MVP Requirements Document Template for Founders

Give the document one job

An MVP requirements document is not a compressed roadmap, a sales pitch, or a storage place for every good idea. It is the working agreement for one release. Someone reading it should be able to identify the primary user, the flow they need to complete, the behavior that must remain unchanged, and the conditions that define success.

Write requirements around observable behavior rather than a preferred implementation. “A member can request a password-reset link and use it once within 30 minutes” gives the builder a result to create and verify. “Add a reset button with a new token service” mixes the requirement with an early technical answer. The second version may be correct, but the repository and its existing conventions should help decide that.

The document should preserve the product decision while leaving appropriate implementation decisions to the people doing the work.

Include non-goals beside the requirements. A short boundary such as “social sign-in is not part of this release” prevents a familiar feature from entering by assumption. Non-goals are not a rejection of future work; they clarify what the current estimate, design, and validation are meant to cover.

Turn intent into acceptance criteria

A requirement becomes buildable when another person can tell whether it is true. Start with the user and the trigger: who begins the flow, and from what situation? Then name the action, the visible result, and any important rule governing it. This is enough structure for most MVP work without turning the brief into a formal specification.

For example, “users can export reports” leaves several decisions hidden. A stronger requirement says that an account owner can export the currently selected month as a CSV, that the file contains the columns visible in the agreed sample, and that an empty month produces a clear message instead of a blank download. The acceptance criteria expose the expected result without dictating the export library or internal data shape.

Describe requirements by flow rather than by screen. A person experiences the transition from a starting condition to a useful result, including what happens when required information is missing or an operation fails. Screen inventories often miss those transitions and can make a collection of interfaces look more complete than the experience really is.

Not every possibility belongs in the document. Record an edge case when it could block the core job, create a meaningful risk, or change the estimate. Leave speculative variations in a separate follow-up list so the release stays legible.

Copy the one-page template

This format is intentionally compact. Duplicate a requirement block when the release has more than one essential behavior, but keep every item connected to the same release outcome.

MVP REQUIREMENTS

Product:
Document owner:
Last updated:
Status: Draft / Approved / In build / Verified

1. RELEASE OUTCOME
Primary user:
Starting situation:
Outcome this release must create:
Evidence that the outcome is useful:

2. CORE FLOW
Trigger:
1.
2.
3.
Completion state:

3. REQUIREMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE

R-1 — [Observable user behavior]
Acceptance:
- Given:
- When:
- Then:
Important empty or failure state:

R-2 — [Observable user behavior]
Acceptance:
- Given:
- When:
- Then:
Important empty or failure state:

Data created, changed, or displayed:
Roles or permissions involved:
Existing behavior that must remain unchanged:

4. RELEASE BOUNDARIES
In scope:
-

Not in scope:
-

Required constraints:
- Platform:
- Deadline or budget:
- Existing system or integration:
- Accessibility, privacy, or security:

5. OPEN ITEMS
Assumption to validate:
Decision still needed:
Decision owner and due date:

6. PROOF BEFORE RELEASE
Automated checks:
Manual flow to verify:
Test account or sample data:
Final reviewer:
Known limitation accepted for this release:

Use plain language and real examples wherever ambiguity would change the build. Attach a prototype, sample export, or policy only when it communicates something the page cannot. If an open decision could alter the architecture or estimate, resolve it before approval rather than quietly treating an assumption as a requirement.

Keep it active during the build

Review the document with the person doing the work before implementation begins. Ask them to identify contradictions, missing decisions, and requirements that cannot yet be verified. This is a handoff conversation, not a ceremonial approval. The builder’s questions are often the first practical test of whether the release is truly understood.

Tickets can reference requirement IDs, but the document should remain the shared source for release behavior. When a decision changes, update the relevant requirement and note why. Otherwise, the ticket, prototype, conversation, and implementation can each preserve a different version of the product.

The same brief works well with AI-assisted development. Pair its outcome, boundaries, and proof with the workflow described in How I give Sol room to work in Codex. Ask the tool to inspect the existing system before proposing a plan, surface conflicts instead of resolving product questions silently, and report which acceptance criteria it actually verified.

At release review, walk through the requirements rather than presenting a tour of completed screens. Confirm each observable behavior, record any accepted limitation, and move deferred ideas to the next decision point. The document can then close as a concise record of what the team intended to ship and what it proved.