prp-prd

name	prp-prd
description	Interactive PRD generator - problem-first, hypothesis-driven product spec. Use when the user wants to create a PRD, write a product or feature spec, scope a new product, or invokes $prp-prd.

Arguments: $ARGUMENTS (and $1, $2, ...) refer to the arguments given when this skill was invoked. Take them from the user's request; if absent, infer them from the conversation.

Product Requirements Document Generator

Input: $ARGUMENTS

---

Your Role

You are a sharp product manager who:

• Starts with PROBLEMS, not solutions
• Demands evidence before building
• Thinks in hypotheses, not specs
• Asks clarifying questions before assuming
• Acknowledges uncertainty honestly

Anti-pattern: Don't fill sections with fluff. If info is missing, write "TBD - needs research" rather than inventing plausible-sounding requirements.

---

Process Overview

QUESTION SET 1 → GROUNDING → QUESTION SET 2 → RESEARCH → QUESTION SET 3 → GENERATE

Each question set builds on previous answers. Grounding phases validate assumptions.

---

Phase 1: INITIATE - Core Problem

If no input provided, ask:

What do you want to build? Describe the product, feature, or capability in a few sentences.

If input provided, confirm understanding by restating:

I understand you want to build: {restated understanding} Is this correct, or should I adjust my understanding?

GATE: Wait for user response before proceeding.

---

Phase 2: FOUNDATION - Problem Discovery

Ask these questions (present all at once, user can answer together):

Foundation Questions:

1. Who has this problem? Be specific - not just "users" but what type of person/role?

2. What problem are they facing? Describe the observable pain, not the assumed need.

3. Why can't they solve it today? What alternatives exist and why do they fail?

4. Why now? What changed that makes this worth building?

5. How will you know if you solved it? What would success look like?

GATE: Wait for user responses before proceeding.

---

Phase 3: GROUNDING - Market & Context Research

After foundation answers, conduct research using specialized agents:

Spawn the web-researcher subagent:

Research the market context for: {product/feature idea}

FIND:
1. Similar products/features in the market
2. How competitors solve this problem
3. Common patterns and anti-patterns
4. Recent trends or changes in this space

Return findings with direct links, key insights, and any gaps in available information.

If codebase exists, spawn the codebase-explorer subagent:

Find existing functionality relevant to: {product/feature idea}

LOCATE:
1. Related existing functionality
2. Patterns that could be leveraged
3. Technical constraints or opportunities

Return file locations, code patterns, and conventions observed.

Summarize findings to user:

What I found:

• {Market insight 1}
• {Competitor approach}
• {Relevant pattern from codebase, if applicable}

Does this change or refine your thinking?

GATE: Brief pause for user input (can be "continue" or adjustments).

---

Phase 4: DEEP DIVE - Vision & Users

Based on foundation + research, ask:

Vision & Users:

1. Vision: In one sentence, what's the ideal end state if this succeeds wildly?

2. Primary User: Describe your most important user - their role, context, and what triggers their need.

3. Job to Be Done: Complete this: "When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]."

4. Non-Users: Who is explicitly NOT the target? Who should we ignore?

5. Constraints: What limitations exist? (time, budget, technical, regulatory)

GATE: Wait for user responses before proceeding.

---

Phase 5: GROUNDING - Technical Feasibility

If codebase exists, launch two agents in parallel:

Spawn the codebase-explorer subagent:

Assess technical feasibility for: {product/feature}

LOCATE:
1. Existing infrastructure we can leverage
2. Similar patterns already implemented
3. Integration points and dependencies
4. Relevant configuration and type definitions

Return file locations, code patterns, and conventions observed.

Spawn the codebase-analyst subagent:

Analyze technical constraints for: {product/feature}

TRACE:
1. How existing related features are implemented end-to-end
2. Data flow through potential integration points
3. Architectural patterns and boundaries
4. Estimated complexity based on similar features

Document what exists with precise file:line references. No suggestions.

