Create a Destination Document Without Turning It Into a Specification-to-Code Contract

After alignment, convert the shared design concept into a destination document. The destination document describes what the finished feature must accomplish and how completion will be recognized. It should not be treated as a machine-readable contract that can be converted directly into code while humans ignore the implementation.

The workflow distinguishes between two documents:

• The destination describes the intended end state.
• The journey describes the sequence and dependency structure of the work required to reach

it.

A product requirements document is used as the destination. Its exact format is not important, provided it captures the decisions that matter. A useful structure includes:

• The problem the user is experiencing.
• The proposed solution.
• User stories that define observable behavior.
• Implementation decisions already made during alignment.
• Testing decisions.
• Proposed modules to create or modify.
• Explicitly out-of-scope behavior.

The proposed-module section is crucial. The process does not leave the codebase until implementation begins. It keeps the shape of the existing system in view while the feature is being defined. The agent should identify the modules likely to change, distinguish modules with meaningful logic from thin routes or adapters, and identify where tests should be concentrated.

The document is produced after the intensive alignment conversation. At that point, the agent is primarily summarizing decisions that have already been reached. The document is therefore not the place to perform the most important thinking. The highest-value reasoning occurred during the interview.

This explains why endlessly optimizing the document has limited value. The destination is a useful guide, not a perfect forecast of every implementation detail. The code and QA process will continue to reveal information.

A specification-to-code mindset encourages people to stop examining the code. When the output is wrong, they edit the specification and run the conversion again. This weakens engineering control because the codebase is the actual system being changed. Its modules, dependencies, tests, and failure modes cannot be delegated to an abstract document.

A destination document is still valuable. It externalizes the shared understanding, gives the implementation planner a stable target, and records negative decisions that define completion. The difference is that it supports engineering judgment rather than replacing it.

Once the interviewing phase has resolved the main decisions:

1. Ask the agent to write a product requirements document from the established design

concept.

1. Have it explore the relevant repository areas again if the earlier exploration is

incomplete or stale.

1. Require problem, solution, user stories, implementation decisions, testing decisions,

proposed modules, and out-of-scope items.

1. Store the result as a local issue, a repository document, or a work-tracking issue,

depending on the team's workflow.

1. Use the document as the input to journey planning, not as permission to generate the

entire feature in one step.

A destination document should make the definition of done visible. For example, "gamification exists" is too vague. Observable user stories, data behavior, interface placement, retroactivity decisions, and exclusions create a destination that can be split and tested.

In this workflow, the product requirements document is not treated as the primary place for another exhaustive review after a thorough alignment session. The reasoning is that the agent is summarizing a design concept already shared with the human. That choice depends on the alignment actually being complete; the document cannot repair decisions that were never discussed.

A product requirements document can create false confidence. A polished document may hide the fact that participants never resolved a critical decision. Document quality cannot compensate for weak alignment.

The destination will evolve. Research, prototypes, implementation, and QA may force a return to earlier decisions. Treating the document as immutable would block useful learning.

There is also little benefit in polishing the journey or destination until it appears perfect. The plan is a hint about where to go. The strongest validation comes from working software and QA, not from another round of wording changes.

Use a product requirements document to preserve the agreed destination, including observable behavior, module impact, testing choices, and exclusions. Do not use it as a substitute for understanding the code or as a one-click compiler from requirements to software.