How to Write PRDs That Engineers Actually Read

We’ve all been there. You spend hours crafting what you think is the perfect PRD, only to have engineers ask the same questions you thought you’d already answered. Or worse, they build something completely different from what you envisioned.

The problem isn’t usually the engineers—it’s how we write PRDs.

The PRD Paradox

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: most PRDs are written for product managers, not for the people who actually need to use them. We stuff them with business justifications, market analysis, and executive summaries that engineers skim past to find what they actually need: what to build and how it should work.

What Engineers Actually Want

After interviewing dozens of engineering leads, here’s what they consistently say they need:

1. Clear Problem Statement (Not Business Case)

Engineers don’t need three paragraphs about market opportunity. They need to understand:

• What specific problem are we solving?
• Who experiences this problem?
• What happens if we don’t solve it?

Bad example:

“The notification system represents a $2.3M ARR opportunity based on customer feedback surveys indicating 67% of enterprise users want more control over their notification preferences.”

Good example:

“Users receive too many notifications and can’t distinguish important ones from noise. This causes them to either disable notifications entirely (missing critical alerts) or ignore them (notification fatigue). We need to let users customize which notifications they receive and how they receive them.”

2. User Stories with Acceptance Criteria

Every feature should have clear user stories that follow the format:

As a [user type]
I want to [action]
So that [benefit]

Acceptance Criteria:
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 1
- [ ] Specific, testable criterion 2
- [ ] Edge case handling

3. Edge Cases and Error States

This is where most PRDs fail. Engineers spend 80% of their time handling edge cases, but PRDs often only describe the happy path.

Document:

• What happens when the user has no data?
• What happens when the request fails?
• What happens when the user doesn’t have permission?
• What are the loading states?
• What are the error messages?

4. Visual References

A picture is worth a thousand words in a PRD. Include:

• Wireframes or mockups (even rough ones)
• User flow diagrams
• State diagrams for complex features
• Screenshots of similar features (for reference)

5. Technical Considerations (Not Requirements)

Don’t tell engineers how to build something—that’s their job. But do share:

• Performance expectations
• Scale considerations
• Security requirements
• Integration points
• Data requirements

The Structure That Works

Here’s a PRD template that engineers consistently praise:

## Overview
One paragraph explaining what we're building and why.

## Problem Statement
The specific problem we're solving, who has it, and impact.

## Goals & Success Metrics
How we'll measure if this feature succeeded.

## User Stories
Detailed user stories with acceptance criteria.

## Design
Wireframes, mockups, and user flows.

## Edge Cases
Comprehensive list of edge cases and how to handle them.

## Technical Considerations
Performance, security, scale requirements.

## Out of Scope
What we're explicitly NOT building (equally important).

## Open Questions
Things we still need to figure out.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. The Novel PRD

If your PRD is 20+ pages, no one will read it. Keep it concise. Link to supporting documents instead of including everything.

2. The Vague PRD

“The system should be fast” is not a requirement. “Page load time should be under 200ms for 95th percentile users” is.

3. The Solution-First PRD

Don’t start with the solution. Start with the problem. The best ideas often come from engineers who deeply understand the problem.

4. The Static PRD

PRDs should be living documents. Update them as you learn more. Version them. Keep them current.

Using AI to Write Better PRDs

Tools like Thig.ai can help you write better PRDs by:

1. Asking the right questions: AI can prompt you for edge cases and details you might miss.

2. Ensuring consistency: AI maintains consistent formatting and structure across all your PRDs.

3. Generating user stories: Describe your feature, and AI can generate user stories with acceptance criteria.

4. Identifying gaps: AI can review your PRD and flag missing sections or unclear requirements.

Conclusion

Great PRDs aren’t about length or comprehensiveness—they’re about clarity and usefulness. Write for your audience (engineers), focus on what they need (what to build), and keep it updated as you learn more.

The best PRD is one that engineers reference throughout development, not one that sits forgotten in a folder.

---

Want to write better PRDs faster? Try Thig.ai free and see how AI can help you create documentation that engineers actually read.