無料GitHub で公開

write-prd

Write a Product Requirements Document (PRD). Use when the user says "write a PRD", "document this feature", "product requirements for X", "write requirements", "I need a PRD", "pitch this feature", or wants to formalize a feature or product idea into a structured doc - even if they don't explicitly say "PRD".

qa-aman/claude-skills

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル（1）

SKILL.md3.2 KB

SKILL.md（原文）

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Overview

Based on Shape Up by Ryan Singer (Basecamp). A PRD defines the problem, the appetite, and the solution boundaries - not a detailed spec. The key insight from Shape Up: fix the time, flex the scope. Define how much the team is willing to spend before deciding what to build.

Workflow

Step 1: Set the Appetite

Before writing requirements, define the appetite - how much time is this worth?

Small batch: 1-2 weeks
Big batch: 4-6 weeks

If the solution requires more time than the appetite allows, cut the scope - don't extend the time.

Step 2: Write the Problem Statement

One paragraph. Answer: what is broken or missing today, who is affected, and what is the cost of not solving it. Avoid mentioning solutions here.

Step 3: Write the Pitch (Shape Up format)

Structure:

# PRD: [Feature Name]
**Appetite:** [Small batch / Big batch]
**Status:** Draft
**Author:** [your name]

## Problem
[What's broken, who's affected, cost of inaction]

## Solution
[Fat marker sketch - broad strokes, not pixel-perfect]

## Rabbit Holes
[Specific technical or design traps to avoid]

## No-Gos
[Explicitly what this does NOT include]

Step 4: Write the Solution at the right altitude

Shape Up's "fat marker sketch" principle: describe the solution broadly enough that engineers have room to make decisions. Over-specifying kills ownership and slows delivery.

Write requirements at the level of: "Users can do X" - not "There is a button in the top-right corner."

Step 5: Define Rabbit Holes

List specific traps the team could fall into. Examples:

"Don't rebuild the notification system - use existing infrastructure"
"Don't support bulk operations in v1"

Step 6: Define No-Gos

Explicit list of what this does NOT cover. This is the most important section for scope control.

Step 7: Add Open Questions

Format:

Q: [question]
Owner: [name]
Due: [date]

Anti-Patterns

1. Specifying solutions in the problem statement Bad: "We need to add a modal because users don't see the CTA." Good: "30% of users drop off at checkout. The CTA is not visible enough."

2. No appetite defined Bad: PRD with requirements but no time boundary. Good: "This is a small batch - 2 weeks max. If the solution needs more, cut scope."

3. Missing No-Gos Bad: PRD with only what's included. Good: Explicit No-Gos that prevent scope creep during build.

4. Over-specified requirements Bad: "The button is blue, 48px, positioned top-right with 16px margin." Good: "Users can trigger X from the main action area." (Let design decide the details.)

Quality Checklist

Appetite is defined (small or big batch)
Problem statement explains "why", not "what"
Solution is at the right altitude - no pixel-level specs
Rabbit holes are listed
No-Gos are explicit
Open questions have owners and due dates

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

ログインしてレビューを書く

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

11-star-framework

無料

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。