ホーム/プロダクト/product-capability
P

product-capability

by @affaan-mv
4.3(9)

製品要件を明確なエンジニアリング制約リストに自動変換。曖昧な製品意図から実行可能な技術仕様を生成し、要件理解のずれを減らします。

product-managementrequirements-engineeringtechnical-specificationsproduct-strategyGitHub
インストール方法
npx skills add affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill product-capability
compare_arrows

Before / After 効果比較

1
使用前

プロダクトマネージャーが曖昧な要件を提出し、開発チームは技術仕様を明確にするために複数回の会議で議論する必要があります。1つの機能要件の明確化に2-3時間かかり、繰り返し確認しても境界条件を見落とす可能性があります。

使用後

製品の意図記述を入力すると、性能指標、互換性要件、セキュリティ基準などを含む完全なエンジニアリング制約リストが自動生成され、15分で開発を直接指導できる技術仕様が出力されます。

SKILL.md

product-capability

Product Capability

This skill turns product intent into explicit engineering constraints.

Use it when the gap is not "what should we build?" but "what exactly must be true before implementation starts?"

When to Use

  • A PRD, roadmap item, discussion, or founder note exists, but the implementation constraints are still implicit

  • A feature crosses multiple services, repos, or teams and needs a capability contract before coding

  • Product intent is clear, but architecture, data, lifecycle, or policy implications are still fuzzy

  • Senior engineers keep restating the same hidden assumptions during review

  • You need a reusable artifact that can survive across harnesses and sessions

Canonical Artifact

If the repo has a durable product-context file such as PRODUCT.md, docs/product/, or a program-spec directory, update it there.

If no capability manifest exists yet, create one using the template at:

  • docs/examples/product-capability-template.md

The goal is not to create another planning stack. The goal is to make hidden capability constraints durable and reusable.

Non-Negotiable Rules

  • Do not invent product truth. Mark unresolved questions explicitly.

  • Separate user-visible promises from implementation details.

  • Call out what is fixed policy, what is architecture preference, and what is still open.

  • If the request conflicts with existing repo constraints, say so clearly instead of smoothing it over.

  • Prefer one reusable capability artifact over scattered ad hoc notes.

Inputs

Read only what is needed:

  • Product intent

issue, discussion, PRD, roadmap note, founder message

  • Current architecture

relevant repo docs, contracts, schemas, routes, existing workflows

  • Existing capability context

PRODUCT.md, design docs, RFCs, migration notes, operating-model docs

  • Delivery constraints

auth, billing, compliance, rollout, backwards compatibility, performance, review policy

Core Workflow

1. Restate the capability

Compress the ask into one precise statement:

  • who the user or operator is

  • what new capability exists after this ships

  • what outcome changes because of it

If this statement is weak, the implementation will drift.

2. Resolve capability constraints

Extract the constraints that must hold before implementation:

  • business rules

  • scope boundaries

  • invariants

  • trust boundaries

  • data ownership

  • lifecycle transitions

  • rollout / migration requirements

  • failure and recovery expectations

These are the things that often live only in senior-engineer memory.

3. Define the implementation-facing contract

Produce an SRS-style capability plan with:

  • capability summary

  • explicit non-goals

  • actors and surfaces

  • required states and transitions

  • interfaces / inputs / outputs

  • data model implications

  • security / billing / policy constraints

  • observability and operator requirements

  • open questions blocking implementation

4. Translate into execution

End with the exact handoff:

  • ready for direct implementation

  • needs architecture review first

  • needs product clarification first

If useful, point to the next ECC-native lane:

  • project-flow-ops

  • workspace-surface-audit

  • api-connector-builder

  • dashboard-builder

  • tdd-workflow

  • verification-loop

Output Format

Return the result in this order:

CAPABILITY
- one-paragraph restatement

CONSTRAINTS
- fixed rules, invariants, and boundaries

IMPLEMENTATION CONTRACT
- actors
- surfaces
- states and transitions
- interface/data implications

NON-GOALS
- what this lane explicitly does not own

OPEN QUESTIONS
- blockers or product decisions still required

HANDOFF
- what should happen next and which ECC lane should take it

Good Outcomes

  • Product intent is now concrete enough to implement without rediscovering hidden constraints mid-PR.

  • Engineering review has a durable artifact instead of relying on memory or Slack context.

  • The resulting plan is reusable across Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, OpenCode, and ECC 2.0 planning surfaces.

Weekly Installs478Repositoryaffaan-m/everyt…ude-codeGitHub Stars156.2KFirst Seen9 days agoSecurity AuditsGen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykPassInstalled oncodex449opencode433gemini-cli431kimi-cli430amp430cline430

ユーザーレビュー (0)

レビューを書く

効果
使いやすさ
ドキュメント
互換性

レビューなし

統計データ

インストール数2.5K
評価4.3 / 5.0
バージョン
更新日2026年5月22日
比較事例1 件

ユーザー評価

4.3(9)
5
56%
4
33%
3
11%
2
0%
1
0%

この Skill を評価

0.0

対応プラットフォーム

🔧Claude Code

タイムライン

作成2026年4月16日
最終更新2026年5月22日