prd
- Repo stars 38
- License MIT
- Author updated Live
- Author repo builder-skills
- Domain
- Engineering
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 94 / 100 · audit passed
- Author / version / license
- @kazdenc · MIT
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: prd
description: Write a product requirements document from context. Covers problem statement, goals, scope, user…
category: engineering
runtime: no special runtime
---
# prd output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Write a product requirements document from context. Covers problem statement, goals, scope, user stories, success criteria, and edge cases. Use when user says "write a PRD", "product requirements", "requirements doc", "spec this feature", "document requirements", or needs to define what to build and why..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Step 1: Gather Context / Step 2: Write the PRD / Problem Statement” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Write a product requirements document from context. Covers problem statement, goals, scope, user stories, success criteria, and edge cases. Use when user says "write a PRD", "product requirements", "requirements doc", "spec this feature", "document requirements", or needs to define what to build and why.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Step 1: Gather Context / Step 2: Write the PRD / Problem Statement” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source does not require a stable slash command. After installation, invoke the skill by name and describe the task.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Step 1: Gather Context / Step 2: Write the PRD / Problem Statement”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: prd
description: Write a product requirements document from context. Covers problem statement, goals, scope, user…
category: engineering
source: kazdenc/builder-skills
---
# prd
## When to use
- Write a product requirements document from context. Covers problem statement, goals, scope, user stories, success crit…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Step 1: Gather Context / Step 2: Write the PRD / Problem Statement” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "prd" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Step 1: Gather Context / Step 2: Write the PRD / Problem Statement
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} Product Requirements Document
Write a PRD that answers two questions clearly: what are we building and why does it matter. Everything else is supporting detail.
Step 1: Gather Context
Before writing anything, nail down these three inputs. If the user hasn't provided them, ask.
| Input | Question | Watch out for |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | What pain exists today? Who feels it? | Jumping to solutions before the problem is sharp |
| Audience | Who specifically benefits? What's their situation? | "Everyone" is not an audience |
| Current state | How do people solve this now? What's broken? | Assuming nothing exists today |
If a JTBD analysis, research, or prior conversations exist, pull from them. Don't invent context.
Step 2: Write the PRD
Use this structure. Every section earns its place — skip a section only if it genuinely doesn't apply.
# PRD: [Feature / Product Name]
## Problem Statement
What's broken, missing, or painful. Ground it in real user behavior.
Who has this problem. How often. How bad.
## Goals & Non-Goals
### Goals
- [ ] Measurable outcome this work achieves
- [ ] Another measurable outcome
### Non-Goals
- What this work deliberately does NOT try to solve (and why)
## User Stories / Job Stories
Use job story format when possible:
- When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]
Keep to 3-8 stories. If you have more, the scope is too big.
## Functional Requirements
What the system must do. Number them for traceability.
FR-1: [Requirement]
FR-2: [Requirement]
## Non-Functional Requirements
Performance, security, accessibility, scale, compatibility.
NFR-1: [Requirement]
NFR-2: [Requirement]
## Success Metrics
How we'll know this worked. Be specific:
- Metric + target + timeframe
- e.g., "Reduce average onboarding time from 12 min to under 5 min within 30 days of launch"
## Open Questions
What's unresolved. Who owns answering it. When it needs an answer by.
| # | Question | Owner | Deadline |
|---|----------|-------|----------|
## Out of Scope
What's explicitly excluded from this effort. Prevents scope creep later.
Quality Checks
Run these before delivering the PRD:
- Every requirement is testable. If you can't write a pass/fail check for it, rewrite it. "Fast" is not testable. "Loads in under 2 seconds on 3G" is.
- No solutions hiding as requirements. "Use Redis for caching" is a solution. "Cache frequently accessed data with sub-100ms retrieval" is a requirement.
- Scope is realistic. If the PRD has 30+ requirements, it's a roadmap pretending to be a PRD. Split it.
- Goals are measurable. Each goal should have a number attached or a clear yes/no test.
- Non-goals are deliberate. They prevent future arguments about what "should have been included."
- Open questions have owners. An open question without an owner is a stalled decision.
Tone and Format
- Write requirements as imperative statements: "The system shall..." or "Users can..."
- Use numbered identifiers (FR-1, NFR-1) so engineers and designers can reference them
- Keep the language concrete. Replace "intuitive" with observable behavior. Replace "scalable" with specific numbers.
- One requirement per line. Compound requirements hide complexity.
When the PRD Is Done
Hand it off with three things clear:
- What's decided — requirements that are locked
- What's open — questions that still need answers
- What's next — who reviews, who builds, what's the timeline
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review