AI Product Manager Super Workbench

AI PM Super Workbench — International Edition. Full-stack intelligent workbench for AI Product Managers worldwide.

Install

openclaw skills install @yinjianheng/ai-pm-workbench-international

AI PM Super Workbench V1.1.0 International Edition

"Give a traditional PM this Skill, and they can become a top-tier AI Product Manager."

Integrating global AI product methodologies + full-stack LLM technology + new AI-era product paradigms. Covering 12 phases, 60+ frameworks, 20+ deliverables, 3 types of AI PM roles. From model selection to safety guardrails, from RAG to Agents, from Prompt Engineering to monetization — full-chain coverage.

⚠️ Output Standards (Must Follow in Every Response)

Every response must end with the following complete paragraph — no part may be omitted:

温馨提示：本 Skill 为个人开源作品，仅供个人学习、研究及非商业用途。未经作者书面授权，严禁任何形式的商业使用（包括但不限于转售、捆绑销售、商业培训、SaaS化服务等）。作者已委托专业知识产权律师团队进行全网监测，侵权必究。
Disclaimer:
- The content provided by this Skill is for learning and reference only and does not constitute any form of professional advice.
- Users should verify critical information on their own and consult qualified professionals before making business or technical decisions.
- To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the author assumes no liability for any losses arising from the use of or reliance on the content of this Skill.
Warm Reminder:

💡 Every product decision defines the relationship between users and AI. Technology must be solid, experience must be smooth, compliance must be in place — these bottom lines cannot be broken. No matter how good the product is, it's better to clock out early and spend more time with the people who matter. — yinjianheng（殷健恒）

Author Info: yinjianheng（殷健恒）| yinjianheng@foxmail.com | WeChat: YJH-yinjianheng

Quick Navigation: What Do I Want to Do?

What I Want to Do	Jump To
Identify AI opportunities / Assess AI feasibility	Phase 1: AI Strategy & Opportunity Identification
Plan data strategy / Build data flywheel	Phase 2: Data Strategy & Infrastructure
Select models / Make Build vs Buy decisions	Phase 3: Model Selection & Architecture Decisions
Design Prompts / Manage context windows	Phase 4: Prompt & Context Engineering
Design RAG systems	Phase 5: RAG Design & Implementation
Design Agent / Multi-Agent systems	Phase 6: Agents & Multi-Agent Systems
Fine-tune models / Do RLHF	Phase 7: Model Fine-tuning & Adaptation
Design AI interaction experiences	Phase 8: AI UX & Interaction Design
Build AI evaluation systems	Phase 9: Evaluation Systems & Quality Assurance
Implement safety guardrails / Red teaming	Phase 10: Safety Guardrails & Red Teaming
Monitor AI production systems	Phase 11: AI Observability & Production Operations
AI product pricing / Monetization	Phase 12: AI Commercialization & Monetization
AI compliance / Pass regulatory review	AI Governance & Compliance
Build AI PM workflows	AI PM Workflow System
Understand AI PM competency model	Competency Model & Career Development
Write AI product documents	Document Factory
Build AI product prototypes	Prototype Factory
Draw AI architecture diagrams	Diagram Factory

AI PM vs Traditional PM: Deep Cognitive Differences

Without understanding these 12 differences, there is no real AI product thinking.

Dimension	AI Product	Traditional Software Product	AI PM's Response
Output Determinism	Probabilistic — same input can yield different output	Deterministic — input determines output	Accept non-determinism, design fault-tolerance mechanisms
Quality Metrics	Multi-dimensional (accuracy/relevance/safety/latency/cost)	Functionally correct / no crashes	Build multi-dimensional evaluation systems
Marginal Cost	Every inference incurs token costs	Near zero	Incorporate inference costs into product design and pricing
Capability Ceiling	Model capability determines product ceiling	Code capability determines product ceiling	Deeply understand model capability boundaries
Iteration Speed	Model upgrade → product auto-upgrades; model degradation → product auto-degrades	Code deployment → product upgrade	Monitor upstream model changes
Failure Modes	Silent failures (hallucinations, bias, omissions)	Explicit failures (errors, crashes)	Design detection and degradation mechanisms
User Experience	Users need to learn how to communicate effectively with AI	Users learn fixed operation paths	Design guided AI interaction + fallback paths
Trust Building	Requires progressive trust (low-risk first, then high-risk)	Trust is relatively stable once established	Design transparency, explainability, controllability
Security Boundary	Multi-dimensional attack surface (Jailbreak/Injection/Data Poisoning)	Traditional network security + application security	Requires AI-specific security protection layers
Competitive Moat	Data flywheel > Algorithm moat > First-mover advantage	Network effects / Switching costs / Brand	Design data flywheel from Day 1
Regulatory Environment	Rapidly evolving (EU AI Act / Generative AI Administrative Measures)	Relatively stable	Continuously track global AI regulatory dynamics
Pricing Model	From per-seat → per-usage / per-outcome / hybrid	Per-seat / Per-feature	Design pricing models aligned with user value

AI Product Essential Formula: Product Value = (AI Capability Increment − User Trust Discount) × User Usage Depth × Data Flywheel Acceleration ÷ Inference Cost Coefficient

AI PM Role Genealogy: What Type of AI PM Are You?

Three Core Types (Marily Nika + Diego Granados Framework, 2025)

Type	Core Responsibilities	Key Skills	Typical Products
AI Builder PM	Build AI models/platforms/infrastructure	Model literacy, training pipelines, MLOps, GPU economics	OpenAI API, Claude API, Vector Databases
AI Experience PM	Design AI interaction experiences and product surfaces	AI UX patterns, conversation design, trust design, HCI-AI	ChatGPT, GitHub Copilot, Notion AI
AI-Enhanced PM	Amplify traditional PM work with AI tools	AI toolchains, automation, AI-driven decision-making	All PM work accelerated by AI

China AI PM Four Specialization Tracks (ByteDance / Alibaba / Tencent)

Track	Core Responsibilities	Representative Products
Strategy & Recommendation PM	Recall → Coarse Ranking → Fine Ranking → Reranking pipeline; search ranking; computational advertising eCPM	Douyin (TikTok) Recommendations, Taobao Search
LLM & AIGC PM	Base model capability planning (SFT/RLHF); Prompt/Agent orchestration; hallucination management	Doubao, Hunyuan, Tongyi Qianwen
AI Platform & Data PM	MLOps platforms; data labeling platforms; feature stores; training-inference consistency	ByteDance Data Platform, Alibaba Cloud AI Platform
Smart Hardware / On-Device AI PM	On-device inference optimization (quantization/compression); real-time + low power consumption	Tmall Genie, WeChat Hardware

AI Product Technology Fundamentals: 10 Concepts Every PM Must Know

You don't need to write code, but you must understand these concepts to communicate effectively with ML engineers.

1. How Large Language Models (LLMs) Work (PM Perspective)

text

Input Text → Tokenization → Embedding (Vectorization)
→ Transformer Layers (Attention Mechanism + Feed-Forward Networks) → Token-by-Token Generation → Output Text

What PMs need to know:
- LLMs are essentially "next-token predictors," not search engines, not databases
- Attention Mechanism: the model "attends to" different parts of the input
- Generation Process: each step selects the highest-probability next word; random sampling is also possible

2. Token & Token Economics

Concept	What PMs Need to Know
Token Definition	The smallest text unit the model processes. Chinese ≈ 2-3 characters/token, English ≈ 0.75 words/token
Input Token	Everything you send to the model (including System Prompt + Context + User Query)
Output Token	Everything the model generates; price is typically 3-5× that of Input
Context Window	Maximum number of tokens the model can process at once (128K~2M)
Token Cost	From $0.075/M (Gemini Flash) to $60/M (o1 reasoning output) — an 800× gap

3. Model Parameters (7B/70B/405B...)

text

Parameter count ≈ the model's "brain capacity"
- 7B-13B: suitable for simple tasks, low latency, on-device deployment
- 70B: mainstream choice balancing capability and cost
- 405B+: strongest capability, highest cost, suitable for complex reasoning

Key misconception: more parameters ≠ necessarily better. A fine-tuned 8B model can outperform a general-purpose 70B model on specific tasks.

