create-prd
Skill48 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when you're ready to define a feature before building it — generates a structured PRD using Jobs-to-be-Done thinking, success metrics, and explicit scope boundaries.
44 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vijaysuperpositionist/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- Big-LAORE/Biblioth-que-de-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- daviszhen/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- fnayou/dotfilestheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- davidanthonyn/claude-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Sunnyshinnny776/pm-agentic-cookbooktheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use prioritize-features, brainstorm-okrs and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
skytiger6724Skillprioritize-features
Prioritize a backlog of feature ideas based on impact, effort, risk, and strategic alignment with top 5 recommendations. Use when prioritizing a feature backlog, making scope decisions, or ranking product ideas.
Also in 4 projects that use this
skytiger6724Skillbrainstorm-okrs
Brainstorm team-level OKRs aligned with company objectives — qualitative objectives with measurable key results. Use when setting quarterly OKRs, aligning team goals with company strategy, drafting objectives, or learning how to write effective OKRs.
Also in 4 projects that use this
miovragSkillstrategy-red-team
Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive review.
Also in 3 projects that use this
launchapp-devSkillinterview-script
Create a structured user interview script with warm-up, core exploration, and wrap-up sections. Use when preparing for user research interviews to ensure consistent, insightful conversations.
Also in 4 projects that use this
About-IntelligenceSkillbeachhead-segment
Identify the first beachhead market segment for a product launch.
Also in 4 projects that use this
nandanosqlSkillcustomer-journey-map
Map the complete customer experience across all touchpoints using the NNGroup framework. Identifies pain points, emotions, and opportunities at every stage of the user journey.
Also in 5 projects that use this
- +5 more from skytiger6724
Other versions44 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 44
- karrioapi/karrio★ 799same name
- waynesutton/markdown-site★ 628same name
- platformplatform/PlatformPlatform★ 439same name
- nurettincoban/ai-prd-workflow★ 300same name
- thedesignproject/agent-skills★ 88same name
- uniffy-io/uniffy★ 26same name
- dawn840705/codex-code-studios★ 17same name
- Scofy0123/prd-writing-toolkit★ 16same name
- justinyoo/skills★ 6same name
- The-Utopia-Studio/skills★ 6same name
34 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository111 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- COPILOT-INSTRUCTIONS.mdCopilot instructions
- .github/copilot-instructions.mdCopilot instructions
- ai-visibilitySkill
- content-strategySkill
- seoSkill
- actions-debuggingSkill
- agentic-engineeringSkill
- autopilot-patternsSkill
- background-agentSkill
- context-primeSkill
- copilot-memorySkill
- cross-session-memorySkill
- ecosystem-intakeSkill
- fleet-parallelSkill
- github-code-searchSkill
- github-codespaces-efficiencySkill
- github-issue-triageSkill
- github-pr-workflowSkill
- ide-switchingSkill
- knowledge-curatorSkill
- mcp-builderSkill
- mcp-ecosystemSkill
- multi-model-strategySkill
- plan-mode-masterySkill
- scope-guardSkill
- session-managementSkill
- stack-detectorSkill
- sub-agent-sandboxingSkill
- task-intake-routerSkill
- team-plannerSkill
- token-cost-optimizerSkill
- api-and-interface-designSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- cpp-debuggingSkill
- deprecation-and-migrationSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- fix-build-errorsSkill
- fix-github-issueSkill
- implementSkill
- improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- nestjs-prismaSkill
- nextjs-prismaSkill
- performance-optimizationSkill
- pr-multi-perspective-reviewSkill
- prototypeSkill
- react-vitestSkill
- receiving-code-reviewSkill
- refactor-cleanSkill
- reviewSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- source-driven-developmentSkill
- spec-driven-developmentSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- tdd-workflowSkill
- zoom-outSkill
- add-to-changelogSkill
- api-documentationSkill
- architecture-decisionsSkill
- The first 60 shown.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 42 edited versions we read keep these.
