Prd writing
Skill Dragoon0x/product-skills/skills/pm-communication/prd-writing
The product thinking layer for AI agents. 580 skills. 48 commands. 8 domains. - Product strategy, discovery, execution, analytics, growth, experience, conversion, communication and more.
npx -y skills add Dragoon0x/product-skills --skill prd-writingAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Write product requirement documents that engineers want to read and can actually build from. Covers structure, scope discipline, and the balance between clarity and over-specification. Use when writing PRDs, reviewing spec quality, or when engineering keeps asking clarifying questions.
SKILL.md
2.5 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
PRD Writing
Write PRDs that communicate intent, scope, and constraints without over-specifying implementation.
How to use
/prd-writingApply PRD constraints to this conversation./prd-writing <feature>Draft or review a PRD for the described feature.
Constraints
Problem First
- MUST start with the problem, never the solution
- Problem statement MUST be understandable by someone who just joined the team in under 60 seconds
- MUST include user evidence (data, quotes, support tickets) not just PM intuition
- NEVER jump to features without establishing why this matters
Structure
- One-pager format for smaller features: problem, proposed solution, success metrics, scope boundaries, open questions
- Full PRD for larger initiatives: background, problem with evidence, goals, user stories, requirements, scope in/out, design considerations, rollout plan, risks
- Apply the "so what" test to every section: if removing it wouldn't confuse the engineer, cut it
- NEVER exceed 3 pages unless the initiative genuinely requires it. Length is not thoroughness.
Scope Discipline
- MUST include an explicit "out of scope" section
- SHOULD answer "is this essential for v1?" for every requirement
- MUST flag scope creep when requirements expand beyond the original problem
- NEVER let scope grow without re-evaluating timeline and resources
Success Metrics
- MUST define 1-3 concrete, measurable outcomes
- Each metric MUST specify: what you'll measure, how, target, and evaluation timeline
- "Improve user experience" is not a metric. "Reduce task completion time by 20%" is.
- NEVER ship without knowing how you'll measure whether it worked
Engineering Empathy
- Define what, not how. NEVER prescribe implementation details.
- MUST respect the reader's time — engineers are busy
- SHOULD surface edge cases, failure states, and unusual inputs
- MUST keep the document updated as scope evolves. PRDs are living documents.
Anti-Patterns
- The Novel: 15-page PRDs nobody reads past page 2
- Solution-first: jumping to features without the problem
- Implementation prescription: telling engineers which API to use
- The Static Artifact: writing once and never updating as scope changes
- Vague metrics that can't fail ("make it better")