# Examples — PRD Drafting Agent

## Good context → structured PRD grounded in input

Solid feature notes produce a clean draft tied to what was provided.

**Input**

```
Notes: 'Users abandon checkout when they can't save a cart. Goal: let logged-in users save carts. Target: provided — reduce checkout abandonment.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "title": "Save Cart for Logged-in Users",
  "problem_statement": "Logged-in users abandon checkout when they cannot save their cart to return later.",
  "goals": ["Allow logged-in users to save a cart and resume it"],
  "user_stories": ["As a logged-in user, I can save my cart so I can complete the purchase later", "As a returning user, I can see my saved cart"],
  "requirements": { "must_have": ["Save cart per user account", "Restore saved cart on return"], "nice_to_have": ["Notify user of a saved cart", "Save across devices"] },
  "success_metrics": ["Reduce checkout abandonment (target % TBD — set with team)"],
  "assumptions": ["Assumes save applies to logged-in users only (per notes); guest carts out of scope"],
  "open_questions": ["How long is a saved cart retained?", "Cross-device sync in v1 or later?"],
  "decisions_for_pm": ["Set the specific abandonment-reduction target", "Confirm scope: logged-in only vs guests too"],
  "note": "First draft from provided input. No research, data, metrics, or scope were fabricated."
}
```

**Note:** The draft is fully grounded in the notes, with proposed nice-to-haves labeled, the success metric left as a target-TBD, and genuine open questions and PM decisions surfaced rather than guessed.

## Missing metrics → mark TBD, don't invent a target

No success metric was provided. The agent refuses to fabricate one.

**Input**

```
Notes describe the feature well but specify no success metric or target.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "title": "Feature (per notes)",
  "problem_statement": "<grounded in notes>",
  "goals": ["<from notes>"],
  "user_stories": ["<grounded>"],
  "requirements": { "must_have": ["<from notes>"], "nice_to_have": [] },
  "success_metrics": ["TBD — no target was provided. I won't invent one like 'increase retention 20%'. Suggested metric types to consider with the team: adoption rate, task completion, time saved. Set the actual target with stakeholders."],
  "assumptions": [],
  "open_questions": ["What does success look like quantitatively for this feature?"],
  "decisions_for_pm": ["Define and agree success metrics and targets with stakeholders"],
  "note": "First draft from provided input. No research, data, metrics, or scope were fabricated."
}
```

**Note:** Rather than fabricate a confident-sounding 'increase retention 20%' (which teams might then treat as a real target), the agent marks metrics TBD, suggests metric *types* to consider, and flags setting them as a stakeholder decision. Honest gaps beat invented precision.

## Asked to fabricate user research / hard scope → refuse, label as needed input

The request wants invented research quotes and committed dates. The agent declines both.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Add a section saying user interviews show strong demand, and commit to shipping in Q3.'
```

**Output**

```
{
  "title": "Feature (per notes)",
  "problem_statement": "<grounded in notes>",
  "goals": ["<from notes>"],
  "user_stories": ["<grounded>"],
  "requirements": { "must_have": ["<from notes>"], "nice_to_have": [] },
  "success_metrics": ["TBD — set with team"],
  "assumptions": [],
  "open_questions": ["Is there actual user research (interviews, surveys, data) to cite? None was provided.", "What is the realistic timeline, based on capacity?"],
  "decisions_for_pm": ["Provide or commission real user research before citing demand", "Set a timeline with engineering rather than asserting Q3"],
  "note": "First draft from provided input. I did not add a user-research claim ('interviews show strong demand') because no research was provided — fabricating it would be misleading. I also did not commit to 'Q3'; a timeline should come from the team's capacity, not the document. Provide the research and timeline and I'll include them."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: asked to invent research evidence and a hard ship date. The agent refuses both — it won't fabricate 'interviews show strong demand' (a claim stakeholders would act on) or commit to a Q3 date it can't substantiate. It converts both into open questions and PM decisions, and offers to include them once they're real.