10
Distinctive
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
Before starting a new feature — to align engineering, product, and stakeholders on scope
- Distinctive: line 15
When a GitHub Issue or Slack request needs formal requirements before implementation
- Distinctive: line 16
When writing a PRD from scratch for a feature you're about to build solo
- Distinctive: line 18
When the current conversation already contains enough context to synthesize a first PRD draft
- Distinctive: line 25
Before formalizing requirements, briefly verify that the feature is worth building.
- Very specific: line 53
If any answer is "unknown", record it in the PRD's Open Questions section and tag it needs-validation-before-implementation rather than …
- Distinctive: line 65
If the current conversation, issue, or spec thread already contains enough information, draft from that context first.
- Distinctive: line 93
Before writing requirements, anchor in the user's actual goal:
- Distinctive: line 183
If your workflow uses GitHub Issues as the system of record, link the PRD from the issue or publish the summary there so implementation and …
- Distinctive: line 230
Synthesize before interviewing again: if the conversation already answers the key questions, produce the first draft and ask only targeted …
- Distinctive: line 234
PRD ≠ design spec: leave implementation details out.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 42 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Create PRD
When to Use
- Before starting a new feature — to align engineering, product, and stakeholders on scope
- When a GitHub Issue or Slack request needs formal requirements before implementation
- When writing a PRD from scratch for a feature you're about to build solo
- As a handoff document: from discovery → design → implementation
- When the current conversation already contains enough context to synthesize a first PRD draft
Note: This skill works best for well-scoped, single-feature PRDs. For large epics with many sub-features, use this per sub-feature and link them together.
Before You Write This PRD (Risk Gate)
Before formalizing requirements, briefly verify that the feature is worth building. Skip this gate only when the build decision is already validated (e.g., a committed roadmap item, a contractual requirement, or a P0 bug fix).
Feature Demand Level Check
| Level | Signal | Action |
| 0 | Founder/stakeholder anxiety — "competitors have it" or "feels incomplete" | Defer; validate first |
| 1 | One user request, no behavior proof | Validate before writing a PRD |
| 2 | Repeated requests from target users, no usage proof yet | Write a lightweight PRD; plan validation alongside it |
| 3 | Workflow blocker — users cannot complete the core job without it | Write the PRD and build |
| 4 | Revenue or retention blocker — users churn or refuse to pay without it | Write the PRD and build now |
Proceed to a full PRD for Level 3 or Level 4. For Level 0–2, start with the smallest validation step (a buyer conversation, a landing page, a manual pilot) and feed the findings into the PRD's Problem Statement and JTBD sections instead of skipping straight to requirements.
Minimum Risk Check (for Level 1–2)
Answer these before writing requirements:
- Demand: Is there evidence a specific user urgently needs this?
- Switching reason: What makes the current alternative insufficient?
- Distribution: Is there a repeatable way to reach the target user after launch?
- Retention: Is there a reason users would return after the first use?
If any answer is "unknown", record it in the PRD's Open Questions section and tag
it needs-validation-before-implementation rather than silently assuming a "yes".
Prerequisites
- A feature idea, GitHub Issue, or user request to formalize
- Access to any existing context: user research, analytics, prior PRDs, or
CLAUDE.md/copilot-instructions.md
Workflow
1. Gather Context
If the current conversation, issue, or spec thread already contains enough information, draft from that context first. Do not restart discovery from zero unless the missing gaps would materially change scope.
Before writing, collect:
# What does the product currently do?
Get-Content README.md | Select-Object -First 40
if (Test-Path .github/copilot-instructions.md) {
Get-Content .github/copilot-instructions.md | Select-Object -First 50
}
# Any existing product docs?
Get-ChildItem -Recurse -Include "*.md" | Where-Object { $_.Name -match 'product|spec|prd|requirements' }
# Related GitHub issues -- default with gh on PATH (Copilot CLI omits search_issues; e.g.):
gh search issues "feature-keyword" --repo my-org/my-app --state open
# When the MCP tools are exposed (no gh on PATH, or --add-github-mcp-tool=<name> for every GitHub MCP
# tool you need -- it replaces the default set -- or --enable-all-github-mcp-tools, which also enables write tools):
# Tool: github-mcp-server-search_issues
# query: "feature-keyword in:title is:open"
# owner: "my-org"
# repo: "my-app"2. Define the Job-to-be-Done (JTBD)
Before writing requirements, anchor in the user's actual goal:
When [situation/trigger],
I want to [motivation],
So that I can [expected outcome].Example:
When I've finished coding a feature and want to commit, I want to automatically format my commit message to follow conventions, So that I can maintain a clean, readable git history without remembering the format.
