Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Генерирует структурированный PRD (Product Requirements Document) с шаблонами под тип продукта (B2C / B2B / внутренний инструмент / платформа) — фон, цели, детальный дизайн фич, acceptance criteria в Given-When-Then, аналитика и 10-пунктовый чеклист качества. User-invoked only — do NOT auto-trigger. Triggers on /pm-prd, "сделай PRD", "напиши PRD", "продуктовые требования", "make a PRD", "write a PRD", "draft requirements doc".
.claude/skills/serejaris-pm-prd/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-10 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 103% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 0% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 22% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 2% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 107% | 0% |
Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents. Generate a delivery-ready Product Requirements Document from a feature description. Branches by product type — B2C, B2B, internal tool, platform — with each type emphasizing different modules. Includes a 10-item quality self-check that runs after generation.
| Field | Required | Notes | |---|---|---| | Feature description | yes | What the feature does and what problem it solves; one sentence minimum | | Target user | no | Who it's for; inferred from the feature if not given | | Business goals | no | Expected business metrics (DAU, conversion, revenue, etc.) | | Product type | no | B2C / B2B / internal / platform; auto-detected if not given | | Constraints | no | Tech limits, deadlines, resource limits | | Depth | no | Outline (for review) / detailed (for development); default detailed |
If the user only says "write a PRD" with no feature, ask for the feature description. If they give feature + user + goals, go straight to generation.
| Product type | PRD emphasis | Key differentiators | |---|---|---| | B2C | UX flow, growth metrics, A/B test plan | Heavy on interaction, heavy on data, write user journeys | | B2B | Permission model, multi-tenancy, SLA, integration APIs | Heavy on completeness, security, API contracts | | Internal tool | Operational efficiency, integration with existing systems, training cost | Heavy on practicality, light on visuals | | Platform | Multi-role interaction, supply-demand matching, ecosystem rules | Heavy on role separation, rules engine |
Auto-detection rules: mentions of "user / member / loyalty / marketplace" → B2C; "enterprise / SaaS / CRM / admin panel" → B2B; "internal / management system / ticketing" → internal tool; "platform / marketplace / two-sided" → platform.
B2B PRDs must additionally cover:
Platform PRDs must additionally cover:
Three-method feature decomposition:
For every feature module, fill:
Use this template. Comments next to each placeholder describe the fill logic.
markdown# PRD: {feature name} **Version:** v1.0 **Author:** {PM name, or [TBD]} **Date:** {today} **Status:** Draft --- ## 1. Background and Goals ### 1.1 Background <!-- Answer three questions: why now? what happens if we don't? what changes if we do? --> {problem state + user pain + why this is the right moment} ### 1.2 Target users <!-- Use [role] + [trait] + [scenario]. Never write "all users". --> | User role | Trait | Core need | Use scenario | |---|---|---|---| ### 1.3 Business goals and success metrics <!-- Each goal must be SMART — specific number + deadline. --> | Goal | Metric | Target | Tracking method | |---|---|---|---| ## 2. Requirement Overview <!-- One paragraph, 30 words max, summarizing the core requirement. --> ## 3. Detailed Feature Design ### 3.1 {Module 1} **Description:** {what it does} **User story:** As a {role}, I want {action}, so that {value} **Priority:** P0 (must launch) / P1 (strongly recommended) / P2 (nice-to-have) **Business rules:** 1. {rule 1 — clear trigger condition + processing logic} 2. {rule 2} **Interaction flow:** <!-- Start at entry point, end at task completion, cover happy path + exception branches. --> 1. User enters from {entry} 2. {steps} 3. Success: {feedback} 4. Failure: {error message and handling} **Exception handling:** | Scenario | Handling | User-facing message | |---|---|---| (repeat format for each module) ## 4. Non-Functional Requirements <!-- B2C → emphasize performance and experience; B2B → emphasize security and availability. --> | Category | Requirement | Acceptance criterion | |---|---|---| | Performance | {e.g. page load time} | {e.g. < 2s} | | Security | {e.g. data encryption} | {e.g. TLS 1.2+ in transit} | | Compatibility | {browsers / devices} | {Chrome, Safari, mobile webview} | ## 5. Data Requirements (Analytics Events) <!-- List every event to capture. Format: event name + trigger + attributes + purpose. --> | Event | Trigger | Key attributes | Purpose | |---|---|---|---| ## 6. Acceptance Criteria <!-- At least 3 ACs per feature module, in Given-When-Then format. --> | ID | Scenario | Given | When | Then | |---|---|---|---|---| ## 7. Schedule <!-- Break into design / dev / integration / launch. --> | Phase | Estimate | Dependency | Risk | |---|---|---|---| ## 8. Risks and Dependencies | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation | |---|---|---|---| ## Appendix - Related documents - Competitor references - Design files
Run this 10-point checklist after generating. Flag any failed item with a fix suggestion.
