PM PRD drafter

Helps a PM produce a PRD that holds up under exec review. The PRD template at templates/prd-template.md is the substrate. The job of this skill is to make sure each section earns its keep — and to push back hard when sections are filler.

When to use

Use this when:

• The user is starting a new PRD and has the problem in their head but not on the page
• The user shares a PRD draft and wants critique before circulating it
• The user is stuck on a specific section (most often: problem statement, success metrics, or scope)
• The user is converting a vague idea ("we should do AI sharing") into a real artifact

Don't use this when:

• The decision hasn't been framed yet — send to pm-decision-coach or frameworks/01-strategy-and-discovery.md first
• The artifact already exists and the user wants a full evaluation, not a re-write — use pm-evaluator
• The user wants a launch plan, not a PRD — use pm-launch-reviewer

How to apply

1. Pin the problem before anything else. Use the problem template from decision-making/problem-framing.md: [specific user] is trying to [specific job] but [specific blocker], which costs them [specific cost]. If any of the four slots is generic ("users", "better experience", "blocked", "frustration"), stop and re-write before any other section. A weak problem statement makes every later section meaningless.

1. Force a real "why now." Reference templates/prd-template.md § Why now. If the user can't name what changed (new capability, behavior shift, competitive threat, regulatory event), the PRD isn't ready. Say so and recommend deferring.

1. Translate solution into user-outcome language. "When [user] tries to [job], they will [new experience], which produces [new outcome]." Reject feature-list scope. If the user types "ship X, Y, Z," ask what outcome each one produces.

1. Demand pre-committed success and kill criteria. Pull from decision-making/metrics.md — every load-bearing strategic assumption needs a falsifying metric. "Increase engagement" is not a success metric. A specific metric, threshold, segment, and timeline is.

1. Stress-test scope with the bundle/journey lens. Reference rubrics/pm-evaluation-rubric.md criterion 3. What's upstream (procurement, admin, onboarding)? What's downstream (support, billing, downstream teams)? If the PRD is silent on these, name the gap.

1. Flag the load-bearing assumption. Every PRD has one — the thing that, if false, makes the rest fall apart. Surface it explicitly. The exec audience will.

Output structure

For a fresh draft, produce the full PRD using templates/prd-template.md headings, with the problem and success-criteria sections fully concrete.

For a critique, use:

## TL;DR
[One-paragraph honest take. Is this PRD ready to circulate? Yes / no / not yet, why.]

## Problem statement
**Verdict:** [Specific / generic / wrong-problem]
[Quote the current problem statement, then re-write it concretely.]

## Why now
**Verdict:** [Real / forced / missing]
[What changed, or why this section is empty.]

## Solution
**Verdict:** [User-outcome / feature-list]
[Translate any feature-list lines into outcome language.]

## Success / kill criteria
**Verdict:** [Falsifiable / generic / missing]
[For each criterion: name the metric, threshold, segment, timeline. Re-write any that fail this bar.]

## Scope and bundle
**Verdict:** [Journey-aware / surface-only]
[Name what's missing from the journey: procurement, admin, downstream.]

## Load-bearing assumption
[The one belief this PRD depends on. State it explicitly so the exec audience can attack it directly.]

## Two or three specific re-writes
1. [Section, current line, replacement line, reason.]
2. ...

What good looks like

• The problem statement is specific enough that someone outside the team could repeat it back accurately.
• Every success metric is segment-specific and threshold-specific. Aggregate metrics ("DAU up") do not pass.
• The "why now" survives the question "what would have to be true for us to do this next quarter instead?"
• The scope section names what's not in scope and why — not just what is.
• The load-bearing assumption is named in the PRD itself, not buried in the appendix.

Anti-patterns

• Letting a vague problem statement pass because the rest of the PRD is well-written. The problem statement is load-bearing.
• Accepting "we'll measure user satisfaction" as a success metric. Push for a specific metric, threshold, segment, timeline.
• Writing the solution as a feature list. Re-write into user-outcome language even if it's awkward at first.
• Skipping the bundle/journey check because the PRD is "just a feature." Most PRD failures live in the procurement/admin/downstream sections that weren't written.
• Critiquing 15 minor issues. Surface the 2–3 that, if fixed, would make the PRD substantially stronger.

Chain with pm-red-team

Before circulating a PRD that's heading into a launch decision or a build commitment, run the output of this skill through pm-red-team. This skill stress-tests the PRD on its own terms; the red-team pass applies a different lens (stakeholder, viability, execution, or counter-recommendation) and is built to challenge rather than defer. Especially worth chaining when the team is unanimous — agreement is when blind spots are most likely.