Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

prd-development(珠三角发展)

prd-development 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

prd-development 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为只读;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描已通过,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 4,247。

总安装 34,272周安装 1,398GitHub Stars 3,937下载 11,088核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:prd-development(珠三角发展)
来源仓库:https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills
仓库路径:skills/prd-development
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill prd-development
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill prd-development

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

从发现笔记到工程就绪需求文档的结构化 PRD 创建。

在 2-4 天内编排 8 个阶段:问题框架、角色定义、战略背景、解决方案概述、成功指标、用户故事和范围/依赖项文档 包括带有证据的问题陈述、目标角色、业务目标和竞争环境,以便在工程开始之前协调利益相关者 将解决方案分解为具有验收标准的史诗假设和用户故事,避免模糊的规格和范围蔓延 明确记录超出范围的项目、技术依赖性、风险和悬而未决的问题,以防止执行过程中出现偏差

来源仓库内路径:skills/prd-development

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill prd-…;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它标注为只读,先用只读任务试一次,确认行为符合预期再扩大使用范围。

常见问题

6 条

prd-development 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-skills --skill prd-developmen…。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

prd-development 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

prd-development 需要什么权限?

权限级别是只读。该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

prd-development 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

prd-development 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 34,272 次,近一周安装 1,398 次,下载 11,088 次,GitHub 3,937 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

prd-development 安全吗?

第三方扫描结果为通过,但这只覆盖已知的静态检查项,不能替代自己读一遍源码和安装命令。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 第三方扫描已通过,常见的高风险行为没有命中。
  • 来源仓库有 3,937 星,维护活跃度相对可查。
  • 标注为只读权限,试用阶段不容易误改本地文件。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。
  • 只想先试试效果、不希望它改动本地文件的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
prd-development

珠三角发展 · 本页

34,2723,937只读未明确通过

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Purpose

Guide product managers through structured PRD (Product Requirements Document) creation by orchestrating problem framing, user research synthesis, solution definition, and success criteria into a cohesive document. Use this to move from scattered notes and Slack threads to a clear, comprehensive PRD that aligns stakeholders, provides engineering context, and serves as a source of truth—avoiding ambiguity, scope creep, and the "build what's in my head" trap.

This is not a waterfall spec—it's a living document that captures strategic context, customer problems, proposed solutions, and success criteria, evolving as you learn through delivery.

Key Concepts

What is a PRD?

A PRD (Product Requirements Document) is a structured document that answers:

  1. What problem are we solving? (Problem statement)
  2. For whom? (Target users/personas)
  3. Why now? (Strategic context, business case)
  4. What are we building? (Solution overview)
  5. How will we measure success? (Metrics, success criteria)
  6. What are the requirements? (User stories, acceptance criteria, constraints)
  7. What are we NOT building? (Out of scope)

PRD Structure (Standard Template)

# [Feature/Product Name] PRD

## 1. Executive Summary
- One-paragraph overview (problem + solution + impact)

## 2. Problem Statement
- Who has this problem?
- What is the problem?
- Why is it painful?
- Evidence (customer quotes, data, research)

## 3. Target Users & Personas
- Primary persona(s)
- Secondary persona(s)
- Jobs-to-be-done

## 4. Strategic Context
- Business goals (OKRs)
- Market opportunity (TAM/SAM/SOM)
- Competitive landscape
- Why now?

## 5. Solution Overview
- High-level description
- User flows or wireframes
- Key features

## 6. Success Metrics
- Primary metric (what we're optimizing for)
- Secondary metrics
- Targets (current → goal)

## 7. User Stories & Requirements
- Epic hypothesis
- User stories with acceptance criteria
- Edge cases, constraints

## 8. Out of Scope
- What we're NOT building (and why)

## 9. Dependencies & Risks
- Technical dependencies
- External dependencies (integrations, partnerships)
- Risks and mitigations

## 10. Open Questions
- Unresolved decisions
- Areas requiring discovery

Why This Works

  • Alignment: Ensures everyone (PM, design, eng, stakeholders) understands the "why"
  • Context preservation: Captures research and strategic rationale for future reference
  • Decision log: Documents what's in scope, out of scope, and why
  • Execution clarity: Provides engineering with user stories and acceptance criteria

Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)

