docs-product
Skill6 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Product documentation branch — the 'why' and 'what' of a project: VISION.md, PRD.md, ROADMAP.md, FEATURES.md. Written from an idea forward, before engineering docs. Order: VISION -> PRD -> ROADMAP -> FEATURES. Full catalog + checklist in references/product-docs.md, templates in templates/. Triggers: 'продуктовая документация', 'vision', 'prd', 'роадмап', 'roadmap', 'фичи документация', 'product docs', 'требования к продукту', 'документация продукта'.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- skills/chronos/references/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- api-contract-testingSkill
- api-doc-generatorSkill
- canonSkill
- censorSkill
- changelog-generatorSkill
- chronosSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- commit-lintSkill
- commit-message-writerSkill
- coverage-analyzerSkill
- csv-proSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- deweySkill
- diagram-makerSkill
- doc-compareSkill
- docs-projectSkill
- docs-systemSkill
- dsh-runnerSkill
- frontend-a11ySkill
- frontend-design-tasteSkill
- frontend-perfectionSkill
- frontend-performanceSkill
- frontend-testingSkill
- github-repo-hygieneSkill
- long-running-agent-workflowSkill
- mermaid-to-imageSkill
- mobile-frontendSkill
- pdf-report-builderSkill
- plan-skillSkill
- prd-to-appSkill
- presentation-craftSkill
- presentation-engineeringSkill
- presentation-makerSkill
- raster-to-svgSkill
- reddit-karmaSkill
- repo-community-filesSkill
- repo-metadata-healthSkill
- repo-readme-assetsSkill
- repo-social-previewSkill
- secret-scannerSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- seo-contentSkill
- seo-crawlSkill
- seo-schemaSkill
- seo-toolkitSkill
- skill-feedbackSkill
- skill-forgeSkill
- skill-suggesterSkill
- sql-helperSkill
- systematic-debuggerSkill
- test-generatorSkill
- test-graphicsSkill
- velesSkill
- version-bumperSkill
- video-script-writerSkill
- web-replicationSkill
- web-scraperSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Use this skill to write the product-facing documents: vision, requirements, roadmap, feature catalog.
- Very specific: line 77
Do not use for implementation/runbook documentation.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Docs Product — product documentation («why» & «what»)
Use this skill to write the product-facing documents: vision, requirements, roadmap, feature catalog. Written from an idea forward — before (or in parallel with) engineering docs.
When to use
- A project needs its product docs: VISION, PRD, ROADMAP, FEATURES.
- User asks for "продуктовая документация", "vision", "prd", "роадмап", "требования к продукту", "product requirements".
- Requirements must become the input for engineering docs.
Do NOT use
- For engineering docs (architecture, ADR, tests, dev guide, map) — that is
docs-project. - For the meta-guide (phases, levels L1/L2/L3, completeness checklist) —
docs-system.
Which docs belong here
| File | Purpose | When | Template |
docs/VISION.md | Why the product exists: audience, problem, value, principles, scope, long-term success | Phase 1 — first, stays stable | templates/VISION.tmpl |
docs/PRD.md | What we build: functional + non-functional requirements, priorities, acceptance criteria, success metrics, user stories | After VISION, before architecture | templates/PRD.tmpl |
docs/ROADMAP.md | What ships when: milestones, value per milestone, proof (metrics) | Phase 2+, updated each milestone | templates/ROADMAP.tmpl |
docs/FEATURES.md | Feature catalog + status (✅/📋) — the bridge to engineering | From requirements, kept current | templates/FEATURES.tmpl |
The golden chain: VISION → PRD → ROADMAP → FEATURES. Vision spawns requirements, requirements spawn the plan and the feature catalog. Nothing is written "from the end".
Order of writing
- VISION — can you state the product in 1–2 sentences? If not, stop and clarify before writing anything else.
- PRD — goals/non-goals, stories with priorities, functional + non-functional requirements, acceptance criteria, success metrics (a milestone without a metric is a wishlist).
- ROADMAP — order the PRD's milestones by value (not effort), each with a target date, features, and proof.
- FEATURES — the living status board of every feature, ✅/📋 only against reality. This doc hands the product requirements to the engineering side.
Links across the boundary (with docs-project)
| Engineering doc | Takes from product | Gives back |
ARCHITECTURE.md | PRD non-functional requirements | component decisions → PRD "technical notes" |
TEST_CASES.md | acceptance criteria | proof that a story is done |
IMPROVEMENTS.md | roadmap drift (missed dates, changed scope) | prioritized fix plan → next milestone |
REVIEW.md | any doc-vs-reality mismatch | reconciled product/eng truth |
Checklist (product side)
- VISION: 1 paragraph; audience named; explicitly listed out-of-scope items.
- PRD: every story has a priority (MoSCoW/P0–P2) and links to a feature.
- PRD: success metrics present (baseline → target) — not "quality" in prose.
- ROADMAP: milestones ordered by value; each has a date/target + a metric.
- FEATURES: ✅/📋 statuses match reality (no wishlist-only catalog).
Rule: product docs answer «why» and «what»; engineering docs answer «how». If a doc has no reader and no question it answers — it does not belong.
Boundaries
- Do not use for implementation/runbook documentation; use
docs-project.
Evidence and completion gate
Ground recommendations in the supplied repository or brief. State assumptions, missing inputs, and unresolved risks. Return a concrete artifact or checklist with an owner/action for each open item, then verify that the result answers the requested goal rather than merely repeating the framework.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

