one-pager-prd

$npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/one-pager-prd

Drafts concise product specs to align stakeholders on key decisions.

  • Captures problem, solution, users, metrics, and constraints in one page.
  • Integrates with template resources for standardized one-pager formatting.
  • Decides format based on feature complexity and approval speed needs.
  • Delivers validated checklists and draft specifications for immediate review.

SKILL.md

.github/skills/one-pager-prdView on GitHub ↗
---
name: one-pager-prd
description: Creates concise, decision-ready product specifications (one-pagers and PRDs) that align stakeholders on problem, solution, users, success metrics, and constraints. Use when proposing new features/products, documenting product requirements, creating concise specs for stakeholder alignment, pitching initiatives, scoping projects before detailed design, capturing user stories and success metrics, or when user mentions one-pager, PRD, product spec, feature proposal, product requirements, or brief.
---

# One-Pager PRD

**When NOT to use:** Detailed technical design docs (use ADRs instead), comprehensive product strategy (too high-level for one-pager), user research synthesis (different format), post-launch retrospectives (use postmortem skill).

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
One-Pager PRD Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Gather context
- [ ] Step 2: Choose format
- [ ] Step 3: Draft one-pager
- [ ] Step 4: Validate quality
- [ ] Step 5: Review and iterate
```

**Step 1: Gather context**

Identify the problem (user pain, data supporting it), proposed solution (high-level approach), target users (personas, segments), success criteria (goals, metrics), and constraints (technical, business, timeline). See [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) for typical problem types.

**Step 2: Choose format**

For simple features needing quick approval → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) one-pager format (1 page, bullets). For complex features/products requiring detailed requirements → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) full PRD format (1-2 pages). For writing guidance and structure → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) for problem framing, metric definition, scope techniques.

**Step 3: Draft one-pager**

Create `one-pager-prd.md` with: problem statement (user pain + why now), solution overview (what we're building), user personas and use cases, goals with quantified metrics, in-scope flows and out-of-scope items, constraints and assumptions, open questions to resolve. Keep concise—1 page for one-pager, 1-2 for PRD.

**Step 4: Validate quality**

Self-assess using [resources/evaluators/rubric_one_pager_prd.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_one_pager_prd.json). Check: problem is specific and user-focused, solution is clear without being overly detailed, metrics are measurable and have targets, scope is realistic and boundaries clear, constraints acknowledged, open questions identified. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.

**Step 5: Review and iterate**

Share with stakeholders (PM, design, engineering, business). Gather feedback on problem framing, solution approach, scope boundaries, and success metrics. Iterate based on input. Get explicit sign-off before moving to detailed design/development.

## Common Patterns

### By Problem Type

**User Pain (Most Common):**
- **Pattern:** Users can't do X, causing friction Y
- **Example:** "Users can't search by multiple filters, forcing 10+ clicks to find items"
- **Validation:** User interviews, support tickets, analytics showing workarounds

**Competitive Gap:**
- **Pattern:** Competitor has feature, we don't, causing churn
- **Example:** "Competitors offer bulk actions. 20% of churned users cited this"
- **Validation:** Churn analysis, competitive analysis, win/loss interviews

**Strategic Opportunity:**
- **Pattern:** Market shift creates opening for new capability
- **Example:** "Remote work surge → need async collaboration features"
- **Validation:** Market research, early customer interest, trend analysis

**Technical Debt/Scalability:**
- **Pattern:** Current system doesn't scale, blocking growth
- **Example:** "Database queries timeout above 100K users. Growth blocked."
- **Validation:** Performance metrics, system capacity analysis

### By Solution Complexity

**Simple Feature (Weeks):**
- Clear requirements, minor scope
- Example: Add export to CSV button
- **One-Pager:** Problem, solution (1 sentence), metrics, constraints

