qa-aman/write-prd

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