出海助手-PRD撰写 / PRD Writing — Product Requirements Documents
> 本技能改造自开源技能 prd-writing（来源：TerminalSkills/skills，TerminalSkills 开源技能库）。已完整保留原始运行文件（scripts/references/assets 与 LICENSE），并新增中文出海使用说明。原始英文说明见文末「English (Original)」与同目录 SKILL.original.md。
功能说明 / Functional Overview
撰写产品需求文档（PRD）：目标、范围、用户故事与验收标准。
适用场景 / Use Cases
- 出海产品 PRD
- 功能需求文档
- 需求评审材料
使用方法 / How to Use
- 描述要做的产品/功能，技能产出结构化 PRD。
示例 / Examples
- 「出海产品 PRD」——用自然语言把任务交给本技能即可。
限制说明 / Limitations
- 需要外部服务/凭证的技能，请先完成授权配置后使用。
- 本技能为开源技能的中文本地化版本，核心逻辑与原技能一致；如遇专业术语，正文保留英文原词（如 Shopify、SEO、GA4 等）。
English (Original) / 英文原文（完整保留）
> The section below is the original skill definition, preserved verbatim for traceability and full functionality.
PRD Writing — Product Requirements Documents
Overview
Writing Product Requirements Documents (PRDs), helping product managers create clear, actionable specs that align engineering, design, and stakeholders. This skill produces PRDs that define the problem, success metrics, scope, user stories, edge cases, and launch criteria — without over-specifying implementation details.
Instructions
PRD Template
## PRD: [Feature Name]
**Author**: [PM name]
**Status**: Draft | Review | Approved
**Last updated**: [date]
**Engineering lead**: [name]
**Design lead**: [name]
---
### 1. Problem Statement
**What problem are we solving?**
[2-3 sentences. Describe the user pain point, not the solution.]
**Who has this problem?**
[Target user segment. Reference ICP or persona.]
**How do we know this is a problem?**
[Evidence: user interviews, support tickets, analytics data, competitor analysis]
- 42% of new users drop off at step 3 of onboarding (Mixpanel)
- 15 support tickets/week asking "how do I..." (Intercom)
- 3/5 interviewed users described this as their biggest frustration
**What happens if we don't solve this?**
[Business impact: churn risk, lost revenue, competitive disadvantage]
---
### 2. Goals and Success Metrics
**Primary metric**: [The one number that tells us if this worked]
- Reduce onboarding drop-off from 42% to 20% within 30 days of launch
**Secondary metrics**: [Supporting signals]
- Time-to-first-value decreases from 15 min to 5 min
- Support tickets for "how do I..." decrease by 50%
**Counter-metrics**: [Metrics we don't want to hurt]
- Activation quality stays constant (D30 retention doesn't drop)
- Page load time stays under 2 seconds
**Non-goals**: [Explicitly out of scope]
- We are NOT redesigning the entire onboarding flow
- We are NOT building a help center (separate initiative)
- We are NOT targeting enterprise users with this iteration
---
### 3. Solution Overview
[High-level description of the solution. 3-5 sentences.
Include a link to the design mockups/prototype.]
Design: [Figma link]
Prototype: [link]
---
### 4. User Stories
**As a** new user who just signed up,
**I want to** see a guided setup wizard,
**so that** I can configure my workspace without reading documentation.
**Acceptance criteria**:
- [ ] Wizard appears on first login only
- [ ] Wizard has 3 steps: profile, workspace, first project
- [ ] User can skip wizard at any step (but we track skip rate)
- [ ] Progress is saved — if user leaves mid-wizard, they resume where they left off
