docs-product-roadmap
Skill7 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Create and maintain outcome-driven product roadmaps. Use when defining, reviewing, or revising product priorities, strategic themes, Now/Next/Later horizons, roadmap phases, dependencies, or criteria for changing direction.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
29 rules. About 0 are common, 26 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈26
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Create living product roadmaps that connect strategy to measurable customer and business outcomes.
- Very specific: line 12
Use assets/doc-starters/product-roadmap-doc.md when creating or substantially rewriting a product roadmap.
- Very specific: line 13
Read references/product-roadmap-example.md when you need a worked example of outcome-led confidence horizons.
- Distinctive: line 36
Create audience-specific views only when one view cannot communicate the right level of certainty and detail
- Distinctive: line 42
Never invent strategy, capacity, owners, estimates, deadlines, research, or dependencies
- Distinctive: line 43
If strategy or outcomes are missing, stop and resolve them or produce a gap plan rather than arranging an ungrounded feature list
- Distinctive: line 47
Ask short rounds about desired outcomes, evidence, candidate opportunities, constraints, dependencies, capacity, commitments, and audience …
- Distinctive: line 49
Do not ask for dates unless coordination or a real commitment requires them
- Very specific: line 52
Default to an outcome-led Now/Next/Later roadmap when uncertainty is meaningful
- Distinctive: line 53
Treat Now, Next, and Later as confidence horizons, not renamed calendar quarters
- Distinctive: line 54
Use goal or theme views when communicating strategy across several teams or products
- Distinctive: line 55
Use broad time windows only when stakeholders need coordination and the evidence supports them
- Distinctive: line 56
Use exact dates only for genuine regulatory, contractual, market-event, funding, migration, or launch commitments.
- Distinctive: line 57
Keep detailed release, sprint, and task scheduling in a separate delivery plan
- Distinctive: line 65
Keep Later intentionally coarse.
- Distinctive: line 68
Start with strategic fit, outcome contribution, evidence quality, urgency, dependencies, and opportunity cost
- Distinctive: line 69
Use value-versus-effort for a lightweight comparison
- Distinctive: line 70
Use RICE only when reach, impact, confidence, and effort can be estimated consistently across comparable items
- Distinctive: line 71
Use Kano or opportunity scoring only when the required customer research exists
- Distinctive: line 72
Use MoSCoW to negotiate scope within an already selected initiative, not to choose product strategy
- Distinctive: line 78
Call out assumptions, unsupported dates, conflicts, and open decisions
- Distinctive: line 79
Ask for explicit approval before creating or editing the roadmap
- Distinctive: line 80
After approval, make the smallest coherent write and preserve unrelated existing content
- Distinctive: line 92
Use outcomes, problems, or strategic themes as the primary roadmap units
- Distinctive: line 93
Keep candidate initiatives visibly subordinate to outcomes
- Distinctive: line 96
Keep the roadmap simple enough for its audience to scan and discuss
- Distinctive: line 97
Do not duplicate detailed requirements, architecture, or delivery tasks
- Distinctive: line 98
Do not imply that Later items are promises
- Distinctive: line 99
Treat the roadmap as a living strategic decision artifact, not a static release contract
≈ “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 Roadmap
Create living product roadmaps that connect strategy to measurable customer and business outcomes. Communicate priorities and uncertainty without turning the roadmap into a feature inventory, delivery backlog, or set of unsupported date commitments.
Resource Map
- Use
assets/doc-starters/product-roadmap-doc.mdwhen creating or substantially rewriting a product roadmap. - Read
references/product-roadmap-example.mdwhen you need a worked example of outcome-led confidence horizons.
When to Use
- Product strategy must be translated into prioritized outcomes or themes
- A new roadmap needs Now/Next/Later horizons, phases, or genuine time windows
- An existing roadmap needs review after new evidence, strategy, capacity, or dependencies emerge
- Stakeholders need a clear explanation of what is prioritized, why, and with what confidence
Do Not Use
- Requirements for one initiative that belong in
docs-product-requirements - Accepted behavior for one user-visible capability that belongs in
docs-feature-design - APIs, schema, runtime behavior, or implementation design that belongs in
docs-components-design - System topology that belongs in
docs-architecture - Sprint plans, granular task lists, or issue creation that belongs in delivery planning or
linear-task-planning
Workflow
- Identify the roadmap decision and audience.