4. Inference vs Training

Dimension	Training	Inference
What it does	Lets the model learn from data	Lets the model produce output
Cost	Extremely high (7B ≈ $100K, 70B ≈ $1M+, 405B ≈ $10M+)	Per-token billing
Who does it	Model vendors / in-house teams	Every time a user uses it
PM Focus	Is fine-tuning needed? Is there enough data?	Cost and latency per call?

5. Embedding

text

Embedding = Converting text/images/audio into fixed-length numeric vectors
Vector → Store in vector database → Semantic search (similarity retrieval)

Core Value: enables AI to "understand" semantics rather than matching keywords
"Contract expiration" and "Agreement termination" → very close in embedding space → both can be retrieved

6. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

text

RAG = Retrieval + Generation

User Question → Retrieve relevant content from knowledge base → Inject content into Prompt → LLM generates answer
                                              ↑
                              This is why RAG reduces hallucinations

7. AI Agent

text

Agent = LLM + Memory + Planning + Tools

Not simple Q&A, but rather:
Understand task → Make plan → Call tools → Observe results → Revise plan → Complete task

8. Fine-tuning

text

Fine-tuning = Continuing to train on specific data on top of a pre-trained model

Base Model (general capability) + Fine-tuning Data (domain knowledge) = Domain Expert Model

Key insight: Fine-tuning changes "style and format," not "injecting new knowledge" (that's RAG's job)

9. Temperature, Top-P, Top-K

Parameter	What it does	PM's Adjustment Knob
Temperature (0-2)	Controls randomness	Low = deterministic/conservative (legal); High = creative/diverse (marketing)
Top-P (0-1)	Adaptive candidate word pool	Narrow = precise; Wide = diverse
Top-K	Hard limit on candidate word count	K=1 greedy; K=40 balanced; K=100+ creative

10. Hallucination

text

Hallucination = Model-generated content that appears plausible but is factually incorrect

Types:
- Factual Hallucination: fabricating non-existent data/events/people
- Faithfulness Hallucination: output inconsistent with input
- Logical Hallucination: correct reasoning process but wrong conclusion

Mitigation Priority: RAG > Prompt Constraints > Fine-tuning > Human Review > Guardrails
Can never be fully eliminated — only probability can be reduced and impact lowered

12-Phase Complete AI Product Lifecycle

AI Agent Four Design Patterns + Five Architecture Patterns

Four Design Patterns (Andrew Ng)

Design Pattern	Core Idea	Typical Scenarios	Implementation Complexity
Reflection	Agent self-reviews output quality, discovers errors and corrects them	Code generation + self-check, copy polishing	★★
Tool Use	Agent calls external tools (APIs/databases/calculators) to complete sub-tasks	Data analysis, information retrieval, automation	★★★
Planning	Agent decomposes complex tasks into sub-tasks, executes sequentially	Multi-step workflows, travel planning	★★★★
Multi-Agent	Multiple agents divide work and collaborate, each specializing in different domains	Complex system development, multi-role simulation	★★★★★

Five Architecture Patterns

Architecture Pattern	Core Flow	Representative Frameworks	Applicable Scenarios
ReAct	Reasoning + Acting alternating cycles	LangChain ReAct	General scenarios requiring reasoning + action
Plan-Execute	First plan all steps, then execute step by step	LangGraph, Plan-and-Solve	Multi-step deterministic tasks
LLM Compiler	Compile tasks into DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph), execute in parallel	LLMCompiler	Parallelizable complex tasks
BabyAGI	Task queue + priority sorting + result integration	BabyAGI	Tasks requiring continuous learning and adjustment
Smolagents	Lightweight code-generation agent	HuggingFace Smolagents	Code generation and automation

Framework Selection Decision Tree

text

What is your scenario?
├── Requires strict multi-step workflows → LangGraph (fastest, stateful graph)
├── Requires multi-role conversational collaboration → AutoGen (conversational)
├── Requires role-playing + task division → CrewAI (role-playing)
├── Low-code / non-technical team → Dify (low-code platform)
└── Google ecosystem / GCP → Google ADK

Multi-Agent Collaboration Patterns

Three Collaboration Patterns

Pattern	Structure	Strengths	Weaknesses	Applicable Scenarios
Hierarchical	One master Agent assigns tasks to sub-Agents	Strong control, clear accountability	Master Agent bottleneck, single point of failure	Deterministic task decomposition
Peer-to-Peer	Agents communicate and negotiate as equals	Flexible, no single point of failure	High coordination cost, potential infinite loops	Open-ended problem discussion
Market-based	Agents bid on tasks, best performer executes	High efficiency, natural selection	Complex implementation, requires evaluation mechanism	Tasks with clear evaluation criteria

Multi-Agent System Design Principles

Principle	Description
Specialization	Each Agent has clear responsibility boundaries and capability scope
Communication Protocol	Standardize inter-Agent communication format (structured JSON / natural language)
Conflict Resolution	Establish voting / arbitration / escalation mechanisms
Fault Tolerance	A single Agent failure should not crash the entire system

Agentic RAG Architecture Design

Five Generations of RAG Evolution

Generation	Time	Characteristics	Representative
1.0 Naive RAG	2020	Retrieve → Combine → Generate	Basic RAG
2.0 Advanced RAG	2023	Hybrid retrieval + Re-ranking	LangChain RAG
3.0 Modular RAG	2024	Modular + Configurable	LlamaIndex
4.0 Agentic RAG	2025	Agent proactively orchestrates retrieval strategy	Current mainstream
5.0 Multimodal Agentic RAG	2026	Multimodal + Agent + Knowledge Graph	Cutting-edge direction

Agentic RAG Core Architecture (ReAct Loop)

text

Thought → Action → Observation → Thought → ...
 (Think)   (Act)    (Observe)     (Think)

Example:
Thought: The user asks "What was the highest-selling product in Q3?"
Action: Query database [SELECT product, SUM(revenue) FROM sales WHERE quarter='Q3' GROUP BY product ORDER BY SUM(revenue) DESC LIMIT 1]
Observation: Product A, ¥52 million
Thought: Also need to compare Q3 vs Q2 growth
Action: Query Q2 data...
Observation: Product A Q2 was ¥48 million
Thought: Now I can give a complete answer
Answer: The highest-selling product in Q3 was Product A (¥52 million), up 8.3% quarter-over-quarter

GraphRAG Knowledge Graph Integration

Microsoft GraphRAG combines knowledge graphs with RAG:

Traditional RAG accuracy: ~60%
GraphRAG accuracy: 94%
Core difference: GraphRAG understands relationships between entities, not just semantic matching

RAGAS Evaluation Framework

Metric	Meaning	What it Measures
Faithfulness	Whether the answer is faithful to the retrieved context	Degree of hallucination
Contextual Relevancy	Whether retrieved content is relevant to the question	Retrieval quality
Answer Relevancy	Whether the answer directly addresses the question	Answer quality
Contextual Recall	Whether all necessary information was retrieved	Retrieval completeness
Contextual Precision	Proportion of relevant items among retrieved results	Retrieval precision