- [ ] Wizard completes in under 3 minutes for 90% of users
---
**As a** new user who skipped the wizard,
**I want to** access the wizard again from settings,
**so that** I can complete setup when I'm ready.
**Acceptance criteria**:
- [ ] "Complete setup" link visible in settings until wizard is done
- [ ] Resuming wizard starts from the first incomplete step
---
### 5. Detailed Requirements
#### 5.1 Step 1: Profile Setup
- Display name (required, max 50 chars)
- Avatar upload (optional, max 5MB, jpg/png/webp)
- Role selection: dropdown with "Developer", "Designer", "PM", "Other"
- "Other" shows a free-text field
#### 5.2 Step 2: Workspace Configuration
- Workspace name (required, auto-suggested from company email domain)
- Invite teammates (optional, email input, max 10 invites in wizard)
- Skip sends user to step 3 without inviting
#### 5.3 Step 3: First Project
- Offer 3 template options: "Blank", "Marketing Website", "SaaS App"
- Selecting a template creates a project with pre-configured tasks
- "Blank" creates an empty project
---
### 6. Edge Cases and Error Handling
| Scenario | Expected behavior |
|----------|------------------|
| User refreshes mid-wizard | Resume from current step |
| User has slow connection | Show loading state, retry on timeout |
| Avatar upload fails | Show error, allow retry, don't block progress |
| Email invite is invalid format | Inline validation, highlight field |
| User already has a workspace (re-signup) | Skip workspace step |
| Browser back button during wizard | Navigate to previous step |
---
### 7. Technical Considerations
- Wizard state stored in localStorage (offline-friendly) + synced to API
- Template creation is async — show optimistic UI, handle failure gracefully
- Track wizard events: step_viewed, step_completed, step_skipped, wizard_completed
- Feature flag: `onboarding_wizard_v2` (gradual rollout)
---
### 8. Launch Plan
**Rollout**:
1. Internal dogfood (1 week)
2. 10% of new signups (1 week, monitor metrics)
3. 50% → 100% if metrics look good
**Launch criteria (go/no-go)**:
- [ ] All acceptance criteria pass QA
- [ ] No P0/P1 bugs
- [ ] Analytics events firing correctly
- [ ] Support team briefed on changes
- [ ] Rollback plan documented
**Rollback plan**:
- Disable feature flag → users see old onboarding
- No data migration needed (wizard data is additive)
---
### 9. Open Questions
- [ ] Should we A/B test wizard vs no wizard, or just compare to historical baseline?
- [ ] Do we need wizard for mobile web or desktop only for V1?
- [ ] Should invited teammates also see the wizard?
---
### 10. Timeline
| Phase | Duration | Dates |
|-------|----------|-------|
| Design review | 1 week | Mar 10-14 |
| Engineering | 2 weeks | Mar 17-28 |
| QA | 3 days | Mar 31 - Apr 2 |
| Internal dogfood | 1 week | Apr 3-9 |
| Gradual rollout | 2 weeks | Apr 10-24 |
User Story Writing
## Write Effective User Stories
### Format
As a [persona], I want to [action], so that [outcome/value].
### Good vs Bad
❌ "As a user, I want a dashboard."
(No persona, no action, no outcome)
✅ "As a sales manager, I want to see my team's pipeline
in a single view, so that I can identify deals at risk
before the weekly forecast meeting."
### Acceptance Criteria Rules
- Testable (QA can verify pass/fail)
- Specific (numbers, not "fast" or "good")
- Independent of implementation ("shows error" not "returns 400")
- Include edge cases and error states
### INVEST Criteria
- **I**ndependent: Can be delivered without other stories
- **N**egotiable: Details can be discussed with engineering
- **V**aluable: Delivers value to the user
- **E**stimable: Team can estimate the effort
- **S**mall: Fits in a sprint
- **T**estable: Has clear acceptance criteria
Examples
Example 1: Creating a prd template for a new product
User request:
We're launching a project management tool for remote design teams. Help me create a prd template.
The agent applies the Prd Writing framework, asking clarifying questions about target audience, market positioning, and business model. It produces a structured deliverable with specific, actionable recommendations tailored to the design-tools market, including competitive positioning and key metrics to track.
Example 2: Reviewing a draft PRD for completeness
User request:
Here's our PRD for the new team permissions feature. Review it for missing edge cases and unclear requirements.
The agent analyzes the existing work against PRD writing best practices, identifies missing elements, weak assumptions, and areas that need validation. It provides specific suggestions with reasoning, not generic advice, referencing the frameworks and patterns from the instructions above.
Guidelines
- Problem before solution — The first section of every PRD defines the problem with evidence; if you can't articulate the problem, you shouldn't build the solution
- One primary metric — Every PRD has one number that defines success; secondary metrics support it but don't replace it
- Non-goals are critical — Explicitly list what's NOT in scope; prevents scope creep and aligns stakeholders
- Acceptance criteria are testable — Every criterion should be verifiable by QA with a pass/fail result
- Edge cases upfront — Document error states and edge cases in the PRD, not during code review; saves engineering time
- Feature flags for rollout — Always plan a gradual rollout with rollback; never launch to 100% on day one
- Counter-metrics — Define metrics you don't want to hurt; optimization without constraints leads to gaming
- Living document — PRDs evolve; update as you learn during development; the final PRD should reflect what was actually built