3. Write the PRD
Use this template:
# PRD: [Feature Name]
## Overview
One paragraph: what this feature does and why it matters.
## Problem Statement
What user pain point or business opportunity does this address?
Include data or quotes if available.
## Jobs-to-be-Done
**Primary JTBD:**
> When [situation], I want to [motivation], so that [outcome].
**Secondary JTBDs (optional):**
- ...
## Goals & Success Metrics
| Goal | Metric | Target |
|------|--------|--------|
| Reduce time to commit | Time from ready-to-commit to pushed | < 30 seconds |
| Adoption | % of commits using conventional format | > 80% after 30 days |
## Non-Goals (Out of Scope)
- Explicit list of what this does NOT include
- Helps prevent scope creep
## User Stories
### Must Have (P0)
- As a [user], I can [action] so that [benefit]
- As a [user], I can [action] so that [benefit]
### Should Have (P1)
- As a [user], I can [action] so that [benefit]
### Nice to Have (P2)
- As a [user], I can [action] so that [benefit]
## Functional Requirements
### Core Behavior
1. [Requirement] — [Acceptance criterion]
2. [Requirement] — [Acceptance criterion]
### Edge Cases
- [Edge case] → [Expected behavior]
- [Edge case] → [Expected behavior]
## Technical Constraints
- Platform: [e.g., Windows + macOS + Linux]
- Existing systems to integrate with: [e.g., GitHub MCP, git CLI]
- Performance: [e.g., < 2s response time]
## Open Questions
- [ ] [Question that needs decision before implementation]
- [ ] [Question that needs design input]
## Appendix
- Related issues: #123, #456
- Inspired by: [prior art, competitor feature, user research]4. Save and Link
# Save to docs directory or alongside issue
$featureName = "commit-workflow"
$prdPath = "docs/prd-$featureName.md"
# (Write the PRD content to file)
# Link from GitHub Issue (via comment or issue body update)
# gh issue comment 123 --body "PRD: docs/prd-$featureName.md"If your workflow uses GitHub Issues as the system of record, link the PRD from the issue or publish the summary there so implementation and triage can find it later.
Examples
Minimal PRD (Solo Developer)
For a solo project, a PRD can be much lighter:
# PRD: Commit Workflow Skill
## What & Why
Add a skill that guides conventional commit message creation with emoji.
Developers lose time formatting commits manually; this automates the pattern.
## JTBD
When I'm ready to commit, I want auto-formatted conventional commit messages,
so that my git history is readable without manual effort.
## Must Have
- Emoji + type + scope + description format
- Atomic commit splitting guidance
- PowerShell code blocks for Windows compat
## Non-Goals
- Automatic commit (user still types `git commit -m`)
- Integration with GUI git clientsPRD from GitHub Issue
Issue #145: "Users can't tell which commits are breaking changes"
JTBD: When I'm reviewing git log, I want breaking changes visually distinct,
so that I can identify risky commits without reading every message.
Requirements:
- 💥 emoji + `!` suffix for breaking changes
- BREAKING CHANGE footer in body
- CI lint rule for enforcementTips
- Start with JTBD, not features: features are solutions; jobs are the problems worth solving
- Synthesize before interviewing again: if the conversation already answers the key questions, produce the first draft and ask only targeted follow-ups for true unknowns
- Non-goals are as important as goals: they prevent scope creep during implementation
- Acceptance criteria are testable: "users can X" is not; "clicking Save triggers validation and shows error within 200ms" is
- PRD ≠ design spec: leave implementation details out; focus on what, not how
- Link your PRD to the GitHub Issue: keeps traceability from discovery → delivery
See Also
github-issue-triage— understand the issue backlog firstfix-github-issue— execute after PRD is approved- Inspired by: awesome-claude-code/resources/slash-commands/create-prd
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.