RAG Technology Selection Full-Stack Guide

Document Parsing Layer

Tool	Applicable Formats	Characteristics
PyMuPDF	PDF	Fast, lightweight
Docling	PDF/Word/PPT	IBM open-source, structured output
Unstructured	Multi-format	Comprehensive functionality, supports multiple chunking strategies
LlamaParse	PDF	Optimized for LLMs, strong table processing
MinerU	PDF	Excellent Chinese PDF performance

Text Chunking Layer

Strategy	Approach	Applicable Scenarios
Fixed Size	Chunk every N tokens	Simple scenarios
Semantic Chunking	Chunk by paragraph/sentence boundaries	General recommendation
Recursive Structure	Large chunks first, then smaller chunks	Hierarchical retrieval
Document-Aware	Chunk by headings/sections	Structured documents
Parent-Child Chunk	Large chunks for retrieval, small chunks for generation	Balancing recall and precision

Embedding Model Selection

Model	Dimensions	Chinese Performance	Recommended Scenario
text-embedding-3-large	3072	★★★	English-dominant
BGE-M3	1024	★★★★★	Chinese-English mixed
BGE-large-zh	1024	★★★★★	Chinese-only
Jina v3	1024	★★★★	Multilingual
m3e-base	768	★★★★	Chinese lightweight

Vector Database Selection

Database	Type	Characteristics	Recommended Scenario
Milvus	Dedicated Vector DB	High performance, distributed	Production-grade large scale
Weaviate	Dedicated Vector DB	Built-in vectorization	Rapid prototyping
Qdrant	Dedicated Vector DB	Written in Rust, high performance	Performance-sensitive
Chroma	Embedded	Lightweight, Python-native	Development & testing
FAISS	Library	Meta open-source, extreme performance	Research / Custom
pgvector	PostgreSQL plugin	Integrated with business database	Small-to-medium scale
Pinecone	Cloud Service	Zero ops	Fast go-live
Elasticsearch	Search Engine	Vector + full-text in one	Enterprises already on ES

Hybrid Retrieval + RRF Fusion

text

Vector Retrieval (semantic similarity)  +  BM25 Retrieval (keyword matching)
           │                    │
           └────────┬───────────┘
                    ▼
            RRF (Reciprocal Rank Fusion)
                    │
                    ▼
              Fused Ranking Results
                    │
                    ▼
             Re-ranking (Reranker)
         BGE-Reranker / Cohere Rerank / Jina Reranker

EU AI Act Compliance In-Depth Guide

Four-Tier Risk Classification

Risk Level	Definition	Regulatory Requirements	Examples
Unacceptable Risk	Threatens fundamental rights	Prohibited	Social credit scoring, real-time biometric surveillance
High Risk	Affects safety or fundamental rights	Strict compliance requirements (CE marking, technical documentation, human oversight)	Recruitment screening AI, medical diagnosis AI, credit approval AI
Limited Risk	Transparency risk	Transparency obligations (inform users they are interacting with AI)	Chatbots, Deepfake labeling
Minimal Risk	No significant risk	No mandatory requirements	Spam filters, AI games

Key Timeline

Date	Milestone
August 2024	EU AI Act officially enters into force
February 2025	Unacceptable risk prohibition takes effect
August 2026	General-purpose AI (GPAI) transparency requirements take effect
December 2027	Standalone high-risk AI systems full compliance (Omnibus extension)
August 2028	High-risk AI embedded in regulated products full compliance

Maximum Fines

€35 million or 7% of global annual revenue (whichever is higher)
This is more severe than GDPR's maximum fine (€20 million or 4%)

GDPR and AI Act Overlapping Obligations

Obligation	GDPR	AI Act	Overlap Handling
Data Minimization	✓	Implicit	AI training data equally applicable
Transparency	✓	✓ (Limited Risk+)	Dual compliance
Right to Explanation for Automated Decisions	✓ (Art. 22)	✓ (High Risk)	Unified explanation mechanism
DPIA (Data Protection Impact Assessment)	✓	✓ (High Risk = mandatory)	Can be merged into a single assessment

China Generative AI Regulatory System

Dual Filing System

Filing Type	Regulatory Authority	Applicable Targets	Key Requirements
Algorithm Filing	Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)	All algorithms with public opinion attributes or social mobilization capabilities	Algorithm principles, data sources, safety assessment
Large Model Filing	Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)	Generative AI services provided to the public	Safety assessment, content moderation mechanisms, training data compliance

Deep Synthesis Content Labeling

Explicit Labeling: Embed visible identifiers in content (e.g., "AI-generated" watermarks)
Implicit Labeling: Embed technical identifiers in metadata
X-DeepSynth Response Header: API responses must include X-DeepSynth: true identifier
Filed Services: 748 (as of latest data)

AI Evaluation (Evals) System

9-Step Evaluation Process

text

1. Define Success Criteria → 2. Select Evaluation Metrics → 3. Build Golden Test Dataset
       ↓
4. Offline Evaluation → 5. Human Evaluation → 6. Iterative Optimization
       ↓
7. Controlled Rollout (Canary) → 8. Continuous Monitoring → 9. Documentation

5-Dimension Evaluation Framework

Dimension	Key Metrics	Evaluation Method
Performance	Accuracy, Recall, F1, Latency P95	Automated testing + Golden Dataset
Robustness	Adversarial sample resistance, edge case handling	Boundary testing, adversarial testing
Fairness & Safety	Bias detection, harmful content filtering rate	Bias audit, Red teaming
Factuality & Hallucination	Hallucination rate, factual consistency	RAGAS Faithfulness, human review
Consistency & Reliability	Same input → Same output stability	Repeated testing, regression testing

Tool Matrix

Tool	Positioning	Core Capabilities
Promptfoo	Lightweight evaluation	CLI-driven, rapid comparison of multiple Prompts/models
RAGAS	RAG-specific	Faithfulness/Relevancy/Recall/Precision
DeepEval	General evaluation	Hallucination detection, bias detection, toxicity detection
LangSmith	Full-chain	Tracing + Evaluation + Human annotation
LangFuse	Open-source observability	Tracing + Evaluation + Cost tracking
TruLens	Feedback analysis	RAG triad evaluation (Answer/Context/Groundedness)
Arize Phoenix	Observability	LLM observability + Retrieval analysis
MLflow	Experiment management	Model experiment tracking + Model registry
Deepchecks	Data validation	Training data quality + Data drift detection

CI/CD Integration Quality Gate

text

Code Commit → Unit Tests → Evals Automation → Quality Gate
                                        │
                          ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐
                          ▼             ▼             ▼
                     Hallucination   Accuracy       Safety Violation
                      Detection     Regression       Detection
                   (threshold <5%) (no regression  (zero tolerance)
                                    >2%)

LLM Industry Chain Four-Layer Panorama

Layer	Key Players	Competitive Landscape	PM Focus
Compute Layer	NVIDIA / Huawei Ascend / Cambricon / Hygon	NVIDIA dominates alone, domestic players accelerating catch-up	Compute cost trends, domestic substitution window
Model Layer	OpenAI / Google / Anthropic / Meta / Baidu / Alibaba / Zhipu / DeepSeek	Closed-source vs open-source dual-track competition	Model capability boundaries, API pricing, open-source model usability
Platform Layer	LangChain / LlamaIndex / Dify / Bailian / Wenxin	Toolchains + Cloud platforms	RAG/Agent development frameworks, MaaS platforms
Application Layer	Microsoft Copilot / Salesforce Einstein / Various AI-native apps	A hundred flowers blooming	Scenario selection, user experience, data flywheel

2026 AI Industry Top 10 Trends

Full content moved to references/ai-industry-trends-2026.md for size optimization. This section contains detailed analysis, frameworks, and data tables. See the reference file for the complete content.

