evaluation
- **How measured:** <instrument / query / dashboard / event>.
- **Review window:** <when we look and decide>.
- **Kill:** <metric> below <number> → stop.
- **Graduate:** <metric> between <number> and <number> → keep iterating.
- **Scale:** <metric> at or above <number> → invest more.

Handoff to spec-dd

When the Product Spec passes the Shippable gate, offer the next step:

• The bet and success criteria become inputs to the behavioral specification. Recommend /spec-dd:spec <feature> to define what the system does, with the Product Spec's metrics flowing into measurable acceptance criteria.
• The evaluation thresholds become the yardstick the eventual /spec-dd:verify and /spec-dd:review phases measure against.

Common Mistakes (PRD relapse)

PRD-ism creeping in	The Product Spec move
Background / Goals / Customers sections	Delete them. Four pieces only.
"Users want a better experience"	Name the specific person hurting and their workaround.
"Increase engagement" as the bet	Falsifiable bet: specific user + observable change + time + metric.
Success = "the feature is shipped"	Success = behaviors you can watch users perform.
"We'll track metrics and iterate"	Named instrument + kill / scale / graduate numbers.
Page after page of feature descriptions	One page. If it grows, cut.
A bet with no way to lose	If nothing could prove it wrong, it is not a bet — rewrite.

Red Flags — Stop and Re-interrogate

• You are about to write the document but skipped interrogating a piece.
• A piece "feels close enough" but fails its Done when test.
• The bet has no falsifying outcome.
• The evaluation has no kill threshold.
• The draft is longer than a page.

All of these mean: go back to the failing piece and interrogate it to its required form before writing.