  • Not a detailed spec: PRDs frame the problem and solution; they don't specify UI pixel-by-pixel
  • Not waterfall: PRDs evolve as you learn; they're not frozen contracts
  • Not a substitute for collaboration: PRDs complement conversation, not replace it

When to Use This

  • Starting a major feature or product initiative
  • Aligning cross-functional teams on scope and requirements
  • Documenting decisions for future reference
  • Onboarding new team members to a project

When NOT to Use This

  • For small bug fixes or trivial features (overkill)
  • When problem and solution are already clear and aligned (just write user stories)
  • For continuous discovery experiments (use Lean UX Canvas instead)

Facilitation Source of Truth

When running this workflow as a guided conversation, use workshop-facilitation as the interaction protocol.

It defines:

  • session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)
  • one-question turns with plain-language prompts
  • progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)
  • interruption handling and pause/resume behavior
  • numbered recommendations at decision points
  • quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include Other (specify) when useful)

This file defines the workflow sequence and domain-specific outputs. If there is a conflict, follow this file's workflow logic.

Application

Use template.md for the full fill-in structure.

This workflow orchestrates 8 phases over 2-4 days, using multiple component and interactive skills.


Phase 1: Executive Summary (30 minutes)

Goal: Write a one-paragraph overview for skimmers.

Activities

1. Draft Executive Summary

  • Format: "We're building [solution] for [persona] to solve [problem], which will result in [impact]."
  • Example: "We're building a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical small business owners to solve the problem of 60% drop-off in the first 24 hours due to lack of guidance, which will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% and reduce churn by 10%."
  • Participants: PM
  • Duration: 30 minutes
  • Output: One-paragraph summary

Tip: Write this first (forces clarity), but refine it last (after other sections are complete).


Phase 2: Problem Statement (60 minutes)

Goal: Frame the customer problem with evidence.

Activities

1. Write Problem Statement

  • Use: skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md (component)
  • Input: Discovery insights from skills/discovery-process/SKILL.md or skills/problem-framing-canvas/SKILL.md
  • Participants: PM
  • Duration: 30 minutes
  • Output: Structured problem statement

Example Problem Statement:

## 2. Problem Statement

### Who has this problem?
Non-technical small business owners (solopreneurs, 1-10 employees) who sign up for our SaaS product.

### What is the problem?
60% of users abandon onboarding within the first 24 hours because they don't know what to do first. They see an empty dashboard with no guidance, get overwhelmed by options, and leave.

### Why is it painful?
- **User impact:** Wastes time (30-60 min trying to figure out product), never reaches "aha moment," churns before experiencing value
- **Business impact:** 60% activation rate → high churn, low LTV, poor word-of-mouth

### Evidence
- **Interviews:** 8/10 churned users said "I didn't know what to do first" (discovery interviews, Feb 2026)
- **Analytics:** 60% of signups complete 0 actions within 24 hours (Mixpanel, Jan 2026)
- **Support tickets:** "How do I get started?" is #1 support question (350 tickets/month)
- **Customer quote:** "I logged in, saw an empty dashboard, and thought 'now what?' I gave up and went back to my spreadsheet."

2. Add Supporting Context (Optional)

  • Customer journey map: If problem spans multiple touchpoints
  • Use: skills/customer-journey-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md output
  • Jobs-to-be-done: If motivations are key
  • Use: skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md output

Outputs from Phase 2

  • Problem statement: Who, what, why, evidence
  • Supporting artifacts: Journey map, JTBD (if relevant)

Phase 3: Target Users & Personas (30 minutes)

Goal: Define who you're building for.

Activities

1. Document Personas

  • Use: skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md (component) output
  • Participants: PM
  • Duration: 30 minutes
  • Format: Include persona name, role, goals, pain points, behaviors

Example:

## 3. Target Users & Personas

### Primary Persona: Solo Entrepreneur Sam
- **Role:** Freelance consultant, solopreneur
- **Company size:** 1 person (no IT support)
- **Tech savviness:** Low (uses email, spreadsheets, basic SaaS)
- **Goals:** Get value from software fast without technical expertise
- **Pain points:** Overwhelmed by complex UIs, no time to watch tutorials, needs immediate value
- **Current behavior:** Signs up for products, tries for 1 day, churns if not immediately useful

### Secondary Persona: Small Business Owner (5-10 employees)
- **Role:** Owner-operator, manages team
- **Needs:** Onboard team members quickly
- **Differs from primary:** More tolerant of complexity, willing to invest setup time

Outputs from Phase 3

  • Primary persona: Detailed profile
  • Secondary personas: (if applicable)

Phase 4: Strategic Context (45 minutes)

Goal: Explain why this matters to the business and why now.

