Vibecosystem prd-writer
Product Requirements Document writing - PRD templates, MoSCoW prioritization, user personas, competitive analysis, feature specs, acceptance criteria, risk assessment
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/vibeeval/vibecosystem
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/vibeeval/vibecosystem "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/prd-writer" ~/.claude/skills/vibeeval-vibecosystem-prd-writer && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
skills/prd-writer/SKILL.mdsource content
PRD Writer
PRD Template
# Product Requirements Document ## Meta | Field | Value | |-------|-------| | Product | [urun adi] | | Author | [yazar] | | Version | [v1.0] | | Status | [Draft / In Review / Approved] | | Last Updated | [tarih] | | Stakeholders | [paydas listesi] | --- ## 1. Problem Statement ### The Problem [Kullanicilarin yasadigi sorunu 2-3 cumle ile acikla] ### Who is Affected [Etkilenen kullanici segmenti ve buyuklugu] ### Current Solutions [Mevcut cozumler ve neden yetersiz oldugu] ### Evidence - [Veri noktasi 1: kullanici arastirmasi, anket, metrik] - [Veri noktasi 2] - [Veri noktasi 3] --- ## 2. Goals & Success Metrics ### Goals | Goal | Description | Metric | Target | |------|-------------|--------|--------| | G1 | [birincil hedef] | [olcum] | [hedef deger] | | G2 | [ikincil hedef] | [olcum] | [hedef deger] | ### Non-Goals (Out of Scope) - [Bu PRD kapsaminda OLMAYAN seyler] - [Gelecek iterasyona birakilanlar] ### Success Metrics | Metric | Current | Target | Measurement | |--------|---------|--------|-------------| | [KPI 1] | [mevcut] | [hedef] | [nasil olculecek] | | [KPI 2] | [mevcut] | [hedef] | [nasil olculecek] | --- ## 3. User Personas [Asagidaki Persona Template'i kullan] --- ## 4. User Stories [Epic → Story → Acceptance Criteria hiyerarsisi] --- ## 5. Requirements ### Functional Requirements | ID | Requirement | Priority | Notes | |----|------------|----------|-------| | FR-1 | [gereksinim] | Must | [detay] | | FR-2 | [gereksinim] | Should | [detay] | ### Non-Functional Requirements | ID | Category | Requirement | Target | |----|----------|------------|--------| | NFR-1 | Performance | Page load time | < 2s | | NFR-2 | Scalability | Concurrent users | 10,000 | | NFR-3 | Availability | Uptime SLA | 99.9% | | NFR-4 | Security | Data encryption | AES-256 | --- ## 6. Design & UX ### User Flows [Temel kullanici akislari - diyagram veya adim listesi] ### Wireframes [Link veya embed] ### Edge Cases | Scenario | Expected Behavior | |----------|-------------------| | [durum 1] | [beklenen davranis] | | [durum 2] | [beklenen davranis] | --- ## 7. Technical Considerations ### Architecture [Mimari yaklasim ve entegrasyonlar] ### Dependencies | Dependency | Type | Risk | Mitigation | |-----------|------|------|------------| | [dep 1] | External API | Medium | Fallback mechanism | | [dep 2] | Internal service | Low | Already available | ### Migration / Backward Compatibility [Mevcut sistemle uyumluluk plani] --- ## 8. Timeline & Milestones | Phase | Milestone | Duration | Target Date | |-------|-----------|----------|-------------| | Phase 1 | MVP | [sure] | [tarih] | | Phase 2 | Beta | [sure] | [tarih] | | Phase 3 | GA | [sure] | [tarih] | --- ## 9. Risks & Mitigations [Asagidaki Risk Assessment framework'unu kullan] --- ## 10. Open Questions | # | Question | Owner | Status | |---|----------|-------|--------| | 1 | [soru] | [kisi] | Open | | 2 | [soru] | [kisi] | Resolved: [cevap] |
MoSCoW Prioritization
Framework
| Category | Definition | Guideline |
|---|---|---|
| Must | Critical, non-negotiable | Launch blocker - no release without it |
| Should | Important but not critical | Expected by users, can workaround temporarily |
| Could | Nice to have | Enhances experience, not core |
| Won't | Out of scope (this iteration) | Documented for future consideration |
Prioritization Matrix
## Feature Prioritization | Feature | Impact (1-5) | Effort (1-5) | Risk (1-5) | Priority | |---------|-------------|-------------|-----------|----------| | [F1] | 5 | 2 | 1 | Must | | [F2] | 4 | 3 | 2 | Should | | [F3] | 3 | 4 | 3 | Could | | [F4] | 2 | 5 | 4 | Won't | ### Scoring Rules - Impact: Business/user value (5 = critical) - Effort: Dev time and complexity (5 = very hard) - Risk: Technical/business uncertainty (5 = very risky) - Priority = High Impact + Low Effort + Low Risk = Must
User Persona Template
## Persona: [Isim] **Photo:** [placeholder] **Role:** [is unvani / kullanici tipi] **Age:** [yas araligi] **Tech Savvy:** [Low / Medium / High] ### Background [2-3 cumle: kim, ne yapiyor, nerede calisiyor] ### Goals 1. [birincil hedef - isini kolaylastiran] 2. [ikincil hedef - uzun vadeli] 3. [ucuncul hedef - kisilsel] ### Pain Points 1. [en buyuk sorun - gunluk frustration] 2. [ikinci sorun] 3. [ucuncu sorun] ### Behaviors - [nasil bilgi arar] - [hangi araclari kullanir] - [ne siklikta etkilesin] ### Motivations - [ne motive eder] - [ne icin para oder] ### Quote > "[Persona'nin tipik bir sozu - empati kurmak icin]" ### Scenario [Tipik bir gun: urunu ne zaman, nasil, neden kullanir]
Persona Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Neden Yanlis | Dogru Yol |
|---|---|---|
| Too many personas (5+) | Odak kaybeder | 2-3 primary persona |
| Vague demographics only | Actionable degil | Behavior + motivation ekle |
