Ralph PRD Converter
Converts existing PRDs to the prd.json format that Ralph uses for autonomous execution.
The Job
Take a PRD (markdown file or text) and convert it to prd.json in your ralph directory.
Output Format
{
"project": "[Project Name]",
"branchName": "ralph/[feature-name-kebab-case]",
"description": "[Feature description from PRD title/intro]",
"userStories": [
{
"id": "US-001",
"title": "[Story title]",
"description": "As a [user], I want [feature] so that [benefit]",
"acceptanceCriteria": [
"Criterion 1",
"Criterion 2",
"Typecheck passes"
],
"priority": 1,
"passes": false,
"notes": ""
}
]
}
Story Size: The Number One Rule
Each story must be completable in ONE Ralph iteration (one context window).
Ralph spawns a fresh Claude Code instance per iteration with no memory of previous work. If a story is too big, the LLM runs out of context before finishing and produces broken code.
Right-sized stories:
- Add a database column and migration
- Add a UI component to an existing page
- Update a server action with new logic
- Add a filter dropdown to a list
Too big (split these):
- "Build the entire dashboard" - Split into: schema, queries, UI components, filters
- "Add authentication" - Split into: schema, middleware, login UI, session handling
- "Refactor the API" - Split into one story per endpoint or pattern
Rule of thumb: If you cannot describe the change in 2-3 sentences, it is too big.
Story Ordering: Dependencies First
Stories execute in priority order. Earlier stories must not depend on later ones.
Correct order:
- Schema/database changes (migrations)
- Server actions / backend logic
- UI components that use the backend
- Dashboard/summary views that aggregate data
Wrong order:
- UI component (depends on schema that does not exist yet)
- Schema change
Acceptance Criteria: MACHINE-VERIFIABLE Required
Every criterion must be MACHINE-VERIFIABLE. If Ralph cannot verify it with a command, file check, or automated test, it is not a valid criterion.
Verification Types
Each criterion should be checkable by one of these methods:
| Type | How to Verify | Example Criterion |
|---|---|---|
| Command exit code | Run command, check exit 0 | "Typecheck passes" → npm run build |
| File check | Check file exists or has content | "File docs/API.md exists" → ls docs/API.md |
| Grep/content match | Search file for pattern | "Contains 'export default'" → grep -q 'export default' file.ts |
| Database query | Query returns expected result | "User table has email column" → \d users shows column |
| Browser automation | Dev-browser skill verifies visually | "Button is visible" → navigate and screenshot |
Good criteria (verifiable):
- "Add
statuscolumn to tasks table with default 'pending'" - "Filter dropdown has options: All, Active, Completed"
- "Clicking delete shows confirmation dialog"
- "Typecheck passes"
- "Tests pass"
FORBIDDEN Criteria
Never use these vague terms — they cannot be machine-verified:
| Forbidden Term | Why It Fails |
|---|---|
| "Works correctly" | What does "correctly" mean? No verification command. |
| "Good UX" | Subjective. Cannot be automated. |
| "Handles edge cases" | Which edge cases? Unspecified = unverifiable. |
| "Is performant" | What threshold? No measurable target. |
| "User-friendly" | Subjective opinion, not a testable state. |
| "Clean code" | Style preference, not machine-checkable. |
| "Properly implemented" | Circular definition, no verification method. |
Vague to Specific Conversion
When you encounter vague requirements, convert them:
| Vague (FORBIDDEN) | Specific (VERIFIABLE) |
|---|---|
| "Works correctly" | "Returns 200 status code for valid input" |
| "Good UX" | "Form shows inline validation errors within 100ms" |
| "Handles edge cases" | "Returns 400 error when email is empty" |
| "Is performant" | "Query completes in under 100ms for 1000 rows" |
| "User-friendly error messages" | "Error div contains text 'Invalid email format'" |
| "Secure authentication" | "Password is hashed with bcrypt before storage" |
| "Responsive design" | "Component renders at 320px, 768px, and 1024px widths" |
Always include as final criterion:
"Typecheck passes"
For stories with testable logic, also include:
"Tests pass"
For stories that change UI, also include:
"Verify in browser using dev-browser skill"
Frontend stories are NOT complete until visually verified. Ralph will use the dev-browser skill to navigate to the page, interact with the UI, and confirm changes work.
Conversion Rules
- Each user story becomes one JSON entry
- IDs: Sequential (US-001, US-002, etc.)
- Priority: Based on dependency order, then document order
- All stories:
passes: falseand emptynotes - branchName: Derive from feature name, kebab-case, prefixed with
ralph/ - Always add: "Typecheck passes" to every story's acceptance criteria
Splitting Large PRDs
If a PRD has big features, split them:
Original:
"Add user notification system"
Split into:
- US-001: Add notifications table to database
- US-002: Create notification service for sending notifications
- US-003: Add notification bell icon to header
- US-004: Create notification dropdown panel
- US-005: Add mark-as-read functionality
- US-006: Add notification preferences page
Each is one focused change that can be completed and verified independently.
Example
Input PRD:
# Task Status Feature
Add ability to mark tasks with different statuses.
## Requirements
- Toggle between pending/in-progress/done on task list
- Filter list by status
- Show status badge on each task
- Persist status in database
Output prd.json:
{
"project": "TaskApp",
"branchName": "ralph/task-status",
"description": "Task Status Feature - Track task progress with status indicators",
"userStories": [
{
"id": "US-001",
"title": "Add status field to tasks table",
"description": "As a developer, I need to store task status in the database.",
"acceptanceCriteria": [
"Add status column: 'pending' | 'in_progress' | 'done' (default 'pending')",
"Generate and run migration successfully",
"Typecheck passes"
],
"priority": 1,
"passes": false,
"notes": ""
},
{
"id": "US-002",
"title": "Display status badge on task cards",
"description": "As a user, I want to see task status at a glance.",
"acceptanceCriteria": [
"Each task card shows colored status badge",
"Badge colors: gray=pending, blue=in_progress, green=done",
"Typecheck passes",
"Verify in browser using dev-browser skill"
],
"priority": 2,
"passes": false,
"notes": ""
},
{
"id": "US-003",
"title": "Add status toggle to task list rows",
"description": "As a user, I want to change task status directly from the list.",
"acceptanceCriteria": [
"Each row has status dropdown or toggle",
"Changing status saves immediately",
"UI updates without page refresh",
"Typecheck passes",
"Verify in browser using dev-browser skill"
],
"priority": 3,
"passes": false,
"notes": ""
},
{
"id": "US-004",
"title": "Filter tasks by status",
"description": "As a user, I want to filter the list to see only certain statuses.",
"acceptanceCriteria": [
"Filter dropdown: All | Pending | In Progress | Done",
"Filter persists in URL params",
"Typecheck passes",
"Verify in browser using dev-browser skill"
],
"priority": 4,
"passes": false,
"notes": ""
}
]
}
Archiving Previous Runs
Before writing a new prd.json, check if there is an existing one from a different feature:
- Read the current
prd.jsonif it exists - Check if
branchNamediffers from the new feature's branch name - If different AND
progress.txthas content beyond the header:- Create archive folder:
archive/YYYY-MM-DD-feature-name/ - Copy current
prd.jsonandprogress.txtto archive - Reset
progress.txtwith fresh header
- Create archive folder:
The ralph.sh script handles this automatically when you run it, but if you are manually updating prd.json between runs, archive first.
Checklist Before Saving
Before writing prd.json, verify:
- Previous run archived (if prd.json exists with different branchName, archive it first)
- Each story is completable in one iteration (small enough)
- Stories are ordered by dependency (schema to backend to UI)
- Every story has "Typecheck passes" as criterion
- UI stories have "Verify in browser using dev-browser skill" as criterion
- Acceptance criteria are verifiable (not vague)
- No story depends on a later story