Activities

1. Document Business Goals

  • Source: Company OKRs, strategic memos, roadmap
  • Format: Link feature to business outcomes
  • Example: "This initiative supports our Q1 OKR: Reduce churn from 15% to 8%. Improving onboarding activation directly impacts retention."

2. Size Market Opportunity (Optional)

  • Use: skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (interactive) output
  • When: For major initiatives, new products, exec presentations
  • Example: "TAM: 50M small businesses globally. SAM: 5M using SaaS tools. SOM: 500K solopreneurs in our target segments. Improving onboarding could unlock 30% of SAM (1.5M potential customers)."

3. Document Competitive Landscape (Optional)

  • Source: Competitor research, G2/Capterra reviews
  • Example: "Competitors (Competitor A, B) have guided onboarding. Our lack of guidance is cited as a churn reason in exit surveys."

4. Explain "Why Now?"

  • Rationale: Why prioritize this now vs. later?
  • Example: "Churn spiked 15% in Q4. Onboarding is the #1 driver (60% churn in first 30 days). Fixing this is critical to hitting retention OKR."

Outputs from Phase 4

  • Business goals: OKRs or strategic initiatives
  • Market opportunity: TAM/SAM/SOM (if applicable)
  • Competitive context: How competitors address this
  • Why now: Urgency rationale

Phase 5: Solution Overview (60 minutes)

Goal: Describe what you're building (high-level, not detailed spec).

Activities

1. Write Solution Description

  • Format: High-level overview, 2-3 paragraphs
  • Example:
## 5. Solution Overview

We're building a **guided onboarding checklist** that walks new users through core workflows step-by-step when they first log in.

**How it works:**
1. User signs up and logs in for the first time
2. Modal appears: "Let's get you set up! Complete these 3 steps to get started."
3. Checklist shows:
   - ☐ Create your first project
   - ☐ Invite a teammate (optional)
   - ☐ Complete a sample task
4. As user completes each step, checklist updates with checkmarks
5. After completion, celebration modal: "You're all set! Here's what to do next."

**Key features:**
- Minimal: Only 3 core steps (not overwhelming)
- Dismissible: Users can skip if they prefer to explore
- Progress tracking: Visual progress bar (1/3, 2/3, 3/3)
- Celebration: Positive reinforcement when complete

2. Add User Flows or Wireframes (Optional)

  • Use: Design tools (Figma, Sketch), or hand-drawn sketches
  • When: For complex features requiring visual explanation
  • Output: Embedded in PRD or linked

3. Reference Story Map (Optional)

  • Use: skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md output
  • When: For complex features with multiple release slices
  • Output: Link to story map

Outputs from Phase 5

  • Solution description: High-level overview
  • User flows/wireframes: (if applicable)
  • Story map: (if applicable)

Phase 6: Success Metrics (30 minutes)

Goal: Define how you'll measure success.

Activities

1. Define Primary Metric

  • Question: What is the ONE metric this feature must move?
  • Example: "Activation rate (% of users completing first action within 24 hours)"
  • Target: "Increase from 40% to 60%"

2. Define Secondary Metrics

  • Question: What else should we monitor (but not optimize for)?
  • Examples:

- Time-to-first-action (reduce from 3 days to 1 day) - Completion rate of onboarding checklist (target: 80%) - Support ticket volume (reduce "How do I get started?" tickets by 50%)

3. Define Guardrail Metrics

  • Question: What should NOT get worse?
  • Example: "Sign-up conversion rate (don't add friction to signup flow)"

Example:

## 6. Success Metrics

### Primary Metric
**Activation rate** (% of users completing first action within 24 hours)
- **Current:** 40%
- **Target:** 60%
- **Timeline:** Measure 30 days after launch

### Secondary Metrics
- **Time-to-first-action:** Reduce from 3 days to 1 day
- **Onboarding checklist completion rate:** 80% of users complete all 3 steps
- **Support tickets:** Reduce "How do I get started?" tickets from 350/month to 175/month

### Guardrail Metrics
- **Sign-up conversion rate:** Maintain at 10% (don't add friction to signup)

Outputs from Phase 6

  • Primary metric: What you're optimizing for
  • Secondary metrics: Additional success indicators
  • Guardrail metrics: What shouldn't regress

Phase 7: User Stories & Requirements (90-120 minutes)

Goal: Break solution into user stories with acceptance criteria.