| No pain points | Cozum odakli olamaz | Gercek kullanici arastirmasindan cikar |
| Fictional without data | Yaniltici | Interview/survey veriyle destekle |
Competitive Analysis Framework
## Competitive Analysis ### Market Landscape | Competitor | Market Share | Target Segment | Pricing | |-----------|-------------|---------------|---------| | [rakip 1] | [%] | [segment] | [fiyat modeli] | | [rakip 2] | [%] | [segment] | [fiyat modeli] | ### Feature Comparison Matrix | Feature | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | |---------|-----|-------------|-------------|-------------| | [F1] | [planned] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | | [F2] | [planned] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | | [F3] | [planned] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | [var/yok] | ### Differentiators 1. [Bizi farkli kilan 1] 2. [Bizi farkli kilan 2] 3. [Bizi farkli kilan 3] ### Competitive Moat [Neden kopyalanamaz / zorlasilir] ### Gaps & Opportunities - [Rakiplerin zayif noktasi 1] - [Rakiplerin zayif noktasi 2]
Feature Specification Format
## Feature: [Ozellik Adi] **ID:** FEAT-001 **Priority:** Must / Should / Could **Epic:** [bagli epic] **Owner:** [sorumluluk] ### Description [1-2 paragraf: ne yapiyor, neden onemli] ### User Stories - As a [role], I want [feature], so that [benefit] ### Acceptance Criteria - [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [result] - [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [result] ### UI/UX [Wireframe link veya description] ### Edge Cases | Case | Behavior | |------|----------| | [durum] | [davranis] | ### Technical Notes [API endpoint, data model, entegrasyon notlari] ### Dependencies - [Bagimlilik 1] - [Bagimlilik 2] ### Out of Scope - [Bu iterasyonda yapilmayacak]
Acceptance Criteria Yazimi
Given-When-Then (BDD) Format
Feature: User Registration Scenario: Successful registration with valid data Given the user is on the registration page And the user has not previously registered When the user enters valid email "user@example.com" And the user enters a password meeting complexity requirements And the user clicks "Register" Then a new account should be created And a verification email should be sent And the user should see a success message Scenario: Registration with existing email Given the user is on the registration page And an account with "user@example.com" already exists When the user enters email "user@example.com" And the user clicks "Register" Then the user should see "Email already in use" error And no duplicate account should be created
Acceptance Criteria Checklist
- Happy path covered
- Error states defined
- Edge cases documented
- Performance requirements specified
- Security requirements included
- Accessibility requirements noted
- Testable (can be verified objectively)
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-Pattern | Neden Yanlis | Dogru Yol |
|---|---|---|
| "System should be fast" | Olculemez | "Page loads in < 2 seconds" |
| "Should work correctly" | Belirsiz | Specific expected behavior |
| No error scenarios | Incomplete | Define every failure mode |
| Implementation details | Cozumu kisitlar | Focus on behavior, not how |
Risk Assessment
Risk Matrix
## Risk Register | ID | Risk | Likelihood (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Score | Mitigation | Owner | |----|------|-------------------|--------------|-------|------------|-------| | R1 | [risk] | [L] | [I] | [LxI] | [plan] | [kisi] | | R2 | [risk] | [L] | [I] | [LxI] | [plan] | [kisi] | ### Risk Categories - **Technical:** Architecture, integration, performance - **Resource:** Staffing, skills, availability - **Schedule:** Dependencies, estimation accuracy - **Business:** Market changes, stakeholder alignment - **External:** Third-party, regulatory, competitive ### Risk Response Strategies - **Avoid:** Change plan to eliminate risk - **Mitigate:** Reduce likelihood or impact - **Transfer:** Insurance, outsource, vendor SLA - **Accept:** Monitor and contingency plan
Timeline & Milestone Planning
Phase Planning Template
## Implementation Phases ### Phase 1: Foundation (Week 1-2) - [ ] Data model design - [ ] API scaffolding - [ ] Auth integration **Deliverable:** Backend API functional **Exit Criteria:** API tests passing, deployed to staging ### Phase 2: Core Features (Week 3-5) - [ ] Feature A implementation - [ ] Feature B implementation - [ ] Integration testing **Deliverable:** Core functionality complete **Exit Criteria:** All Must requirements met, QA passed ### Phase 3: Polish (Week 6-7) - [ ] UI/UX refinement - [ ] Performance optimization - [ ] Should requirements **Deliverable:** Beta-ready product **Exit Criteria:** Beta user feedback positive ### Phase 4: Launch (Week 8) - [ ] Production deployment - [ ] Monitoring setup - [ ] Documentation **Deliverable:** GA release **Exit Criteria:** All launch criteria met
PRD Review Checklist
- Problem statement is clear and evidence-based
- Success metrics are measurable and time-bound
- User personas based on real research
- Requirements use MoSCoW prioritization
- Acceptance criteria are testable
- Risks identified with mitigation plans
- Timeline is realistic with buffer
- Open questions have owners and deadlines
- All stakeholders have reviewed and agreed
- Non-goals explicitly stated