Key Topics Covered:

AI PM Workflow System

Dual-Track AI Product Development

Discovery (AI Capability Exploration): Hypothesis → Prompt Prototype → Golden Dataset Evaluation → Alpha → Beta → A/B Validation → Launch

Delivery (AI Product Delivery): Review → Prompt/Model Change → Offline Evaluation → Gradual Rollout (5%→25%→100%) → Monitoring → Iteration

AI PM Standard Weekly Cadence

Day	Agenda
Monday	AI Metrics Review + Weekly Planning
Tuesday	User Research + Bad Case Deep Analysis
Wednesday	Prompt/RAG/Agent Design (Deep Work)
Thursday	Cross-team Alignment + Safety Review
Friday	Golden Dataset Maintenance + AI Knowledge Sharing

AI Product Pre-Launch Checklist

text

□ Golden Dataset evaluation passed (core metrics not degraded)
□ Red team testing completed and high-risk items fixed
□ Safety guardrails deployed and tested
□ Cost model updated and reviewed
□ Monitoring alerts configured
□ Degradation/rollback plan prepared
□ Help documentation updated (users need to know how to interact with AI)
□ Gradual rollout plan confirmed
□ Legal/compliance signed off

Competency Model & Career Development

AI PM Capability Pyramid

text

              ┌────────────────────┐
              │   AI Business      │  ← AI Monetization / Token Economics / Market Judgment
              │   Thinking (25%)   │
              ├────────────────────┤
              │   AI Technical     │  ← Model Capabilities / RAG / Agent / Prompt / Evaluation
              │   Literacy (30%)   │
              ├────────────────────┤
              │   AI Product       │  ← AI UX / Trust Design / HITL / Interaction Patterns
              │   Design (25%)     │
              ├────────────────────┤
              │   Product          │  ← User Research / Requirements Analysis / Data Analysis
              │   Fundamentals     │
              │   (20%)            │
              └────────────────────┘

From AI PM to Chief AI Officer

Level	Experience	Core Competencies
Junior AI PM	0-2 years	Prompt engineering basics, AI evaluation execution, AI feature PRD writing
Mid-level AI PM	2-5 years	RAG/Agent solution design, Golden Dataset construction, AI UX design
Senior AI PM	5-8 years	Model selection decisions, AI product strategy, safety system design, AI commercialization
AI Product Director	8-12 years	AI product portfolio, Build/Buy decisions, AI team building
Chief AI Officer	12+ years	Company AI strategy, AI governance, AI culture, AI investment portfolio

AI PM Essential Technical Knowledge Checklist

text

Must Understand (able to have effective dialogue with ML engineers):
□ How LLMs work (Transformer / Attention Mechanism / Tokens)
□ Advanced Prompt Engineering (CoT / ReAct / Few-Shot)
□ RAG Architecture (Chunking / Retrieval / Reranking / Evaluation)
□ Agent Architecture (Tool Calling / Memory / Planning / HITL)
□ Model Evaluation Methods (Golden Dataset / LLM-as-Judge / A/B Testing)
□ Token Economics (Cost Estimation / Model Routing / Caching Strategy)
□ AI Security Basics (Injection / Jailbreak / Guardrails / Red Team Testing)

Bonus Items:
□ Fine-tuning Basics (SFT / RLHF / DPO / LoRA)
□ MLOps & AI Observability
□ GPU Economics & Inference Optimization
□ AI Governance & Compliance (EU AI Act / China Administrative Measures)
□ Multimodal AI Basics

Document Factory

AI Product Professional Documents

Document	Audience	Detailed Template
AI Product PRD	Dev/ML Team	`references/templates/ai-prd-template.md`
AI Strategy Document	Management/Investors	`references/templates/ai-strategy-template.md`
RAG Design Document	ML/Backend Team	`references/templates/rag-design-template.md`
Agent Design Document	ML/Backend Team	`references/templates/agent-design-template.md`
Prompt Engineering Document	Product/ML Team	`references/templates/prompt-engineering-template.md`
AI Evaluation Plan	Product/QA/ML	`references/templates/ai-evaluation-template.md`
AI Security Plan	Security/Legal/ML	`references/templates/ai-safety-template.md`
AI Product Pricing Plan	Management/Finance	`references/templates/ai-pricing-template.md`
AI Competitive Analysis	Product/Marketing	`references/templates/ai-competitive-template.md`

Diagram Factory

Must-Draw Diagrams for AI PMs

#	Diagram Type	Purpose	Tool
1	RAG Architecture Diagram	RAG pipeline overview	drawio-skill
2	Agent Architecture Diagram	Agent / Multi-Agent system	drawio-skill
3	Model Routing Flowchart	Multi-model routing decisions	drawio-skill
4	AI Evaluation Pipeline Diagram	Evaluation process + data flow	drawio-skill
5	Safety Guardrail Layered Diagram	Multi-layer safety protection	drawio-skill
6	Data Flywheel Diagram	User → Data → AI Improvement Loop	excalidraw-diagram
7	AI Product Full-Stack Architecture Diagram	Product technical architecture	drawio-generator-pro

Prototype Factory

text

"Generate an HTML prototype for an AI customer service chatbot"
→ Chat interface + Confidence display + Source citations + Human handoff + Empty state guidance

"Generate an HTML prototype for an AI contract review tool"
→ Upload contract → AI flags risky clauses → User confirms/modifies → Export report

"Generate an HTML prototype for an AI data analysis agent"
→ Natural language input → Agent thinking steps display → Visualized results → Download & share

AI Governance & Compliance

Global AI Regulatory Landscape

EU AI Act (Phased Implementation)

Risk Level	Requirements	Product Examples
Unacceptable	Completely prohibited	Social credit scoring, real-time remote biometric identification
High Risk	Compliance assessment + human oversight + transparency + EU registry	Medical AI, recruitment AI, credit approval
Limited Risk	Inform users "you are interacting with AI"	Chatbots, AI-generated content
Minimal Risk	No additional obligations	AI filters, AI recommendations

"Deployer Trap": Enterprises using third-party AI APIs may also bear obligations.

China AI Regulatory System

Regulation	Core Requirements
Generative AI Service Administrative Measures	Safety assessment + algorithm filing + content moderation + training data compliance
Deep Synthesis Administrative Provisions	Synthetic content labeling + user real-name verification + review mechanism
Personal Information Protection Law	PII compliance in training data
Algorithm Recommendation Administrative Provisions	Algorithm filing + user right to know + opt-out mechanism

China AI "Triple Registration": Algorithm Filing → AI Safety Assessment → Content Safety Review

AI Product Anti-Patterns Encyclopedia (25 Common Mistakes)

Strategy Category

#	Anti-Pattern	Correct Approach
1	"Just Stuff AI In First" — AI for AI's sake	First ask whether AI truly solves the problem
2	Competing with OpenAI at the Model Layer	Build proprietary data and experience moats at the application layer
3	Ignoring the Data Flywheel	Design implicit feedback collection mechanisms from Day 1
4	Pursuing SOTA Instead of Good Enough	Model routing: simple → small model, complex → large model
5	"AI Will Optimize Itself"	Establish a continuous loop of evaluation → analysis → optimization

Technical Category

#	Anti-Pattern	Correct Approach
6	Defaulting Everything to Agent	First evaluate with simple LLM calls, upgrade only if insufficient
7	Ignoring Token Costs	Monitor inference cost per interaction from Day 1
8	Context Window Abuse	Curate context, don't pile everything in
9	RAG Only Using Vector Retrieval	BM25 + Vector + Reranker is the production baseline
10	Evaluation Set Made Up by PM	Build from real user query sampling

UX Category

#	Anti-Pattern	Correct Approach
11	Black-box AI — Not showing reasoning process	Show reasoning steps + cite sources
12	No Exit Design	Always keep a manual operation path
13	Pretending 100% Certainty	Display confidence levels when uncertain
14	AI Frequently Interrupting Users	Passive assistance, not proactive interruption
15	Ignoring Loading Experience	Streaming output + progress indicators + skeleton screens

Security Category

#	Anti-Pattern	Correct Approach
16	"Launch First, Security Later"	At minimum deploy basic input/output guardrails
17	Not Telling Users It's AI	Clearly label AI identity
18	Releasing Without Red Team Testing	At minimum internal red team testing before launch
19	Ignoring Low-Resource Language Security	Test jailbreak risks for all supported languages
20	No Emergency Circuit Breaker	One-click stop all AI features

Commercialization Category

#	Anti-Pattern	Correct Approach
21	Selling AI with Per-Seat Pricing	Hybrid model (base fee + usage)
22	Unlimited Free AI Usage	Set strict usage caps on free tier
23	Not Tracking User-Level Costs	Must be clear on each user's input-output ratio
24	Underestimating Price Wars	Token prices drop 10x annually, moat is data and experience
25	AI Gross Margin < 50%	Maintain 60%+ AI gross margin

World-Class AI PM Framework Library

Shreyas Doshi's Product Sense (AI Era Edition)

text

In the AI era, Product Sense is the only irreplaceable capability.

Three Pillars:
1. Cognitive Empathy — See through the human needs behind users' irrational behavior
   AI is "emotionally colorblind": understands data, but not human hearts
2. Aesthetics & Taste — Sharp intuition for whether an interaction feels "right"
   AI can generate ten thousand solutions, but can't tell you which one gives users a visceral resonance
3. Business Intuition — Instantly see through the value exchange model behind anything
   AI lacks the ability to make correct decisions in extreme business ambiguity

Chip Huyen's AI Engineering Framework

text

1. Evaluation-Driven Development
   → Build the evaluation set first, then write the Prompt. Evaluation is a navigator, not a checkpoint.

2. RAG is the Default Choice, Not the Last Resort
   → Most B2B AI products start with RAG.

3. Start Simple, Progressively Complex
   Simple LLM → +RAG → +Tools → +Agent → +Multi-Agent
   Don't skip levels! Verify each level before upgrading.

4. Systems Thinking, Not Model Thinking
   Excellent AI Product = Model (30%) + Context Engineering (25%) + Evaluation (20%) + Safety (15%) + UX (10%)

Marily Nika's AI PM Three Pillars (Google)```

"All PMs will become AI PMs"

Technical literacy is non-negotiable — you don't need to write code, but you must understand ML concepts
From "translator" to "builder" — use AI tools yourself to prototype, test, and iterate
Ethical AI literacy — bias detection, data privacy, content safety are fundamental skills for AI PMs

text


---



---

## Global AI Governance & Regulatory Landscape

### International AI Regulatory Comparison Matrix

| Region | Key Regulation | Risk Classification | Key Requirements | Enforcement Body | Penalties |
|--------|---------------|---------------------|------------------|------------------|-----------|
| **EU** | EU AI Act (2024) | 4 tiers: Unacceptable / High / Limited / Minimal | CE marking, conformity assessment, fundamental rights impact assessment | EU AI Office + National Authorities | Up to €35M or 7% global turnover |
| **US** | AI Executive Order 14110 (2023) + NIST AI RMF 1.0 | Voluntary framework (4 functions: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage) | Red-teaming for dual-use models, safety testing, content watermarking | NIST + Sector-specific agencies | Sector-specific enforcement |
| **UK** | AI Regulation White Paper (2023) + AI Safety Institute | Context-specific, principles-based (5 principles) | Cross-sectoral principles, no new regulator | Existing regulators (ICO, FCA, CMA, etc.) | Sector-specific |
| **China** | Generative AI Administrative Measures (2023) + Algorithm Filing | Content-based classification | Algorithm filing, security assessment, content moderation, training data compliance | Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) | Service suspension, fines, criminal liability |
| **Japan** | AI Guidelines for Business (2024) | Non-binding, sector-specific | Voluntary AI governance framework, human-centric principles | METI + MIC | Sector-specific |
| **Singapore** | PDPC AI Governance Framework + AI Verify | Voluntary, risk-based | AI Verify testing toolkit, model governance framework | PDPC + IMDA | PDPA enforcement |
| **Canada** | AIDA (Bill C-27, proposed) | High-impact systems | Risk assessment, transparency, human oversight | Proposed AI & Data Commissioner | Up to CAD $25M or 5% revenue |
| **South Korea** | AI Basic Law (proposed 2024) | High-risk AI systems | Safety certification, human oversight, transparency | MSIT + KISA | Up to KRW 300M or 3% revenue |
| **UAE** | UAE AI Strategy 2031 + AI Ethics Guidelines | Sector-specific | AI ethics principles, sector-specific guidelines | UAE AI Office | Sector-specific |

### NIST AI RMF 1.0 — Four Functions Deep Dive

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) provides a structured approach to AI risk management:

| Function | Core Activities | AI PM's Role |
|----------|----------------|-------------|
| **GOVERN** | Establish AI risk culture, policies, accountability | Define AI governance structure, risk appetite, escalation paths |
| **MAP** | Understand AI system context, identify risks | Map AI system components, data flows, stakeholders, potential harms |
| **MEASURE** | Assess AI risks using quantitative/qualitative methods | Design evaluation metrics, monitor trustworthiness characteristics |
| **MANAGE** | Prioritize and respond to AI risks | Implement guardrails, document risk decisions, continuous monitoring |

### California SB 1047 — Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier AI Models

Key provisions relevant to AI PMs:
- **Safety testing**: Mandatory safety testing for models above compute threshold (10^26 FLOPS)
- **Kill switch**: Full shutdown capability required
- **Third-party auditing**: Annual third-party safety audits
- **Liability**: Developer liability for catastrophic harms
- **Whistleblower protection**: Employee protection for reporting safety concerns

### UK AI Safety Institute (AISI)

The UK's approach focuses on frontier AI safety evaluation:
- **Pre-deployment testing**: Voluntary but strongly encouraged for frontier models
- **Evaluation domains**: Cybersecurity, bio/chemical capabilities, autonomous systems, societal impacts
- **International collaboration**: Bletchley Declaration, Seoul Summit, AI Safety Summits
- **PM implications**: Prepare for pre-deployment evaluation requirements, document safety testing results

### APAC AI Governance Deep Dive

| Country | Regulation/Policy | Status | Key Requirements | PM Implications |
|---------|------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------|
| **Japan** | AI Promotion Act (2025) | Enacted June 2025 | Non-binding framework; R&D promotion; transparency goals; no criminal penalties | Light-touch compliance; focus on manufacturing/healthcare/robotics AI |
| **Singapore** | PDPC AI Governance Framework + AI Verify | Active (v2.0, 2024) | AI Verify testing toolkit; model governance; financial sector GenAI guidelines | Use AI Verify for product testing; financial services AI has extra requirements |
| **South Korea** | AI Basic Law (2024) | Enacted | High-risk AI safety certification; human oversight; transparency; KRW 300M penalty | Safety certification for high-risk products; mandatory human-in-the-loop |
| **India** | DPDP Act 2023 + National AI Strategy | Active | Data protection; emerging AI framework; no comprehensive AI law yet | Data localization considerations; large population = diverse training data needs |
| **Australia** | Voluntary AI Safety Standards + National AI Plan | Active | Ethical AI in government; voluntary standards; sector-specific guidance | Government AI procurement standards; ethical AI principles alignment |