Activities

1. Write Epic Hypothesis

  • Use: skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md (component)
  • Participants: PM
  • Duration: 30 minutes
  • Output: Epic hypothesis statement

Example:

"We believe that adding a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical users will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% because users currently drop off due to lack of guidance. We'll measure success by activation rate 30 days post-launch."

2. Break Down Epic into User Stories

  • Use: skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md (interactive - with Richard Lawrence's 9 patterns)
  • Participants: PM, design, engineering
  • Duration: 90 minutes
  • Output: User stories split by patterns (workflow, CRUD, business rules, etc.)

3. Write User Stories

  • Use: skills/user-story/SKILL.md (component)
  • Participants: PM
  • Duration: 30 minutes per story
  • Format: User story + acceptance criteria

Example User Stories:

## 7. User Stories & Requirements

### Epic Hypothesis
We believe that adding a guided onboarding checklist for non-technical users will increase activation rate from 40% to 60% because users currently drop off due to lack of guidance.

### User Stories

**Story 1: Display onboarding checklist on first login**
As a new user, I want to see a guided checklist when I first log in, so I know what to do first.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user logs in for the first time, modal appears with checklist
- [ ] Checklist shows 3 steps: "Create project," "Invite teammate," "Complete task"
- [ ] Modal is dismissible (close button)
- [ ] If dismissed, checklist doesn't reappear (user preference saved)

**Story 2: Track checklist progress**
As a new user, I want to see my progress as I complete checklist steps, so I feel a sense of accomplishment.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user completes step 1, checkmark appears next to "Create project"
- [ ] Progress bar updates (1/3 → 2/3 → 3/3)
- [ ] Checklist persists across sessions (if user logs out and back in)

**Story 3: Celebrate checklist completion**
As a new user, I want to receive positive feedback when I complete the checklist, so I feel confident using the product.

**Acceptance Criteria:**
- [ ] When user completes all 3 steps, celebration modal appears
- [ ] Message: "You're all set! Here's what to do next: [suggested next actions]"
- [ ] Confetti animation (optional, nice-to-have)

4. Document Constraints & Edge Cases

  • Technical constraints: Platform limitations, browser support, etc.
  • Edge cases: What if user skips step 2? What if they complete steps out of order?

Outputs from Phase 7

  • Epic hypothesis: Testable statement
  • User stories: 3-10 stories with acceptance criteria
  • Constraints: Technical limitations, edge cases

Phase 8: Out of Scope & Dependencies (30 minutes)

Goal: Define what you're NOT building and what you depend on.

Activities

1. Document Out of Scope

  • Format: List features/requests explicitly excluded
  • Rationale: Why not building now?

Example:

## 8. Out of Scope

**Not included in this release:**
- **Advanced onboarding personalization** (e.g., different checklists per persona) — Adds complexity, test simple version first
- **Video tutorials embedded in checklist** — Resource-intensive, validate checklist concept first
- **Gamification (badges, points)** — Nice-to-have, focus on core workflow guidance

**Future consideration:**
- Mobile-optimized onboarding (desktop-first for now)

2. Document Dependencies

  • Technical dependencies: Platform upgrades, API changes required
  • External dependencies: Third-party integrations, partnerships
  • Team dependencies: Design handoff, data pipeline work

Example:

## 9. Dependencies & Risks

### Dependencies
- **Design:** Wireframes for checklist UI (ETA: Week 1)
- **Engineering:** No technical dependencies (uses existing modals framework)

### Risks & Mitigations
- **Risk:** Users dismiss checklist immediately, never see it
  - **Mitigation:** Track dismissal rate; if >50%, iterate on messaging or timing
- **Risk:** Checklist steps are too generic, don't resonate with all personas
  - **Mitigation:** Start with primary persona (Solo Entrepreneur Sam), personalize later

3. Document Open Questions

  • Unresolved decisions: Areas requiring discovery or discussion

Example:

## 10. Open Questions

- Should checklist be mandatory or optional? (Decision: Optional, dismissible)
- Should we A/B test checklist vs. no checklist? (Decision: Yes, show to 50% of new users)
- What happens if user completes steps out of order? (Decision: Allow any order, update checklist dynamically)

Outputs from Phase 8

  • Out of scope: What we're NOT building
  • Dependencies: What we need before starting
  • Risks: Potential blockers and mitigations
  • Open questions: Unresolved decisions

Complete Workflow: End-to-End Summary

Day 1:
├─ Phase 1: Executive Summary (30 min)
├─ Phase 2: Problem Statement (60 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md
├─ Phase 3: Target Users & Personas (30 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md
└─ Phase 4: Strategic Context (45 min)
   └─ Use: skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (optional)

Day 2:
├─ Phase 5: Solution Overview (60 min)
│  └─ Use: skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (optional)
├─ Phase 6: Success Metrics (30 min)
└─ Phase 7: User Stories & Requirements (90-120 min)
   ├─ Use: skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md
   ├─ Use: skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md
   └─ Use: skills/user-story/SKILL.md

Day 3:
├─ Phase 8: Out of Scope & Dependencies (30 min)
└─ Review & Refine (60 min)
   └─ Read full PRD, polish, get feedback

Day 4 (Optional):
└─ Stakeholder Review & Approval
   └─ Present PRD to stakeholders, incorporate feedback

Total Time Investment:

  • Fast track: 1.5-2 days (straightforward feature, clear requirements)
  • Typical: 2-3 days (includes discovery synthesis, stakeholder review)
  • Complex: 3-4 days (major initiative, multiple personas, extensive user stories)

Examples

See examples/sample.md for full PRD examples.

Mini example excerpt:

## 2. Problem Statement
- 60% of trial users drop off in first 24 hours
## 6. Success Metrics
- Activation rate: 40% → 60%

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall 1: PRD Written in Isolation

Symptom: PM writes PRD alone, presents finished doc to team

Consequence: No buy-in, team doesn't understand rationale

Fix: Collaborate on Phase 7 (user stories) with design + eng; review draft PRD before finalizing


Pitfall 2: No Evidence in Problem Statement

Symptom: "We believe users have this problem" (no data, no quotes)

Consequence: Team questions whether problem is real

Fix: Use discovery insights from skills/discovery-process/SKILL.md; include customer quotes, analytics, support tickets


Pitfall 3: Solution Too Prescriptive

Symptom: PRD specifies exact UI, pixel dimensions, button colors

Consequence: Removes design collaboration, becomes waterfall spec

Fix: Keep Phase 5 high-level; let design own UI details


Pitfall 4: No Success Metrics

Symptom: PRD defines problem + solution but no metrics

Consequence: Can't validate if feature succeeded

Fix: Always define primary metric in Phase 6 (what you're optimizing for)


Pitfall 5: Out of Scope Not Documented

Symptom: No section on what's NOT being built

Consequence: Scope creep, stakeholders expect features not planned

Fix: Explicitly document out of scope in Phase 8


References

Related Skills (Orchestrated by This Workflow)

Phase 2:

  • skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md (component)
  • skills/problem-framing-canvas/SKILL.md (interactive, for context)
  • skills/customer-journey-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 3:

  • skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md (component)
  • skills/jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md (component, optional)

Phase 4:

  • skills/tam-sam-som-calculator/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 5:

  • skills/user-story-mapping-workshop/SKILL.md (interactive, optional)

Phase 7:

  • skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md (component)
  • skills/epic-breakdown-advisor/SKILL.md (interactive)
  • skills/user-story/SKILL.md (component)

External Frameworks

  • Martin Eriksson, "How to Write a Good PRD" (2012) — PRD structure
  • Marty Cagan, *Inspired* (2017) — Product spec principles
  • Amazon, "Working Backwards" (PR/FAQ format) — Alternative to PRD

Dean's Work

  • [If Dean has PRD templates, link here]

Skill type: Workflow Suggested filename: prd-development.md Suggested placement: /skills/workflows/ Dependencies: Orchestrates 8+ component and interactive skills across 8 phases

平台分布

Codex

38.96%
按下载量换算4,320

Claude

29.46%
按下载量换算3,267

Cursor

19.08%
按下载量换算2,116

Gemini CLI

9.69%
按下载量换算1,074

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills