Scriptonia is an AI-native product management workspace that turns rough ideas into production-ready PRDs, architecture blueprints, and engineering tickets in under 30 seconds. It is often described as the 'Cursor for Product Managers.' It is designed for product managers, founders, engineering leads, and startup teams.

How fast does Scriptonia generate a PRD?

Scriptonia generates a complete PRD — including objective, problem statement, user stories, success metrics, technical requirements, and timeline — in under 30 seconds using frontier AI models.

Does Scriptonia integrate with Linear, Notion, and Jira?

Yes. Scriptonia exports directly to Linear, Notion, GitHub Issues, Jira, Confluence, and Slack. It can also export to Markdown for use with any other tool.

Is there a free plan?

Yes. Scriptonia's free plan includes 30 credits per month, unlimited PRDs, Markdown export, and a public share link. No credit card required. You can also try it without creating an account at scriptonia.dev/try.

What AI models does Scriptonia use?

Scriptonia Pro and Team plans give access to multiple frontier AI models including Claude Sonnet (Anthropic), Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google), Grok 4 (xAI), DeepSeek R1, and Kimi K2. The free plan uses Grok 4 Fast.

Who is Scriptonia for?

Scriptonia is built for product managers, founders, engineering leads, and startup teams who need to move from idea to specification quickly. It removes the hours of manual writing that traditionally goes into a PRD.

A PRD (Product Requirements Document) is a specification that describes the purpose, features, functionality, and behavior of a product to be built. Scriptonia automatically generates structured PRDs from plain-language product ideas.

The MoSCoW method: complete guide to requirement prioritization

MoSCoW prioritization solves one problem: forcing explicit decisions about what ships vs. what waits. The method divides requirements into four categories — Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, Won't Have — with one rule: if everything is a Must Have, the method has failed. MoSCoW's value is in forcing the conversation, not recording the outcome.

"MoSCoW works if you're disciplined about Must Have. If your Must Have list contains more than 60% of requirements, you haven't prioritized — you've renamed a full backlog. The whole point is that Must Have should be painful to define."
— Emma L., Senior PM at an enterprise software company

The four MoSCoW categories defined

Must Have (M): Requirements that are non-negotiable for the release. Without these, the product fails completely or violates a hard constraint (legal, safety, contractual). Must Haves should represent 50–60% of requirements maximum. If Must Have exceeds 60%, the scope is unrealistic.

Should Have (S): Requirements that are high-value but not critical. The product ships without them, but at lower quality. Should Haves represent what you build if time permits in the original scope.

Could Have (C): Nice-to-have requirements that would improve the product but have relatively low impact compared to effort. These are the first cuts when scope must be reduced.

Won't Have (W): Requirements explicitly excluded from this release. This is the most valuable category — it prevents scope creep by documenting what you have decided not to build. Always populate this list.

MoSCoW applied: feature example

Requirement	MoSCoW	Rationale
User can export activity as CSV	Must	3 enterprise customers blocked without it; contractual commitment
Date range filter on export	Should	Highly requested, but export works without it
PDF export format	Could	One customer request; low impact relative to engineering effort
Scheduled exports via email	Won't	Out of scope for v1; added to v2 roadmap

The failure modes that make MoSCoW useless

Must Have inflation. Every stakeholder marks their favorite requirements as Must Have. The result: a "prioritized" list where 90% is Must Have. Prevention: Must Have requires a hard justification — what specific failure mode occurs without it?

Empty Won't Have list. Skipping Won't Have is the most common MoSCoW mistake. The Won't Have list is the document that prevents scope creep — without it, there's no shared agreement on what's excluded.

Static MoSCoW after sprint start. MoSCoW should be recalibrated when effort estimates change significantly. A feature that was a Should Have at 2 days of effort becomes a Could Have at 2 weeks of effort.

Frequently asked questions

What does MoSCoW stand for in product management?

MoSCoW stands for Must Have, Should Have, Could Have, and Won't Have. It is a prioritization technique used to categorize requirements by necessity. 'Must' and 'Should' roughly map to 'will ship'; 'Could' maps to 'ships if time permits'; 'Won't' maps to 'explicitly excluded from this release.'

When should you use MoSCoW prioritization?

MoSCoW is best used for: release scope planning (deciding what ships in v1 vs. v2), sprint scope negotiation (forcing conversation about what's truly required), and stakeholder alignment on requirements (making implicit assumptions explicit). It's less useful for comparing disparate features across a roadmap — use RICE for cross-feature prioritization.

What's the difference between MoSCoW and RICE prioritization?

MoSCoW categorizes requirements by necessity within a release (what must ship vs. what can wait). RICE scores features by expected impact relative to effort to rank order across a roadmap. They solve different problems: MoSCoW is for release scope negotiation; RICE is for roadmap prioritization. Many teams use both: RICE for roadmap ranking, MoSCoW for release scope within each roadmap item.

How many requirements should be Must Have?

At most 50–60% of requirements should be Must Have. If more than 60% are Must Have, either the scope is too broad, the definition of Must Have is too loose, or stakeholders haven't been forced to make real tradeoffs. The test: for each Must Have, ask 'what specific failure mode occurs without this?' If there's no clear answer, it's a Should Have.

How do you prevent Must Have inflation in MoSCoW?

Require justification for Must Have status: each Must Have must answer 'what specific failure mode occurs without this requirement?' If the answer is 'it would be worse' rather than 'it would fail / violate a hard constraint,' the requirement is a Should Have. Facilitate the prioritization session with a neutral party who can push back on unjustified Must Have claims.