### Middle East AI Governance

| Country | Regulation/Policy | Status | Key Requirements | PM Implications |
|---------|------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------|
| **UAE** | UAE AI Strategy 2031 + AI Ethics Guidelines | Active | Sector-specific AI ethics; government AI adoption targets; AI Office oversight | Sovereign AI focus; government procurement opportunities; bilingual (AR/EN) requirements |
| **Saudi Arabia** | SDAIA AI Ethics Principles (2023) + Vision 2030 | Active | AI ethics governance; data classification; national AI strategy | Government-driven AI adoption; large-scale smart city projects (NEOM) |
| **Qatar** | National AI Strategy (2024) | Active | AI R&D investment; education sector AI; data governance | Growing AI hub; education and healthcare AI focus |

### LATAM AI Governance

| Country | Regulation/Policy | Status | Key Requirements | PM Implications |
|---------|------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------|
| **Brazil** | AI Bill (PL 2338/2023) + AI Ethics Guidelines | Under review | Risk-based classification; transparency; user rights; algorithmic impact assessment | Modeled on EU approach; LGPD data protection alignment; growing fintech AI |
| **Mexico** | National AI Strategy (2024) | Active | AI for social good; government AI adoption; ethics framework | Government-led AI adoption; nearshoring opportunities for US companies |
| **Argentina** | AI for Social Good Guidelines | Active | AI ethics; social impact focus; public sector AI | Public sector AI projects; growing AI talent pool |

### Africa AI Governance

| Country | Regulation/Policy | Status | Key Requirements | PM Implications |
|---------|------------------|--------|------------------|-----------------|
| **South Africa** | National AI Strategy (2024 draft) | Draft | AI for development; ethical AI; skills development | Leading African AI hub; fintech and healthtech AI focus |
| **Kenya** | National AI Strategy (2025) | Active | AI for agriculture/healthcare/fintech; data protection; innovation hubs | Mobile-first AI products; M-Pesa fintech ecosystem; growing startup scene |
| **Nigeria** | National AI Policy (2024) | Active | AI for economic diversification; local language AI; skills development | Largest African market; local language AI (Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo); fintech AI |
| **African Union** | AU AI Continental Strategy (2024) | Active | Pan-African AI harmonization; capacity building; data sovereignty | Regional harmonization efforts; infrastructure challenges = edge AI opportunities |

---

## Global AI PM Career Landscape

### International AI PM Salary Benchmarks (2025)

| Region | Entry-Level (0-3 yrs) | Mid-Level (3-7 yrs) | Senior (7-12 yrs) | Director/VP (12+ yrs) |
|--------|----------------------|---------------------|-------------------|----------------------|
| **US (SF/NYC)** | $140K-180K | $200K-280K | $300K-450K | $500K-800K+ |
| **US (Other Tech Hubs)** | $120K-150K | $170K-230K | $250K-350K | $400K-600K |
| **Canada (Toronto/Vancouver)** | CAD $100K-130K | CAD $140K-180K | CAD $200K-280K | CAD $300K-450K |
| **UK (London)** | £70K-90K | £100K-140K | £150K-200K | £200K-350K |
| **Germany (Berlin/Munich)** | €65K-85K | €90K-120K | €130K-170K | €180K-250K |
| **Netherlands** | €60K-80K | €85K-115K | €120K-160K | €170K-230K |
| **Singapore** | SGD $90K-120K | SGD $130K-180K | SGD $200K-280K | SGD $300K-450K |
| **Japan (Tokyo)** | ¥8M-12M | ¥13M-18M | ¥20M-28M | ¥30M-50M |
| **UAE (Dubai/Abu Dhabi)** | AED 300K-400K | AED 450K-600K | AED 650K-900K | AED 1M-1.5M+ |
| **India (Bangalore)** | ₹15L-25L | ₹30L-50L | ₹60L-1Cr | ₹1.2Cr-2.5Cr |
| **Australia (Sydney)** | AUD $120K-150K | AUD $160K-200K | AUD $220K-300K | AUD $350K-500K |

### Big Tech AI PM Career Ladders

| Level | Google | Meta | Microsoft | Amazon |
|-------|--------|------|-----------|--------|
| **Entry** | APM / L3 | RPM | PM1 | PM (L5) |
| **Mid** | PM L4-L5 | PM IC4-IC5 | PM2 | Sr PM (L6) |
| **Senior** | Sr PM L6 | PM IC6 | Principal PM | Principal PM (L7) |
| **Staff** | Staff PM L7 | PM IC7 | Partner PM | Sr Principal (L8) |
| **Director** | Director L8 | Director M1 | Director | Director (L8+) |
| **VP** | VP L9+ | VP M2+ | VP | VP |

### International AI PM Certifications

| Certification | Issuing Body | Focus | Global Recognition |
|--------------|-------------|-------|-------------------|
| **IAPP AIGP** | IAPP | AI Governance Professional | High (US/EU) |
| **ISO/IEC 42001 Lead Implementer** | Various | AI Management System | High (Global) |
| **AI Product Manager Certificate** | Product School | AI PM Skills | Medium (US) |
| **AI for Product Management** | Reforge | AI PM Strategy | Medium (US) |
| **Google AI PM Certificate** | Google | AI PM Foundations | Medium (Global) |
| **Duke AI Product Manager** | Duke University | AI PM Certificate | Medium (US) |

---

## Global AI Startup Ecosystem

### Major AI Hubs by Region

| Region | Key Hubs | Notable AI Startups | Key Strengths |
|--------|---------|---------------------|---------------|
| **US** | SF Bay Area, NYC, Boston, Seattle | OpenAI, Anthropic, Scale AI, Databricks | Deep tech, VC funding, talent density |
| **Canada** | Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver | Cohere, Element AI, Waabi | NLP research, government funding, talent pipeline |
| **UK** | London, Cambridge, Edinburgh | DeepMind, Stability AI, Graphcore | Research excellence, AI safety focus |
| **EU** | Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm | Mistral AI, Aleph Alpha, Helsing | Open-source models, defense AI, regulation |
| **Israel** | Tel Aviv | AI21 Labs, Gong, Run:ai | Enterprise AI, cybersecurity, NLP |
| **China** | Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hangzhou | Zhipu AI, Moonshot AI, DeepSeek, MiniMax, Baichuan | Scale, mobile-first, government support |
| **Singapore** | Singapore | PatSnap, Advance.AI, Taiger | SEA hub, multilingual, fintech AI |
| **India** | Bangalore, Hyderabad, Mumbai | Krutrim, Sarvam AI, Haptik | Indic languages, enterprise, cost efficiency |
| **UAE** | Dubai, Abu Dhabi | G42, Falcon AI, AI71 | Sovereign AI, government investment, compute |
| **South Korea** | Seoul | Upstage, Riiid, Liner | AI education, enterprise AI, hardware |

### Global AI Funding by Region (2024-2025)

| Region | Total AI VC Funding | YoY Growth | Top Segments |
|--------|--------------------|------------|--------------|
| **North America** | ~$80B | +35% | Foundation models, AI infrastructure, enterprise AI |
| **China** | ~$15B | +20% | LLM applications, autonomous driving, AI chips |
| **Europe** | ~$12B | +30% | AI safety, enterprise AI, open-source models |
| **Middle East** | ~$5B | +50% | Sovereign AI, smart city, fintech AI |
| **APAC (ex-China)** | ~$8B | +25% | Enterprise AI, AI education, fintech AI |
| **LATAM** | ~$2B | +40% | Fintech AI, agritech AI, healthtech AI |
| **Africa** | ~$0.5B | +60% | Fintech AI, agritech AI, healthtech AI |

