PRD Prompt Guide
This guide provides comprehensive prompts for Cursor agents to write refined, world-class Product Requirements Documents.
When to Use This Guide
Use these prompts when:
- Starting a new PRD from discovery notes, transcripts, or stakeholder interviews
- Refining an existing draft PRD for clarity and completeness
- Adding specific sections (technical architecture, data model, etc.)
What makes a world-class PRD:
- Specific pain points with quantified impact (time, money, effort)
- Clear staged milestones (POC → MVP → V1) with concrete deliverables
- Measurable success criteria
- Testable functional requirements
- Assumptions and open questions explicitly flagged
- No invented details—only facts from source materials
Pre-Flight Checklist
Before generating a PRD, gather these inputs:
| Input | Source | Required |
|---|---|---|
| Discovery notes or meeting transcripts | Client repo or knowledge/ | Yes |
| Stakeholder interviews or pain points | Meeting notes | Yes |
| Existing context (SOW, prior docs) | Client repo | If available |
| Technical constraints or preferences | SME input | If available |
| Target audience for the PRD | User clarification | Yes |
If inputs are missing: Ask for them before proceeding. Do not invent stakeholder names, metrics, or technical details.
PRD Generation Prompt
Use this prompt to generate a PRD from discovery materials:
You are a technical product writer creating a PRD for Brainforge.
ROLE:
- Write with precision and clarity
- Balance product thinking with engineering feasibility
- Focus on what we know, flag what we don't
INPUTS PROVIDED:
- Discovery notes, transcripts, or stakeholder interviews
- Any existing context (SOW, prior docs, client materials)
- Target audience for this PRD
TEMPLATE STRUCTURE (follow this order):
1. TL;DR (3 sentences max: what, why, expected outcome)
2. Summary (what this PRD is about, why it exists)
3. Background and Context (problem context, what led here)
4. Problem and Value (specific pain, cost of inaction, stakeholder value table)
5. Goals and Non-Goals (what we will and won't do)
6. Staged Milestones (POC, MVP, V1 with scope and success criteria)
7. Users and Use Cases (primary users, user flow, key use cases)
8. Functional Requirements (inputs, processing, outputs, workflow logic)
9. Technical Approach (architecture, components, data model, APIs)
10. Assumptions (numbered, with risk if wrong)
11. Open Questions (with owner, needed-by date, status)
12. Tradeoffs (decisions with alternatives considered)
13. Success Metrics (measurable targets with measurement method)
14. Dependencies (technical, external, team)
15. Risks and Mitigations (likelihood, impact, mitigation strategy)
16. Timeline Summary (phase, scope, duration, status)
17. References (links to source materials)
QUALITY STANDARDS:
Problem Statements:
- Quantify pain: "Brokers spend 2-7 days gathering information per submission"
- Name specific inefficiencies: "Manual pre-filling of 9+ page supplementary forms"
- State cost of inaction: "Revenue per head constrained; independents fail due to service capacity"
Stakeholder Value:
- Use tables with specific benefits per role
- Example:
| Stakeholder | Value |
|-------------|-------|
| Brokers | Cut submission time from 1 week to ≤1 day |
| CSRs | Reduce manual data entry by 50%+ |
Staged Milestones:
- POC: Validate core technical assumption (minimal deliverables, clear success gate)
- MVP: End-to-end functionality for limited scope (numbered features, explicit exclusions)
- V1: Production scale (additions to MVP, production-grade metrics)
- Mark timelines as "[TBD, needs technical review]" if not confirmed
User Flows:
- Number each step: "1. Create new submission → 2. Upload documents → 3. System generates profile"
- Identify the primary user explicitly
Technical Approach:
- Include architecture diagram (ASCII or description)
- List components with technology choices and notes
- Provide simplified data model (SQL or schema description)
- Document key API endpoints if relevant
Success Metrics:
- Every metric must be measurable
- Include target value AND measurement method
- Example: "Time from intake → ready-to-submit | ≤1 day | Timestamp comparison"
Open Questions:
- Assign an owner to every question
- Set a "needed by" date or phase
- Track status (Open/Resolved)
CONSTRAINTS:
- Do NOT invent stakeholder names, metrics, or technical details not in source materials
- Do NOT over-specify timelines without technical input
- Do NOT omit Non-Goals (critical for scope control)
- Flag uncertainty explicitly: "Assumption: X. Risk if wrong: Y."
OUTPUT:
A complete PRD following the template structure, ready for stakeholder review.
PRD Refinement Prompt
Use this prompt to improve an existing draft:
You are refining an existing PRD draft for clarity, completeness, and accuracy.
REVIEW CHECKLIST:
1. Hallucination Guard
- Are all stakeholder names from source materials?
- Are all metrics based on real data or explicitly flagged as estimates?
- Are technical choices grounded in discovery or marked as recommendations?
2. Specificity Check
- Replace vague language with concrete details:
- "Reduce time" → "Reduce from X days to Y days"
- "Improve efficiency" → "Cut manual data entry by 50%"
- "Multiple forms" → "9+ page supplementary forms"
- Quantify wherever possible
3. Testable Requirements
- Can each functional requirement be verified as done/not done?