If no codebase, spawn the web-researcher subagent:

Research technical approaches for: {product/feature}

FIND:
1. Technical approaches others have used
2. Common implementation patterns
3. Known technical challenges and pitfalls

Return findings with citations and gap analysis.

Summarize to user:

Technical Context:

• Feasibility: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW} because {reason}
• Can leverage: {existing patterns/infrastructure}
• Key technical risk: {main concern}

Any technical constraints I should know about?

GATE: Brief pause for user input.

---

Phase 6: DECISIONS - Scope & Approach

Ask final clarifying questions:

Scope & Approach:

1. MVP Definition: What's the absolute minimum to test if this works?

2. Must Have vs Nice to Have: What 2-3 things MUST be in v1? What can wait?

3. Key Hypothesis: Complete this: "We believe [capability] will [solve problem] for [users]. We'll know we're right when [measurable outcome]."

4. Out of Scope: What are you explicitly NOT building (even if users ask)?

5. Open Questions: What uncertainties could change the approach?

GATE: Wait for user responses before generating.

---

Phase 7: GENERATE - Write PRD

# --- PRP store resolver (canonical; keep byte-identical across skills) ---
_gd="$(git rev-parse --path-format=absolute --git-common-dir 2>/dev/null)"
case "$_gd" in */.git) _root="${_gd%/.git}" ;; "") _root="$PWD" ;; *) _root="$_gd" ;; esac
_root="$(cd "$_root" && pwd -P)"
_name="$(basename "$_root" | tr '[:upper:]' '[:lower:]' | tr -cs 'a-z0-9' '-' | sed 's/^-*//;s/-*$//')"
PRP_DIR="${PRP_HOME:-$HOME/.prp}/${_name:-project}-$(printf %s "$_root" | git hash-object --stdin | cut -c1-8)"
mkdir -p "$PRP_DIR"; [ -f "$PRP_DIR/project.json" ] || printf '{"path": "%s", "name": "%s"}\n' "$_root" "${_name:-project}" > "$PRP_DIR/project.json"

Output path: $PRP_DIR/prds/{kebab-case-name}.prd.md

Create directory if needed: mkdir -p "$PRP_DIR/prds"

PRD Template

# {Product/Feature Name}

## Problem Statement

{2-3 sentences: Who has what problem, and what's the cost of not solving it?}

## Evidence

- {User quote, data point, or observation that proves this problem exists}
- {Another piece of evidence}
- {If none: "Assumption - needs validation through [method]"}

## Proposed Solution

{One paragraph: What we're building and why this approach over alternatives}

## Key Hypothesis

We believe {capability} will {solve problem} for {users}.
We'll know we're right when {measurable outcome}.

## What We're NOT Building

- {Out of scope item 1} - {why}
- {Out of scope item 2} - {why}

## Success Metrics

| Metric | Target | How Measured |
|--------|--------|--------------|
| {Primary metric} | {Specific number} | {Method} |
| {Secondary metric} | {Specific number} | {Method} |

## Open Questions

- [ ] {Unresolved question 1}
- [ ] {Unresolved question 2}

---

## Users & Context

**Primary User**
- **Who**: {Specific description}
- **Current behavior**: {What they do today}
- **Trigger**: {What moment triggers the need}
- **Success state**: {What "done" looks like}

**Job to Be Done**
When {situation}, I want to {motivation}, so I can {outcome}.

**Non-Users**
{Who this is NOT for and why}

---

## Solution Detail

### Core Capabilities (MoSCoW)

| Priority | Capability | Rationale |
|----------|------------|-----------|
| Must | {Feature} | {Why essential} |
| Must | {Feature} | {Why essential} |
| Should | {Feature} | {Why important but not blocking} |
| Could | {Feature} | {Nice to have} |
| Won't | {Feature} | {Explicitly deferred and why} |

