Docs Product Requirements

Create concise, living PRDs that explain why a product change matters, who it serves, what outcomes and behavior are required, and how success will be evaluated. Keep implementation design and delivery planning in their own documents.

Resource Map

• Use assets/doc-starters/product-requirements-doc.md when creating or substantially rewriting a PRD.
• Read references/product-requirements-example.md when you need a worked example of the expected evidence and product-level depth.

When to Use

• A new product, initiative, or substantial feature needs product requirements
• An existing PRD needs review, revision, or evidence updates
• Stakeholders need alignment on users, outcomes, scope, requirements, or validation
• A product idea must be shaped before feature design, technical design, or task decomposition

Do Not Use

• Accepted user-visible behavior that belongs in docs-feature-design
• APIs, schema, runtime behavior, deployment, or implementation detail that belongs in docs-components-design
• System topology or cross-component architecture that belongs in docs-architecture
• Strategic sequencing across initiatives that belongs in docs-product-roadmap
• Engineering issue creation that belongs in linear-task-planning

Workflow

1. Identify the artifact and its authority.

• Classify the work as a greenfield product, initiative PRD, feature PRD, revision, or review
• Find existing product strategy, research, analytics, roadmap, feature docs, designs, decisions, and contributor guidance before asking for information already recorded
• Reuse the repository's product-doc location and naming convention; otherwise default to docs/product/PRD.md
• Clarify the audience and decision the PRD must support

2. Build an evidence ledger.

• Separate facts, inferences, assumptions, decisions, and unknowns
• Attribute evidence to a source and date; preserve links to interviews, analytics, support signals, market research, and prior decisions
• Treat competitor claims as market context, not proof of customer demand
• Flag stale, conflicting, weak, or segment-mismatched evidence
• Never invent users, quotes, metrics, baselines, deadlines, research, or constraints

3. Resolve decision-critical gaps.

• Summarize the current understanding before questioning
• Ask short, prioritized rounds about the problem, target users, desired outcome, evidence, scope, constraints, and risks
• Ask only questions whose answers could change the product decision or document
• Accept unknown and turn it into an owned research or validation action
• Do not require a fixed number of questions when the supplied context is already sufficient

4. Check readiness before polishing.

• Confirm the problem or opportunity, target user, desired outcome, and at least one meaningful scope boundary
• Confirm whether the initiative is exploratory, proposed, approved, or committed
• If evidence is insufficient, offer an evidence-gap or research plan instead of presenting an unsupported PRD as validated
• A draft may retain explicit assumptions and open questions when stakeholders need a decision artifact before every uncertainty is resolved

5. Draft at product level.

• Start with the problem, evidence, users, outcomes, and strategic fit
• Define scope through capabilities, use cases, behavior, and testable requirements without prescribing internal implementation
• Give requirements stable identifiers only when traceability adds value
• Define success with a metric, baseline when known, target, population, measurement window, data source, and guardrail
• Make non-goals, dependencies, constraints, risks, and unresolved decisions visible
• Right-size the document; omit optional sections that do not improve the decision

6. Handle technology carefully.

• State required capabilities, constraints, and non-functional outcomes before naming technologies
• In an existing product, treat confirmed stack and architecture decisions as constraints rather than reopening them without cause
• When a technology choice is genuinely open, compare two or three viable options by fit, delivery speed, cost, security and privacy, operability, scale, team capability, integration, lock-in, and reversibility
• Cite current authoritative documentation for claims that depend on present product or vendor behavior
• Label the result as a recommendation, confirmed decision, or open engineering question
• Propose a technical spike or engineering review when feasibility evidence is weak
• Link technical design instead of embedding architecture, API, schema, or file-level plans in the PRD

7. Review before writing.

• Present the complete proposed PRD or a precise change preview
• Call out assumptions, unsupported claims, conflicts, and open decisions
• Ask for explicit approval before creating or editing the document
• After approval, make the smallest coherent write and preserve unrelated existing content

8. Verify the result.

• Trace important requirements to an outcome or documented constraint
• Check that acceptance criteria describe observable product behavior
• Check that metrics are measurable and do not define success as merely shipping
• Check that optional technical guidance is conditional and does not masquerade as a product requirement
• Check links, status, owner, review date, open questions, and decision history
• Re-read linked roadmap and feature docs for contradictions

Writing Rules

• Make reasoning visible: record why the problem, outcome, and scope were chosen
• Prefer evidence-backed diagnosis over stakeholder request restatement
• Use concrete, testable language and avoid unsupported words such as "fast", "intuitive", or "scalable"
• Do not force every requirement into a user-story format; use the form that communicates the behavior most clearly
• Do not convert the PRD into an implementation plan, backlog, architecture document, or release calendar
• Keep examples and placeholders visibly illustrative so they cannot be mistaken for evidence
• Treat the PRD as a versioned decision artifact that changes when evidence or decisions change

Quality Checklist

• The problem, target users, and strategic rationale are clear
• Evidence is attributed and uncertainty is explicit
• Outcomes include measurable success and guardrails where relevant
• Scope, non-goals, requirements, and acceptance criteria agree
• Assumptions, dependencies, constraints, risks, and open questions are actionable
• Technology guidance is optional, current, and separated from confirmed requirements
• Feature, technical design, architecture, roadmap, and delivery details are linked rather than duplicated
• The document was reviewed before writeback and has a clear status