**Medium Feature (Months):**
- Multiple user flows, some complexity
- Example: Commenting system with notifications
- **PRD:** Detailed flows, edge cases, phasing (MVP vs v2)

**Large Initiative (Quarters):**
- Cross-functional, strategic
- Example: Mobile app launch
- **Multi-Page PRD:** Break into phases, each with own one-pager

### By User Segment

**B2B SaaS:**
- Emphasize: ROI, admin controls, security, integrations
- Metrics: Adoption rate, time-to-value, NPS

**B2C Consumer:**
- Emphasize: Delight, ease of use, viral potential
- Metrics: Daily active users, retention curves, referrals

**Enterprise:**
- Emphasize: Compliance, customization, support
- Metrics: Deal size impact, deployment success, enterprise NPS

**Internal Tools:**
- Emphasize: Efficiency gains, adoption by teams
- Metrics: Time saved, task completion rate, employee satisfaction

## Guardrails

**Problem:**
- **Specific, not vague:** ❌ "Users want better search" → ✓ "Users abandon search after 3 failed queries (30% of sessions)"
- **User-focused:** Focus on user pain, not internal goals ("We want to increase engagement" is goal, not problem)
- **Validated:** Cite data (analytics, interviews, support tickets) not assumptions

**Solution:**
- **High-level, not over-specified:** Describe what, not how. Leave design/engineering latitude.
- **Falsifiable:** Clear enough that stakeholders can disagree or suggest alternatives
- **Scope-appropriate:** Don't design UI in one-pager. "Filter panel" not "Dropdown menu with checkbox multi-select"

**Metrics:**
- **Measurable:** Must be quantifiable. ❌ "Improve UX" → ✓ "Reduce time-to-complete from 5 min to 2 min"
- **Leading + Lagging:** Include both (leading: adoption rate, lagging: revenue impact)
- **Baselines + Targets:** Current state + goal. "Increase NPS from 40 to 55"

**Scope:**
- **Crisp boundaries:** Explicitly state what's in/out
- **MVP vs Future:** Separate must-haves from nice-to-haves
- **User flows:** Describe key happy path, edge cases

**Constraints:**
- **Realistic:** Acknowledge tech debt, dependencies, timeline limits
- **Trade-offs:** Explicit about what we're sacrificing (speed vs quality, features vs simplicity)

**Red Flags:**
- Solution looking for problem (built it because cool tech, not user need)
- Vague metrics (no baselines, no targets, no timeframes)
- Scope creep (everything is "must-have")
- No constraints mentioned (unrealistic optimism)
- No open questions (haven't thought deeply)

## Quick Reference

**Resources:**
- `resources/template.md` - One-pager and PRD templates with section guidance
- `resources/methodology.md` - Problem framing techniques, metric trees, scope prioritization, writing clarity
- `resources/evaluators/rubric_one_pager_prd.json` - Quality criteria

**Output:** `one-pager-prd.md` with problem, solution, users, goals/metrics, scope, constraints, open questions

**Success Criteria:**
- Problem is specific with validation (data/research)
- Solution is clear high-level approach (what, not how)
- Metrics are measurable with baselines + targets
- Scope has crisp in/out boundaries
- Constraints acknowledged
- Open questions identified
- Stakeholder sign-off obtained
- Score ≥ 3.5 on rubric

**Quick Decisions:**
- **Simple feature, quick approval?** → One-pager (1 page, bullets)
- **Complex feature, detailed handoff?** → Full PRD (1-2 pages)
- **Multiple phases?** → Separate one-pager per phase
- **Strategic initiative?** → Start with one-pager, expand to multi-page if needed

**Common Mistakes:**
1. Problem too vague ("improve experience")
2. Solution too detailed (specifying UI components)
3. No metrics or unmeasurable metrics
4. Scope creep (no "out of scope" section)
5. Ignoring constraints (unrealistic timelines)
6. No validation (assumptions not data)
7. Writing for yourself, not stakeholders

**Key Insight:**
Brevity forces clarity. If you can't explain it in 1-2 pages, you haven't thought it through. One-pager is thinking tool as much as communication tool.

**Format Tips:**
- Use bullets, not paragraphs (scannable)
- Lead with problem (earn the right to propose solution)
- Quantify everything possible (numbers > adjectives)
- Make scope boundaries explicit (prevent misunderstandings)
- Surface open questions (show you've thought deeply)

**Stakeholder Adaptation:**
- **For Execs:** Emphasize business impact, metrics, resource needs
- **For Engineering:** Technical constraints, dependencies, phasing
- **For Design:** User flows, personas, success criteria
- **For Sales/Marketing:** Competitive positioning, customer value, launch timing

More from lyndonkl/claude

SkillDescription
abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".