Free PRD Template & Generator

A Product Requirements Document (PRD) is a comprehensive document that outlines what a product or feature should do, who it's for, and how success will be measured. It serves as the single source of truth that aligns engineering, design, and business stakeholders on what's being built.

Unlike technical specifications that focus on how something will be built, PRDs focus on whatand why. They define the problem space, user needs, functional requirements, and success metrics without prescribing specific technical implementations. This gives engineering teams the flexibility to find the best solution while ensuring everyone agrees on the desired outcome.

PRDs originated in traditional waterfall development but have evolved significantly for agile teams. Modern PRDs are living documents that get refined as the team learns more. They're typically written by product managers but require input from engineering, design, data science, and other stakeholders to be comprehensive.

A well-structured PRD includes several key sections that together provide complete context for building a feature:

Problem Statement: This is arguably the most important section. It clearly articulates the user pain point or business opportunity you're addressing. A good problem statement is specific, measurable, and grounded in user research. Avoid solution-oriented problem statements like "Users need a button to export data" and instead focus on the underlying need: "Users struggle to share insights with stakeholders who don't have product access."

Goals & Success Metrics: Define what success looks like with measurable outcomes. Use the SMART framework: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. For example: "Increase weekly active users by 15% within 3 months of launch" is better than "Improve user engagement."

User Stories: Written from the user's perspective using the format "As a [persona], I want to [action], so that [benefit]." Good user stories are independent, negotiable, valuable, estimable, small, and testable (INVEST criteria). They help engineering understand the "why" behind each requirement.

Functional Requirements: Specific behaviors the system must exhibit. Use MoSCoW prioritization (Must have, Should have, Could have, Won't have) to help engineering understand what's essential for MVP vs. nice-to-have. Each requirement should be testable and unambiguous.

Out of Scope: Explicitly listing what you're NOT building is just as important as listing what you are. This prevents scope creep and sets clear expectations. Include features that stakeholders might assume are included but aren't.

Product teams often confuse PRDs with related documents. Here's how they differ:

MRD (Market Requirements Document): Focuses on the market opportunity and business case. MRDs answer "Why should we build this?" from a market perspective. They include market size, competitive analysis, target segments, and business model considerations. MRDs typically precede PRDs and help prioritize which products to build.

PRD (Product Requirements Document): Defines what the product should do to address the opportunity identified in the MRD. PRDs bridge the gap between business strategy and technical implementation. They're specific enough to guide engineering but flexible enough to allow for technical creativity.

BRD (Business Requirements Document): Often used interchangeably with MRD, but typically more focused on specific business outcomes and stakeholder needs. BRDs may include ROI projections, compliance requirements, and operational considerations that don't fit neatly into a PRD.

Technical Spec / Design Doc: Written by engineering after the PRD. These documents detail how the system will work: architecture decisions, API designs, data models, and implementation approaches. The PRD informs the tech spec, not the other way around.

In practice, many agile teams combine elements of these documents into a single, lightweight PRD that covers the essential context without excessive ceremony. The goal is alignment, not documentation for its own sake.

Even experienced product managers make these PRD mistakes:

Writing solutions instead of requirements: "Add a blue button in the top right corner" is a solution. "Users need a prominent way to complete the primary action" is a requirement. Let design and engineering determine the best implementation.

Skipping the problem statement: Teams often jump straight to features without clearly articulating the problem. This leads to building the wrong thing efficiently. Spend 20% of your PRD effort on the problem statement alone.

No success metrics: Without measurable goals, you can't know if the feature succeeded. Define metrics before launch, not after. Include both leading indicators (feature adoption) and lagging indicators (revenue impact, retention).

Treating PRDs as contracts: PRDs should be living documents that evolve as you learn. Waterfall-style PRDs that "lock in" requirements before any engineering begins often lead to building the wrong thing. Plan for iteration.

Writing in isolation: The best PRDs are collaborative. Get input from engineering (technical feasibility), design (user experience), data (measurement), and stakeholders (business alignment) before finalizing. A PRD nobody contributed to is a PRD nobody will follow.

Too much detail too early: Start with a 1-pager for alignment, then expand as needed. A 30-page PRD written before any exploration is likely to be wrong in important ways. Match your PRD detail level to your confidence level.