| # | Check | Pass criterion | |---|---|---| | 1 | Background not vague | Answers "why do this?" not just "we need to do this" | | 2 | Goals quantified | At least one numeric success metric | | 3 | Personas concrete | No "all users" / "everyone" | | 4 | Business rules exhaustive | No "etc.", "other cases", "and so on" | | 5 | Exception flows covered | Every feature has ≥2 exception scenarios | | 6 | Acceptance testable | Given-When-Then format used | | 7 | Analytics complete | All core action paths have events | | 8 | No tech implementation | PRD describes "what", not "how to build" | | 9 | Priorities assigned | Every module tagged P0/P1/P2 | | 10 | Schedule grounded | Estimate covers design + dev + test + integration |
| Anti-pattern | What it looks like | Fix | |---|---|---| | Gold-plating | 50 features in v1 | Split MVP / v1.1 / v2; v1 keeps 3-5 core features | | Fake requirement | "Users might want…" with no data | Tag every requirement with source: feedback / analytics / competitor / hypothesis | | Design overreach | PRD specifies button color, font size, layout | Describe info hierarchy and interaction logic only; visuals → designer | | Tech overreach | PRD specifies Redis, MySQL, framework choice | Describe perf requirements (e.g. "<2s") only; implementation → engineering | | Rule blackhole | "Per business rules" without listing them | Enumerate every rule's trigger, logic, edge values |
[TBD][needs input] on critical missing pieces/pm-user-stories — after PRD review, break features into developable User Stories/pm-competitive — run before PRD to gather competitor references/pm-prioritize — when multiple requirements compete, rank with RICE first| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-10 | fail→pass | 28,746 | 40,807 | +42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,908 | 7,918 | +103% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 20,328 | 4,151 | -80% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,730 | 2,721 | -0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 48,456 | 46,304 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,353 | 8,797 | +5% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 51,374 | 48,463 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,343 | 10,162 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 56,176 | 52,187 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,319 | 8,516 | +2% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 19,196 | 32,567 | +70% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,480 | 6,840 | +97% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 24,820 | 28,894 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,841 | 6,590 | +72% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 17,441 | 22,698 | +30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,502 | 5,439 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 20,713 | 34,424 | +66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,438 | 7,127 | +107% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 32,289 | 33,991 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,852 | 7,849 | +34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 22,516 | 34,962 | +55% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,709 | 7,097 | +91% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→fail | 40,864 | 30,668 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,698 | 7,307 | +9% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 47,712 | 35,293 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 8,254 | 8,344 | +1% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 42,590 | 32,710 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,746 | 6,689 | +16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 26,932 | 29,483 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,952 | 7,105 | +80% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | 16,572 | 32,192 | +94% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,974 | 6,682 | +125% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 17,252 | 28,388 | +65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,149 | 7,050 | +124% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 44,691 | 46,542 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,758 | 8,811 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 40,562 | 33,799 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,315 | 7,691 | +22% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 39,959 | 29,737 | -26% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,089 | 6,869 | +35% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 22,664 | 35,454 | +56% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,836 | 7,719 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 21,107 | 22,642 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,444 | 5,756 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 22,814 | 31,368 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,812 | 7,258 | +90% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +48 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.