The email that changed my career arrived at 2:47 PM on a Tuesday.
Subject: "FWD: FWD: FWD: Regarding the dashboard feature"
The forwarded chain was 47 messages deep. Three engineering teams had spent six weeks building something that stakeholders in four different companies thought they wanted. The product manager who'd written the requirements had left for another job. And nobody—not a single person—could explain what problem we were actually solving.
Six weeks of work. Millions of dollars. A complete waste.
That night, I wrote my first PRD that actually worked. It wasn't pretty. It was 12 pages of raw, honest communication about what we were building, why it mattered, and how we'd know if we'd succeeded.
Three weeks later, the feature launched on time. Engineering told me it was the easiest spec they'd ever implemented. And the CEO actually understood what we were building.
Since then, I've written—and reviewed—hundreds of product requirements documents. I've seen what separates the specs that ship from the ones that get stuck in endless revision cycles. This guide shares everything I've learned.
The PRD That Saved a Company
Let me tell you about a startup I worked with in 2022. They had raised $8 million, built a beautiful product, and had a team of 12 engineers. Yet they hadn't shipped a meaningful feature in eight months.
Every two weeks, they'd start something new. Every two weeks, they'd pivot. Engineers were burned out. Morale was rock bottom. The board was furious.
The problem wasn't talent. The problem was communication.
Each "feature spec" was a paragraph in Slack. "Hey, can we add a way for users to see their activity history?" That's it. No context. No success criteria. No edge cases.
I introduced a simple PRD template. Nothing fancy—just a structured document that answered the key questions.
Within six weeks, they shipped their first major feature in months. Within six months, they hit the milestone that unlocked their next funding round.
A well-written PRD isn't bureaucracy. It's a tool for alignment. And it might be the most undervalued skill in product management.
What a PRD Actually Is
A PRD is not a specification. It's not a contract. It's not a wish list.
A PRD is a conversation starter that aligns understanding and documents decisions.
The purpose: Get everyone—engineers, designers, stakeholders—on the same page about what you're building and why.
The outcome: Engineers can make confident decisions without constant clarification. Designers know what UX patterns to use. Stakeholders understand what's being built. And you, as a PM, have a reference point when priorities shift.
The best PRDs make themselves obsolete. You write them at the beginning, and by the time you're done, everyone already knows what needs to happen.
The Anatomy of a PRD That Engineers Actually Read
I've read thousands of PRDs. The ones that get ignored share a common trait: they're written for management, not for the people doing the work.
The PRDs that get read—the ones that actually influence how features get built—have a different structure.
The Opening Hook
Skip the corporate theater. Don't start with "Executive Summary" or "Business Justification."
Start with the problem.
Bad opening: "Feature Request: Activity Dashboard This feature will provide users with visibility into their account activity."
Good opening: "Users are abandoning their accounts at a rate of 8% per month. Exit surveys consistently point to the same reason: they don't understand what's happening with their data. They log in, see nothing familiar, and leave. The Activity Dashboard solves this by showing users the meaningful events in their account—automations that ran, integrations that synced, tasks that completed."
See the difference? The second version tells you exactly what problem we're solving and why it matters.
The Context Section
Before you describe what you're building, explain the context.
Answer these questions:
- Who is this feature for?
- What problem does it solve?
- Why now? (What's changed that makes this the right time?)
- What happens if we don't build this?
Here's a template that works:
## Context
**User Segment:** [Who is this for?]
**Problem:** [What problem are they experiencing?]
**Evidence:** [What data, customer interviews, or research supports this problem exists?]
**Why Now:** [What changed that makes this the right time to solve this?]
**Consequence of Inaction:** [What happens if we don't build this?]
Real example from a B2B SaaS company:
User Segment: Admins at mid-market companies (50-500 employees)
Problem: IT teams spend 20+ hours monthly manually auditing user access and permissions. They're considering replacing our tool because of this administrative burden.
Evidence: Support tickets about "how do I see who has access" are our #2 category. 15 enterprise deals lost last quarter specifically cited "administrative overhead" as a reason.
Why Now: Our SSO integration is nearly complete. Building User Management now means we can leverage the same auth infrastructure.
Consequence of Inaction: We'll continue losing enterprise deals to competitors with better admin capabilities. The administrative burden will also increase support costs indefinitely.
This level of context gives engineers the full picture. They can make better technical decisions when they understand the business impact.
Goals and Success Metrics
This is where most PRDs fail. They describe features instead of outcomes.
The mistake:
Success Criteria:
- Dashboard loads in under 2 seconds
- Users can see activity from the past 90 days
- UI matches the Figma design
The better approach:
## Goals
**Primary Goal:** Increase account retention by reducing abandonment due to "confusion about account status"
**Secondary Goals:**
- Reduce support tickets about "what's happening with my account" by 50%
- Increase admin NPS by 10 points (from baseline of 32)
## Success Metrics
<div className="overflow-x-auto">
<table className="min-w-full border-collapse border border-gray-300">
<thead>
<tr className="bg-gray-100">
<th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">
Metric
</th>
<th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">
Current State
</th>
<th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">
Target State
</th>
<th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">
Timeframe
</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 font-medium">
Account abandonment rate
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
8% monthly
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
5% monthly
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
90 days post-launch
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 font-medium">
Support tickets about account status
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
150/month
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
75/month
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
60 days post-launch
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 font-medium">
Admin NPS
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
32
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
42+
</td>
<td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">
90 days post-launch
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
## How We'll Measure
- Track feature adoption (% of users who view dashboard within 7 days of login)
- A/B test the feature against control group, measure retention difference
- Monitor support ticket volume and categorize for "account status" issues
- Survey admins who use the feature (NPS follow-up)
Notice the difference? The first version describes what we're building. The second version describes what we're trying to achieve—and gives specific, measurable targets.
User Stories That Actually Help
User stories are like the ingredients in a recipe. You need the right ones, in the right quantity, to make something delicious.
The formula: "As a [type of user], I want to [goal] so that [benefit]."
The problem with most user stories:
As a user, I want to see my activity history so that I can track my progress.
As an admin, I want to manage user permissions so that I can control access.
As a viewer, I want to export data so that I can share reports.
These stories are too vague. They don't tell engineers what to build.
The better approach: Specific, Scoped Stories
## User Stories
### Story 1: View Recent Activity (Must Have)
**As a** user who has logged into their account at least once
**I want to** see a list of my recent account activity (automations, syncs, completions)
**So that** I can quickly understand what's been happening with my account without contacting support
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- Activity appears in reverse chronological order
- Shows up to 30 days of history
- Each activity item shows: timestamp, type (automation/sync/task), status (success/failed), and one-line summary
- Activity loads within 2 seconds of page load
- Empty state shows friendly message explaining what will appear once activity occurs
**Edge Cases:**
- Failed activities are highlighted in red with error summary
- Activities older than 30 days are not shown (and user can click "view older" for archive)
- If no activities exist, show empty state with illustration
---
### Story 2: Filter Activity by Type (Should Have)
**As a** user with many automations
**I want to** filter my activity by type (automations, syncs, tasks)
**So that** I can quickly find specific activity without scrolling through everything
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- Filter bar with toggle buttons for each activity type
- Multiple filters can be active simultaneously
- Active filters are visually indicated
- Filter state persists across page navigation
---
### Story 3: Admin Access Audit (Nice to Have)
**As an** admin at a company with 50+ users
**I want to** see a log of user access and permission changes
**So that** I can audit who changed what and when, for security and compliance
**Acceptance Criteria:**
- Separate "Audit Log" section in the activity dashboard
- Shows: timestamp, user who made change, old value → new value
- Filterable by user, date range, change type
- Exportable to CSV for compliance reporting
Each story has:
- Clear user type
- Specific goal
- Business reason (so that...)
- Detailed acceptance criteria
- Explicit edge cases
This is what engineers need. Not vague wishes—specific, testable requirements.
The UX Section
Don't just link to Figma. Annotate your designs.
For each screen or component, explain:
- What state is shown (empty, loading, error, success)
- What interactions are possible
- What happens on edge cases
- How it connects to other parts of the product
Example annotation:
## Dashboard UI Annotations
### Main Activity List
**States:**
1. **Loading:** Show skeleton cards matching the activity card design. Same height as real cards.
2. **Empty:** Show illustrated empty state with headline "Your account is quiet" and subtext "Once you run automations or complete tasks, they'll appear here."
3. **With Content:** List of activity cards, most recent first. Infinite scroll for more than 20 items.
4. **Error:** "Something went wrong loading your activity. [Retry]" button.
**Activity Card Design Notes:**
- Icon for activity type: Automation (⚡), Sync (🔄), Task (✓)
- Success state: Green accent, checkmark icon
- Failed state: Red accent, warning icon, error summary on hover
- Time format: "Just now" (<1 min), "X minutes ago" (<1 hour), "Today at 3:45 PM" (today), "Nov 15 at 2:30 PM" (older)
**Interactive Elements:**
- Click activity → Navigate to activity detail view
- Hover over activity → Show tooltip with full details
- Failed activities: Click → Open error details modal with full stack trace (for technical users)
**Connected Flows:**
- "View older" → Activity archive page
- Failed activities → Retry modal or support link
The more specific you are, the fewer design gaps and engineering questions you'll have later.
Technical Considerations
This section is often neglected, but it's critical for preventing downstream problems.
What to include:
- Dependencies (other features, APIs, services)
- Technical constraints (performance, security, scalability)
- Data requirements (what data is needed, where it comes from)
- Integration points (what other systems does this touch)
- Migration needs (does existing data need to be migrated?)
Example:
## Technical Considerations
### Dependencies
- **User Authentication:** Requires SSO integration (shipped in Sprint 23)
- **Activity Tracking Service:** Need to implement event tracking for automation runs and task completions (requires backend work)
- **Notification Service:** May need to send activity digests if user opts in
### Technical Constraints
- **Performance:** Dashboard must load within 2 seconds for users with up to 10,000 activities
- **Security:** Activity data is visible only to the user who owns it or admins (role-based access)
- **Scalability:** Activity table expected to grow 50% monthly; plan for pagination and archival
### Data Requirements
**New Tables Needed:**
- `activities` - Main activity log
- `activity_types` - Metadata about activity types
- `activity_archives` - Historical activities older than 30 days
**Data Migration:**
- No existing data migration needed (this is a new feature)
- Archive strategy: Move activities older than 90 days to cold storage
### Integration Points
- **Frontend:** Dashboard React components
- **Backend:** New Activity API endpoints
- **Events:** Existing event bus for triggering activity creation
- **Notifications:** Optional: activity digest emails
This section does two things:
- Helps engineers identify technical challenges early
- Makes sure nothing falls through the cracks (like the archival strategy that often gets forgotten)
Out of Scope (Crucial Section)
One of the most powerful things you can do in a PRD is clearly state what you're NOT building.
Example:
## Out of Scope
The following features are NOT included in this release but may be considered for future iterations:
### Not Included
- **Real-time activity updates:** Activity will show as of last page refresh; WebSocket updates may come later
- **Custom activity types:** Users cannot create their own activity categories
- **Bulk actions on activities:** No bulk delete, archive, or export in V1
- **Activity notifications:** Email/digest notifications not in scope
- **Integration with external tools:** Activity cannot be pushed to Slack, Teams, etc. in V1
- **Activity search:** Full-text search across activities not included
### Why These Are Out of Scope
These features would significantly extend the timeline and introduce additional complexity. The core value proposition (reducing abandonment by showing activity) is achieved with the features listed in scope.
### Future Considerations
We'll gather user feedback after V1 launch to prioritize these potential enhancements.
This section:
- Prevents scope creep during development
- Sets clear expectations with stakeholders
- Gives engineers permission to say "that's out of scope"
- Creates a backlog of potential enhancements
Open Questions
Acknowledge what you don't know.
Example:
## Open Questions
We need input from engineering on these questions:
1. **Pagination strategy:** Cursor-based pagination (recommended) or offset-based? What fields should the cursor use?
2. **Error handling for failed activities:** Should failed automations automatically retry? What retry logic makes sense?
3. **Data retention:** Is 90-day retention reasonable? What about companies with millions of activities?
4. **Performance limits:** What's a reasonable maximum number of activities to return in a single query?
**Action Items:**
- Engineering to review and provide recommendations by [DATE]
- PM to update PRD based on engineering feedback
Showing your unknowns doesn't make you look weak. It makes you look thoughtful. And it ensures these questions get answered before they become problems.
Timeline and Milestones
Be realistic about when things will ship.
Example:
## Timeline
### Phase 1: Foundation (Sprint 1-2)
- Activity tracking service implementation
- Database schema creation and migration
- Basic activity API endpoints
**Milestone:** Activity data is being tracked and stored
### Phase 2: User-Facing Features (Sprint 3-4)
- Dashboard UI implementation
- Activity list with filtering
- Activity detail views
**Milestone:** Users can view their activity history
### Phase 3: Admin Features (Sprint 5)
- Admin audit log
- Export functionality
**Milestone:** Admins have visibility into team activity
### Launch Criteria
- All acceptance criteria met
- Performance testing complete (< 2s load time)
- Security review passed
- QA sign-off
- Documentation complete
- Monitoring and alerting configured
A realistic timeline helps everyone plan. And milestone-based tracking lets you measure progress objectively.