- Are acceptance criteria implicit or explicit?
4. Assumption Coverage
- Is every assumption numbered?
- Does each assumption state "Risk if wrong"?
- Are critical assumptions near the top?
5. Tradeoffs Documentation
- Are key decisions documented with alternatives?
- Does each tradeoff show pros, cons, and effort?
- Is the chosen option clearly marked with rationale?
6. Scope Clarity
- Are Non-Goals explicit and complete?
- Is MVP scope distinct from V1 scope?
- Are "Not in MVP" items listed?
7. Actionability
- Do open questions have owners?
- Are timelines marked TBD if not technically reviewed?
- Are dependencies categorized (Technical, External, Team)?
REFINEMENT ACTIONS:
- Strengthen weak sections (add specificity, quantify impact)
- Flag invented or assumed details for verification
- Ensure all sections from template are present
- Verify internal consistency (goals match success metrics match scope)
- Add missing tables where appropriate (stakeholder value, risks, dependencies)
OUTPUT:
Refined PRD with tracked changes or clear notes on what was modified.
Section-Specific Prompts
Add Technical Architecture
Add a Technical Approach section to this PRD.
Include:
1. Architecture Overview (ASCII diagram or clear description)
2. Key Components table:
| Component | Technology | Notes |
|-----------|------------|-------|
3. Data Model (simplified SQL schema or entity descriptions)
4. API Endpoints table (if relevant):
| Method | Endpoint | Purpose |
|--------|----------|---------|
Base technical choices on:
- Discovery notes and stakeholder preferences
- Existing tech stack mentioned in context
- Standard Brainforge patterns (Supabase, Next.js, etc.)
Mark uncertain choices as "[Recommended, pending technical review]"
Add Success Metrics
Add a Success Metrics section to this PRD.
For each metric include:
| Metric | Target | How Measured |
|--------|--------|--------------|
Categories to cover:
- Adoption (usage, activation)
- Efficiency (time saved, automation rate)
- Quality (accuracy, error rates, user satisfaction)
- Business (revenue impact, cost reduction)
Rules:
- Every metric must have a measurable target
- Every metric must have a measurement method
- Avoid vanity metrics—focus on outcomes that matter to stakeholders
Add Staged Milestones
Add Staged Milestones to this PRD with POC, MVP, and V1 phases.
For each phase include:
- Goal (one sentence)
- Scope (checkbox list of deliverables)
- Success Criteria (measurable gate to proceed)
- Timeline ([TBD, needs technical review] unless confirmed)
POC should:
- Validate core technical assumption
- Be minimal (1-3 deliverables)
- Have a clear "proceed/pivot" gate
MVP should:
- Deliver end-to-end functionality for limited scope
- List explicit exclusions ("Not in MVP")
- Target 1-3 pilot users or use cases
V1 should:
- Scale to full production use
- List additions beyond MVP
- Include production-grade success criteria
Quality Checklist
Before finalizing, verify:
| Check | Question |
|---|---|
| TL;DR | Does it fit in 3 sentences? |
| Problem | Is pain quantified (time, money, effort)? |
| Goals | Are non-goals explicit? |
| Milestones | Are timelines marked TBD if not reviewed? |
| Requirements | Can each be verified as done/not done? |
| Metrics | Is every success criterion measurable? |
| Questions | Does every open question have an owner? |
| Assumptions | Does each state risk if wrong? |
| Data Model | Does it support the stated requirements? |
| References | Are source materials linked? |
Common Pitfalls
| Pitfall | Why It’s Bad | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Inventing stakeholder names | Erodes trust, causes confusion | Only use names from source materials |
| Over-specifying timelines | Creates false commitments | Mark “[TBD, needs technical review]“ |
| Missing non-goals | Scope creep, misaligned expectations | Always include explicit non-goals |
| Vague success criteria | Can’t measure success | Quantify: “from X to Y” |
| Skipping tradeoffs | Decisions look arbitrary | Document alternatives considered |
| Copy-paste from templates | Generic, not tailored | Customize every section to the project |
Usage Examples
Generate a Full PRD
Generate a PRD from this discovery transcript using the PRD Generation Prompt.
Context:
- Client: [Name]
- Discovery source: [transcript/notes path]
- Audience: [technical team / stakeholders / both]
Refine an Existing Draft
Refine this PRD draft using the PRD Refinement Prompt.
Focus areas:
- [ ] Strengthen problem quantification
- [ ] Add missing non-goals
- [ ] Ensure all open questions have owners
Add a Specific Section
Add the Technical Approach section to this PRD.
Constraints:
- Use [Supabase/existing stack] as the database
- Follow [client's] existing architecture patterns
- Mark uncertain choices as recommendations
References
- Template:
standards/02-writing/PRDs/prd-template.md - Example:
standards/02-writing/PRDs/examples/prd-contextual-ai.md - Review Guide:
standards/04-prompts/review/review-prompts.md - Checklist:
standards/02-writing/PRDs/prd-checklist.md