logicsrc/prd/0007-add-tech-stack-and-monetization-to-openprd.md

openprd	id	title	status	authors	repo	created	updated	discussion	implementation	tags	supersedes	superseded-by
0.3	0007	Add Tech Stack and Monetization sections to OpenPRD	Draft	anthony@profullstack.com	profullstack/logicsrc	2026-09-06	2026-09-06			openprd standards monetization

Add Tech Stack and Monetization sections to OpenPRD

Problem

OpenPRD 0.2 fixes eight sections, and two questions that decide whether a product decision is a good one are missing from all of them.

The first is what the thing is built on. Requirements cannot be costed without it, so the stack gets picked in the first implementation PR instead, by whoever opens it, and the PRD that was supposed to record the why is silent on the most expensive choice in the change.

The second is how it earns. Every section in 0.2 is about the user and none is about the business. A PRD can be filled out completely, reviewed, accepted, and shipped without anyone writing down who pays. Across the fleet that is exactly the question that goes unanswered until after launch.

Goals

• A reader of any OpenPRD 0.3 document can tell what it will be built on and how it earns without leaving the file.
• The stack and the revenue model are settled at review time, when changing them is still cheap, rather than in the implementing PR.
• "This does not earn on its own" stays a legitimate answer, said out loud rather than by omission.
• Every document already written against 0.2 keeps conforming, untouched.

Non-Goals

• No financial modelling: the section states a model, not a forecast, and nothing validates the numbers.
• No architecture review: Tech Stack names what will be used, it is not an ADR and does not replace one.
• No forced migration. Collections adopt 0.3 per document, or never.
• No front-matter change. Both additions are body sections; the schema is untouched.

Users

• Authors — human or agent — who now have somewhere to put two decisions that were previously made in silence.
• Reviewers, who get a costable stack and a stated revenue model in the document they are already reading.
• Third-party implementers of the standard, who need to know that a document is judged against the version it declares.

Requirements

• R1 [P0] ## Tech Stack and ## Monetization are required body sections in OpenPRD 0.3, in that order, between ## UX Notes and ## Success Metrics.
• R2 [P0] Both accept _None._, like every other section.
• R3 [P0] A document is validated against the section list its own openprd: key fixes, so a 0.2 document is still held to eight sections and still conforms.
• R4 [P0] logicsrc prd new scaffolds ten stub sections, and the shipped template carries both.
• R5 [P1] The conformance bundle proves both directions: a 0.3 document missing Monetization fails with OP-C-SECTION-MISSING, and a 0.2 document with eight sections passes.
• R6 [P1] The specification states the compatibility rule and how to adopt 0.3 in an existing collection.
• R7 [P2] draft_prd and review_prd on the MCP surface ask for both sections, and review_prd challenges a stack too vague to cost and a monetization answer that dodges who pays.

UX Notes

Nothing about authoring changes: the sections appear in the template and in logicsrc prd new output, with the same _TODO: placeholders as the rest.

The failure a validator produces for a 0.3 document that predates the change is the ordinary OP-C-SECTION-MISSING, naming the section and listing what the declared version requires — so the fix is visible in the message, and the alternative fix (leave it at 0.2) is a one-line edit.

Tech Stack

No new dependency. TypeScript in packages/openprd (the section list moves from one constant to a version-keyed lookup), the existing JSON Schema in packages/schemas — unchanged, since the front-matter is unchanged — the Markdown fixtures beside it, the Next.js landing page in apps/logicsrc-web, and the MCP surface in packages/logicsrc-mcp. Vitest covers it.

Monetization

None. OpenPRD is an open standard published to be copied and cited; it is not sold and carries no plan, meter, or SKU. It earns indirectly, by making the LogicSRC standards surface worth adopting — and, from this change onward, by making sure every product decision downstream of it has answered the revenue question in writing.

Success Metrics

• Every PRD written in this repo from 0007 onward declares 0.3 and fills both sections.
• The conformance bundle's 0.2 fixture keeps passing, unedited, across future releases: the proof that the version rule holds.
• Reviews stop discovering the stack in the implementation PR.

Risks & Open Questions

• Ten required sections is more ceremony, and ceremony gets skipped. If Monetization becomes reflexive _None._ on every PRD, the section has failed and should be reconsidered rather than left as decoration.
• Version-aware validation means two live section lists forever. A third addition would make three; at that point the rule needs a real deprecation policy rather than a growing lookup.
• Open: whether this repo's own 0001-0006 should be migrated to 0.3 or left as the standing evidence that 0.2 documents still conform. Left at 0.2 for now.