A PRD Template You Can Actually Use
Here's a complete template that combines everything we've discussed:
markdown---title: "[Feature Name]"date: [YYYY-MM-DD]author: [Your Name]status: [Draft/In Review/Approved]---## Problem Statement[2-3 paragraphs describing the problem this feature solves. Include:- Who is affected- What evidence you have that this is a real problem- Why now is the right time to solve it]## Goals**Primary Goal:**[One sentence describing the main outcome we're trying to achieve]**Secondary Goals:**- [Goal 2]- [Goal 3]## Success Metrics<div className="overflow-x-auto"><table className="min-w-full border-collapse border border-gray-300"><thead><tr className="bg-gray-100"><th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">Metric</th><th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">Current</th><th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">Target</th><th className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 text-left">Timeframe</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3 font-medium">[Metric 1]</td><td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">[Current value]</td><td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">[Target value]</td><td className="border border-gray-300 px-4 py-3">[When to measure]</td></tr></tbody></table></div>## User Stories### [Story Title]**As a** [user type]**I want to** [specific action]**So that** [benefit/outcome]**Acceptance Criteria:**- [Criterion 1]- [Criterion 2]**Edge Cases:**- [Edge case 1]- [Edge case 2]---### [Another Story]...## UX Requirements[Links to designs, plus annotations for:- States (loading, empty, error, success)- Interactions- Connected flows]## Technical Considerations### Dependencies- [Dependency 1]- [Dependency 2]### Constraints- [Constraint 1]- [Constraint 2]### Data Requirements- [Data need 1]- [Data need 2]## Out of Scope- [Item 1]- [Item 2]## Open Questions1. [Question 1]2. [Question 2]## Timeline### Phase 1: [Name] ([Dates])- [Deliverable 1]- [Deliverable 2]### Phase 2: [Name] ([Dates])- [Deliverable 1]- [Deliverable 2]## Approval- Product: [Name] - [Date]- Design: [Name] - [Date]- Engineering: [Name] - [Date]- stakeholders: [Name] - [Date]
The Review Process
A PRD is not done when you finish writing. It's done when it's reviewed and approved.
Who should review:
- Engineering lead: Technical feasibility, dependencies, timeline
- Designer: UX consistency, edge cases, accessibility
- Data analyst: Metrics, measurement approach
- Customer success: Customer impact, support implications
- Legal/compliance (if applicable): Regulatory requirements
Review questions:
- For engineering: "Can you build this? What will be hard? What am I missing?"
- For design: "Are there edge cases I haven't considered? Is the UX consistent with our patterns?"
- For data: "Are these metrics measurable? Do we have the instrumentation we need?"
Approval workflow:
- Write PRD (draft status)
- Share with reviewers for feedback
- Address comments, update PRD
- Get explicit approval from each reviewer
- Change status to "Approved"
- Link PRD in project management tool
Common PRD Mistakes (And How to Avoid Them)
Mistake #1: Writing for Your Manager
Your PRD is for engineers and designers, not for executives. Write for the people who are building.
Mistake #2: Being Too Vague
"Users should be able to manage their settings" is not a requirement. "Users can update their notification preferences from the settings page, with changes taking effect immediately" is.
Mistake #3: Ignoring Edge Cases
What happens when:
- The API fails?
- The user has no data?
- The network is slow?
- Two users edit at the same time?
The best PRDs anticipate these scenarios.
Mistake #4: No Success Criteria
How will you know if you've succeeded? Without measurable criteria, the feature is never done.
Mistake #5: Inflexible Requirements
Your understanding will change as you build. Be open to feedback and iteration. A PRD is a starting point, not a contract.
The Most Important Thing
The best PRD is the one that gets read.
Write clearly. Be specific. Focus on outcomes, not features. And always, always explain why what you're building matters.
A well-written PRD does more than specify requirements—it builds alignment, prevents wasted work, and helps your team ship faster.
Related Reading
- Product Roadmaps Best Practices - Connecting PRDs to your roadmap
- User Onboarding Complete Guide - Onboarding that works
- Product-Market Fit Framework - Validating before you build
Need help writing PRDs that get results?
At Startupbricks, we've helped dozens of startups improve their product documentation and ship faster. We know what works, how to collaborate with engineers, and how to turn requirements into features.
Let's talk about improving your product development process.