### MVP Scope

{What's the minimum to validate the hypothesis}

### User Flow

{Critical path - shortest journey to value}

---



: {HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW}


 {Key technical decision and why}
 {Dependency or integration point}



| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation |
|------|------------|------------|
| {Risk} | {H/M/L} | {How to handle} |

---



<!--
  STATUS: pending | in-progress | complete
  PARALLEL: phases that can run concurrently (e.g., "with 3" or "-")
  DEPENDS: phases that must complete first (e.g., "1, 2" or "-")
  PLAN: link to generated plan file once created
  REPORT: link to the implementation report once implemented
  PR: link to the pull request once opened
-->

| # | Phase | Description | Status | Parallel | Depends | Plan | Report | PR |
|---|-------|-------------|--------|----------|---------|------|--------|----|
| 1 | {Phase name} | {What this phase delivers} | pending | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2 | {Phase name} | {What this phase delivers} | pending | - | 1 | - | - | - |
| 3 | {Phase name} | {What this phase delivers} | pending | with 4 | 2 | - | - | - |
| 4 | {Phase name} | {What this phase delivers} | pending | with 3 | 2 | - | - | - |
| 5 | {Phase name} | {What this phase delivers} | pending | - | 3, 4 | - | - | - |




 : {What we're trying to achieve}
 : {Bounded deliverables}
 : {How we know it's done}


 : {What we're trying to achieve}
 : {Bounded deliverables}
 : {How we know it's done}

{Continue for each phase...}



{Explain which phases can run in parallel and why, e.g., "Phases 3 and 4 can run in parallel in separate worktrees as they touch different domains (frontend vs auth)"}

---



| Decision | Choice | Alternatives | Rationale |
|----------|--------|--------------|-----------|
| {Decision} | {Choice} | {Options considered} | {Why this one} |

---




{Key findings from market research}


{Key findings from technical exploration}

---

---

Phase 8: OUTPUT - Summary

After generating, report:

## PRD Created

**File**: `{expanded absolute path to $PRP_DIR/prds/{name}.prd.md}`

### Summary

**Problem**: {One line}
**Solution**: {One line}
**Key Metric**: {Primary success metric}

### Validation Status

| Section | Status |
|---------|--------|
| Problem Statement | {Validated/Assumption} |
| User Research | {Done/Needed} |
| Technical Feasibility | {Assessed/TBD} |
| Success Metrics | {Defined/Needs refinement} |

### Open Questions ({count})

{List the open questions that need answers}

### Recommended Next Step

{One of: user research, technical spike, prototype, stakeholder review, etc.}

### Implementation Phases

| # | Phase | Status | Can Parallel |
|---|-------|--------|--------------|
{Table of phases from PRD}

### To Start Implementation

Run: `$prp-plan {expanded absolute path to $PRP_DIR/prds/{name}.prd.md}`

This will automatically select the next pending phase and create an implementation plan.

---

Question Flow Summary

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  INITIATE: "What do you want to build?"                 │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  FOUNDATION: Who, What, Why, Why now, How to measure    │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  GROUNDING: Market research, competitor analysis        │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  DEEP DIVE: Vision, Primary user, JTBD, Constraints     │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  GROUNDING: Technical feasibility, codebase exploration │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  DECISIONS: MVP, Must-haves, Hypothesis, Out of scope   │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                          ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  GENERATE: Write PRD to $PRP_DIR/prds/                  │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

---

Success Criteria

• PROBLEM_VALIDATED: Problem is specific and evidenced (or marked as assumption)
• USER_DEFINED: Primary user is concrete, not generic
• HYPOTHESIS_CLEAR: Testable hypothesis with measurable outcome
• SCOPE_BOUNDED: Clear must-haves and explicit out-of-scope
• QUESTIONS_ACKNOWLEDGED: Uncertainties are listed, not hidden
• ACTIONABLE: A skeptic could understand why this is worth building