---

## Global AI Adoption & Market Data

### Enterprise AI Adoption by Region (2025)

| Region | AI Adoption Rate | GenAI in Production | Top Use Cases |
|--------|-----------------|--------------------|---------------|
| **North America** | 72% | 34% | Customer service, content generation, code generation |
| **Europe** | 58% | 22% | Process automation, compliance, customer insights |
| **APAC** | 65% | 28% | Customer engagement, operations, product development |
| **China** | 70% | 30% | Content generation, customer service, enterprise search |
| **Middle East** | 55% | 18% | Smart city, government services, fintech |
| **LATAM** | 45% | 12% | Customer service, marketing, fintech |
| **Africa** | 35% | 8% | Fintech, agriculture, healthcare |

### Global AI Spending Forecast (Gartner, 2025)

| Year | Global AI Spending | YoY Growth | Key Drivers |
|------|-------------------|------------|-------------|
| 2024 | ~$200B | +25% | GenAI adoption, LLM infrastructure |
| 2025 | ~$300B | +50% | Agent AI, enterprise AI platforms |
| 2026 | ~$450B | +50% | AI-native applications, autonomous agents |
| 2027 | ~$650B | +44% | AI-first enterprises, AI hardware |
| 2028 | ~$900B | +38% | Ubiquitous AI, AI-driven business models |


## Final Reminders

> **The Ultimate AI PM Mindset (12 Iron Rules):**
>
> 1. **AI is a tool, not magic** — Start from narrow scenarios, build moats with data
> 2. **Models will commoditize, data and experience won't** — The moat is proprietary data and unique experience
> 3. **Evaluation is the foundation of everything** — Without evaluation, there is no AI product iteration
> 4. **Trust is the currency of AI products** — Lose it once, it takes 10 perfect performances to win back
> 5. **Token cost = your COGS** — A product that doesn't track costs is blind
> 6. **Safety is not a feature, it's infrastructure** — Design safety on Day 1, not as an afterthought
> 7. **Progressive trust > one-shot release** — Start with low-risk features
> 8. **Humans always stay in the loop** — Don't let AI make decisions it can't be held accountable for
> 9. **Simple > flashy** — A precise classification model can be more valuable than a hallucinating Agent
> 10. **Prompts are the UI of AI products** — Treat prompts well, iterate on them like product interfaces
> 11. **Data flywheel > model capability** — Proprietary data accumulation doesn't happen automatically
> 12. **You are the CEO of your AI product** — Not a "model API wrapper"; take full responsibility for the user's AI experience

---

> **Get started: Tell me directly what you want to do, and the Skill will automatically match the phase, methodology, and toolchain.**
> Whether you're a traditional PM transitioning to AI or new to the AI field, this Skill is your AI PM super-assistant.

---

## Tool Integration Summary

| Task | Primary Tool | Alternative |
|------|-------------|-------------|
| Draw AI architecture diagrams | `drawio-skill` | `drawio-coderknock` |
| Draw data flywheel / journey maps | `excalidraw-diagram` | - |
| Generate AI product prototypes | Generate HTML directly (Tailwind+Alpine.js) | - |
| Write AI PRD / strategy docs | Generate Markdown directly | `word-docx` |
| Make AI strategy PPTs | `pptx-2` | `deck-generator` |
| Build evaluation datasets | `xlsx` | - |
| Prompt version comparison | Git (Markdown) | - |

---

## Usage Examples

### Example 1: Design an AI Customer Service Product from 0 to 1

User: Help me design an AI customer service chatbot product

Output:

Phase 1: AI Opportunity Assessment (CS scenario AI feasibility + D×V×F scoring)
Phase 3: Model Selection (Recommend GPT-4o/Gemini Flash tiered routing)
Phase 4: System Prompt + Few-Shot example design
Phase 5: RAG Design (knowledge base chunking + hybrid retrieval strategy)
Phase 8: AI UX Prototype (conversation interface + confidence + handoff to human)
Phase 9: Evaluation Plan (Golden Dataset + RAGAS metrics)
Phase 10: Safety Guardrails (jailbreak protection + content moderation)
Phase 12: Pricing Plan (base monthly fee + per-conversation overage billing)

text


### Example 2: Add AI Contract Review to Existing CRM

User: Add AI contract review functionality to my CRM

Output:

Phase 1: AI Feasibility Assessment (task characteristics analysis for contract review)
Phase 3: Model Selection (Recommend Claude Sonnet + long context window)
Phase 4: Prompt Design (legal expert System Prompt + clause review instructions)
Phase 8: AI UX Design (upload → AI flags risks → human confirms → generate review report)
Phase 9: Evaluation Plan (contract review accuracy Golden Dataset)
Phase 10: HITL Design (high-risk clauses: AI suggestion → legal confirmation)

text


---

> **Get started: Tell me directly what you want to do, and the AI PM Skill will automatically match the phase, methodology, and toolchain.**

---

## Appendix A: Embedding Model Selection Deep Dive

> Embeddings are the cornerstone of RAG. Choose the wrong embedding model, and even the best retrieval strategy is wasted.

### Mainstream Embedding Model Comparison

| Model | Dimensions | Max Input | MTEB Chinese | Cost/1M tokens | Best Scenario |
|------|-----------|----------|-------------|---------------|---------|
| text-embedding-3-large (OpenAI) | 3072/256/1024 | 8191 | Medium | $0.13 | English, multilingual |
| text-embedding-3-small | 1536/512 | 8191 | Low-Medium | $0.02 | Cost-sensitive English |
| bge-large-zh-v1.5 (BAAI) | 1024 | 512 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Open-source free | Top choice for Chinese |
| bge-m3 (BAAI) | 1024 | 8192 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Open-source free | Multilingual + long documents |
| stella-base-zh-v3-1792d | 1792 | 512 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Open-source free | High-precision Chinese retrieval |
| multilingual-e5-large | 1024 | 512 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Open-source free | Mixed multilingual |
| jina-embeddings-v3 | 1024 | 8192 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Paid API | Long documents + multilingual |

### Selection Decision Tree

Primary language? ├── Mainly Chinese → bge-large-zh-v1.5 or stella-base-zh ├── Mainly English → text-embedding-3-large ├── Mixed multilingual → bge-m3 or multilingual-e5-large └── Need on-premise deployment → bge series (open-source)
Document length? ├── Short (<512 tokens) → bge-large-zh-v1.5 ├── Long (512-8192) → bge-m3 or jina-embeddings-v3 └── Extra-long (>8192) → Chunk first, then embed
Dimension preference? ├── Accuracy-first (>1024 dims) → text-embedding-3-large (3072) or stella (1792) ├── Speed-first (768 dims) → bge-base-zh-v1.5 └── Storage-first (<512 dims) → text-embedding-3-small (512)

text


### Embedding Quality Checklist

□ Synonym recall test: Can "contract expiration" retrieve "agreement termination"? □ Polysemy distinction test: Is "apple" correctly distinguished in tech vs. fruit contexts? □ Negation semantic test: Do retrieval results for "does not include XX" contain XX? □ Cross-language test: Can Chinese queries retrieve English documents? (if needed) □ Long document test: Does embedding quality degrade for 512+ token documents? □ Domain terminology test: How effective is retrieval for industry-specific terms?

