Ralph PRD Generation

Generate prd.json files that define scoped work items for autonomous agent execution. Each item has explicit completion criteria and verification steps.

When to Use

• Batch migrations (API changes, library upgrades, lint fixes)
• Large-scale refactoring across many files
• Any task decomposable into independent, verifiable units
• Work that benefits from "done" being explicitly defined

PRD Structure

{
  "instructions": "<markdown with context, examples, constraints>",
  "items": [
    {
      "id": "<unique identifier>",
      "category": "<task category>",
      "description": "<what needs to be done>",
      "file": "<target file path>",
      "steps": [
        "<action step>",
        "<verification step>"
      ],
      "passes": false,
      "skipped": null
    }
  ]
}

Field Reference

Field	Purpose
instructions	Markdown embedded in PRD - transformation examples, docs links, constraints
id	Unique identifier (typically file path or task name)
category	Groups related items
description	Human-readable summary
steps	Actions + verification commands
passes	false initially, true when complete
skipped	null or "<reason>" if task cannot be completed

Generation Workflow

PRD Generation Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Define scope (what files/items are affected?)
- [ ] Step 2: Gather input data (lint output, file list, API changes)
- [ ] Step 3: Design item granularity (per-file, per-error, per-component?)
- [ ] Step 4: Define verification steps (type-check, tests, lint)
- [ ] Step 5: Write instructions (examples, constraints, skip conditions)
- [ ] Step 6: Generate items (script or manual)
- [ ] Step 7: Review sample items

Clarifying Questions

Before generating, resolve these with the user:

Granularity

• Per-file? Per-error? Per-component?
• Trade-off: fewer items = less overhead, more items = finer progress tracking

Verification Steps

• What commands confirm completion?
• Type-check? Tests? Lint? Build?
• Which tests - related test file only, or broader?

Instructions Content

• What context does the executing agent need?
• Before/after examples?
• Links to documentation?
• Type casting or naming conventions?

Skip Conditions

• What should cause an item to be skipped rather than fixed?
• Example: "class component requires manual refactor"

Path Format

• Relative or absolute paths?
• ID format (filename only risks collisions)

Instructions Section Best Practices

The instructions field is markdown that the executing agent reads. Include:

1. Violation/task types with before/after examples
2. Scope rules - what's in bounds, what's out
3. Skip conditions - when to mark skipped: "<reason>" instead of fixing
4. Links to relevant documentation
5. Type/naming conventions specific to the codebase

Keep instructions focused. The agent discovers patterns; instructions provide guardrails.

Verification Steps

Each item should have at least one verification step. Common patterns:

"steps": [
  "Fix all N lint errors for rule-name",
  "Run yarn type-check:go - must pass",
  "Run yarn test <path> - if test exists"
]

For test detection, check:

• __tests__/<filename>.test.{ts,tsx,js,jsx}
• <filename>.test.{ts,tsx,js,jsx} sibling
• __tests__/integration/<filename>.test.*

Example: Generating from Lint Output

Input: JSON array of lint errors grouped by file

const prd = {
  instructions: `## Migration Instructions...`,
  items: lintErrors.map(entry => ({
    id: entry.filePath.replace(REPO_ROOT + '/', ''),
    category: 'migration',
    description: `Fix violations in ${path.basename(entry.filePath)}`,
    file: entry.filePath,
    errorCount: entry.errorCount,
    steps: [
      `Fix all ${entry.errorCount} lint errors`,
      'Run yarn type-check:go - must pass',
      ...(testExists ? [`Run yarn test ${testPath}`] : [])
    ],
    passes: false,
    skipped: null
  }))
};

Anti-Patterns

Vague verification

// Bad
"steps": ["Fix the issue", "Make sure it works"]

// Good  
"steps": ["Fix lint error on line 42", "Run yarn type-check:go - must pass"]

Missing skip conditions

If some items can't be completed (e.g., requires larger refactor), define skip conditions in instructions so agents mark skipped instead of attempting impossible fixes.

Over-scoped items

Items that touch many files are harder to verify and resume. Prefer one file per item for file-based migrations.

Under-specified instructions

The executing agent shouldn't have to guess conventions. Specify type casting, naming patterns, import sources.