- Clarify the product or portfolio, planning horizon, intended audience, and decision the roadmap must support
- Find existing vision, strategy, objectives, PRDs, research, analytics, technical constraints, commitments, and roadmap conventions
- Reuse the repository's roadmap location and format; otherwise default to
docs/product/ROADMAP.md - Create audience-specific views only when one view cannot communicate the right level of certainty and detail
- Establish strategy and source inputs.
- State the product direction, target users, strategic objectives, and measurable outcomes before considering initiatives
- Separate evidence, assumptions, decisions, commitments, and unknowns
- Attribute material evidence and note its date, segment, and limitations
- Never invent strategy, capacity, owners, estimates, deadlines, research, or dependencies
- If strategy or outcomes are missing, stop and resolve them or produce a gap plan rather than arranging an ungrounded feature list
- Ask decision-relevant questions.
- Summarize current understanding, conflicts, and gaps first
- Ask short rounds about desired outcomes, evidence, candidate opportunities, constraints, dependencies, capacity, commitments, and audience needs
- Accept
unknownand convert it into discovery, estimation, or decision work - Do not ask for dates unless coordination or a real commitment requires them
- Choose the roadmap form.
- Default to an outcome-led Now/Next/Later roadmap when uncertainty is meaningful
- Treat Now, Next, and Later as confidence horizons, not renamed calendar quarters
- Use goal or theme views when communicating strategy across several teams or products
- Use broad time windows only when stakeholders need coordination and the evidence supports them
- Use exact dates only for genuine regulatory, contractual, market-event, funding, migration, or launch commitments; record the driver and consequence
- Keep detailed release, sprint, and task scheduling in a separate delivery plan
- Define roadmap entries.
- Lead with the outcome or problem, not a predetermined feature
- Connect each entry to a strategic objective and measurable success signal
- Record rationale, evidence, confidence, dependencies, risks, and an owner when one is known
- List solutions as candidate bets or experiments unless they are already approved commitments
- Define what evidence or decision allows an item to enter, advance, pause, or leave a horizon
- Keep Later intentionally coarse; detail should increase as evidence and confidence increase
- Prioritize transparently.
- Start with strategic fit, outcome contribution, evidence quality, urgency, dependencies, and opportunity cost
- Use value-versus-effort for a lightweight comparison
- Use RICE only when reach, impact, confidence, and effort can be estimated consistently across comparable items
- Use Kano or opportunity scoring only when the required customer research exists
- Use MoSCoW to negotiate scope within an already selected initiative, not to choose product strategy
- Show inputs, uncertainty, and deliberate overrides; never let a score make the decision automatically
- Review before writing.
- Present the complete proposed roadmap or a precise change preview
- Explain major additions, removals, ordering changes, confidence changes, and real commitments
- Call out assumptions, unsupported dates, conflicts, and open decisions
- Ask for explicit approval before creating or editing the roadmap
- After approval, make the smallest coherent write and preserve unrelated existing content
- Verify and maintain.
- Confirm every active entry connects to strategy and an outcome
- Confirm dates have explicit drivers and confidence matches the available evidence
- Confirm dependencies and risks can change ordering when necessary
- Confirm the roadmap and linked PRDs do not contradict each other
- Record owner, last review, next review or trigger, and material changes
- Revisit the roadmap when strategy, evidence, constraints, commitments, or achieved outcomes change
Writing Rules
- Use outcomes, problems, or strategic themes as the primary roadmap units
- Keep candidate initiatives visibly subordinate to outcomes
- Make uncertainty honest and visible instead of manufacturing precision
- Explain why work is prioritized and what is deliberately not prioritized
- Keep the roadmap simple enough for its audience to scan and discuss
- Do not duplicate detailed requirements, architecture, or delivery tasks
- Do not imply that Later items are promises
- Treat the roadmap as a living strategic decision artifact, not a static release contract
Quality Checklist
- Product direction, audience, horizon, and strategic objectives are clear
- Roadmap entries lead with outcomes or problems and include measurable success signals
- Evidence, confidence, assumptions, dependencies, risks, and commitments are explicit
- Prioritization reasoning is visible and no framework is treated as automatic authority
- Now/Next/Later represents confidence, or an alternative format has a documented reason
- Dates appear only where a real driver justifies them
- PRDs, feature docs, technical designs, and delivery tasks are linked rather than duplicated
- The roadmap was reviewed before writeback and includes a maintenance trigger
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.