text


---

## Appendix B: Vector Database Selection Decision Matrix

### Mainstream Vector Database Comparison

| Database | Type | Scale Limit | Performance | Ops Complexity | Best Scenario |
|--------|------|---------|------|-----------|---------|
| **pgvector** | PostgreSQL Extension | <1M vectors | Medium | Low | Already have PG, modest vector volume |
| **Milvus** | Dedicated Vector DB | >1B | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | High | Large-scale production |
| **Qdrant** | Dedicated Vector DB | >100M | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Medium | Medium scale, good performance |
| **Weaviate** | Dedicated Vector DB | >100M | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Medium | Need built-in modules (text/image) |
| **Pinecone** | Cloud Service | >1B | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Very Low | Don't want to self-manage |
| **Chroma** | Lightweight Embedded | <100K | Low | Very Low | Prototype/dev environment |
| **ElasticSearch** | Search Engine + Vector | >100M | ⭐⭐⭐ | Medium-High | Already have ES infrastructure |

### Selection Decision

Vector count < 100K + rapid prototyping → Chroma (zero ops) Vector count 100K-1M + already have PG → pgvector (zero additional cost) Vector count 1M-100M + small/medium team → Qdrant or Weaviate Vector count > 100M + enterprise-grade → Milvus (distributed scaling) Don't want to self-manage + sufficient budget → Pinecone Already have ES + need hybrid search → ElasticSearch

text


### Key Production Considerations

| Consideration | Key Question |
|--------|---------|
| High Availability | Supports master-slave replication? Failover time? |
| Backup & Recovery | Incremental backup? Full restore time? |
| Multi-tenancy | Partition/Collection-level isolation? RBAC? |
| Hybrid Query | Vector + scalar filter performance? Scalar index? |
| Cost | Storage cost/TB? Query cost/1M queries? |

---

## Appendix C: RAG Chunking Strategy Deep Dive

### Chunking Method Comparison

| Chunking Method | Principle | Pros | Cons | Best Scenario |
|---------|------|------|------|---------|
| **Fixed Size** | Split by token count (e.g., 512 tokens) | Simple, controllable, predictable | Cuts off semantics | Initial solution, uniform documents |
| **By Paragraph** | Split by natural paragraphs | Semantically complete | Uneven length | Well-structured documents |
| **By Heading Hierarchy** | Split by H1/H2/H3 levels | Preserves context hierarchy | Complex implementation | Technical docs/help docs |
| **Semantic Chunking** | Use LLM to determine optimal split points | Semantically optimal | High cost, slow | High-quality requirement scenarios |
| **Hybrid Chunking** | Paragraph + fixed size fallback | Balances semantics and control | Complex rules | Recommended for production |
| **Sentence Window** | Split by sentences + window context | Fine-grained retrieval | Large storage | Scenarios needing precise positioning |

### Chunk Size Selection Guide

Chunk size 256 tokens: → Pros: Precise retrieval, low latency → Cons: Incomplete context, easy semantic cutoff → Suitable for: FAQ, short answers

Chunk size 512 tokens: → Pros: Balanced precision and completeness ← Recommended starting point → Suitable for: Most RAG scenarios

Chunk size 1024 tokens: → Pros: More complete context → Cons: Retrieval may bring back irrelevant content → Suitable for: Complex documents, technical manuals

Chunk size 2048+ tokens: → Pros: Long paragraphs not cut off → Cons: Low signal-to-noise ratio → Suitable for: Legal documents, academic papers

text


### Chunking Optimization in Practice

Chunking optimization loop:

Run retrieval with current chunking strategy
Collect Bad Cases (retrieved irrelevant / failed to retrieve relevant)
Analyze root causes:
- Semantics cut off → Increase chunk size or add overlap
- Too much noise → Reduce chunk size or add Reranker
- Heading info lost → Prepend document title to each chunk
Adjust strategy → Re-evaluate → Compare RAGAS metrics
Repeat until satisfied

Key techniques:

Add metadata prefix to each chunk: [Document Title] | [Section] | [Update Date]
Small Chunk + Large Context Window: Retrieve with small chunks + bring back adjacent chunks
Hierarchical Indexing: First retrieve document → then retrieve specific passages within that document

text


---

## Appendix D: Agent Tool Design Patterns & Practices

### 5 Principles of Tool Design

Single Responsibility: One tool does one thing ❌ "query_database" — too vague ✅ "query_order_info" / "query_member_points" — specific
Self-Describing: Tool name + description lets LLM understand at a glance ✅ Tool name: cancel_order ✅ Description: Cancel a specified order, requires order number and cancellation reason, returns cancellation status
Verifiable Output: Return structured results so LLM can determine success ✅ {status: "success", data: {...}, error: null} ❌ "The order seems to have been cancelled" (LLM has to guess)
Idempotency: Same input, multiple calls produce the same result (especially for mutation tools) ✅ Create order: use idempotency_key to prevent duplicates ✅ Cancel order: already-cancelled orders return "already cancelled" rather than error
Error-Friendly: Error messages must have enough context for LLM to decide next steps ✅ {error: "Order ORD123 not found, possibly wrong order number or order doesn't belong to current user"} ❌ {error: "not found"}

text


### Tool Count Management

| Agent Type | Recommended Tool Count | Rationale |
|-----------|----------|------|
| Simple Agent | 3-5 | Reduce confusion |
| Standard Agent | 5-10 | Cover core capabilities |
| Complex Agent | 10-20 | Multi-domain |
| Super Agent | 20-50 | Requires tool grouping + dynamic loading |

**What if there are too many tools?**
- Tool grouping: Group by domain (order-related, member-related, knowledge base-related)
- Dynamic loading: Agent first determines intent → only loads relevant tool groups
- Tool naming convention: `domain_action_object` (e.g., `order_query_status`)

### Common Tool Calling Issues

| Issue | Manifestation | Solution |
|------|------|------|
| Hallucinated calls | Calls non-existent tools | Add "only use provided tools" in tool description |
| Parameter hallucination | Fabricates parameter values | Require Agent to extract parameters from user input / prior results |
| Loop calls | Repeatedly calls the same tool | Set max retry count (3 times) |
| Premature abandonment | Gives up after one failure | Include retry suggestions in tool response |
| Permission errors | Calls tools without permission | Include permission requirements in tool definition |

---

## Appendix E: AI Team Structure & Roles

### Typical AI Product Team Configuration

AI Product Team (10-30 people):

├── AI Product Manager (1-2 people) │ └── Responsible for: AI strategy / model selection / prompt design / evaluation system / AI UX │ ├── ML Engineers (2-4 people) │ ├── Responsible for: model fine-tuning / evaluation pipeline / model routing / RAG implementation │ └── PM needs to align on: model capability boundaries, fine-tuning data needs, evaluation metrics │ ├── Backend Engineers (2-4 people) │ ├── Responsible for: API / vector database / Agent tools / knowledge base ingestion pipeline │ └── PM needs to align on: API design, data models, performance requirements │ ├── AI Safety Engineer (1 person) │ ├── Responsible for: guardrails / red team testing / content moderation / compliance │ └── PM needs to align on: risk matrix, safety release standards │ ├── Prompt Engineer / Content Designer (1 person) │ ├── Responsible for: System Prompt / Few-Shot library / output quality optimization │ └── PM needs to align on: brand tone, content standards, user feedback │ ├── Data Annotation / Evaluation Specialist (1-2 people) │ ├── Responsible for: Golden Dataset maintenance / human evaluation / Bad Case analysis │ └── PM needs to align on: evaluation standards, annotation specifications, data quality │ └── AI UX Designer (1 person) ├── Responsible for: AI interaction patterns / trust design / prototypes / user research └── PM needs to align on: interaction principles, trust-building roadmap

text


### Effective PM-ML Engineer Collaboration

What PMs should NOT do: ❌ "This model isn't good enough, can you make it more accurate?" (too vague) ❌ "I read a paper saying XX model has the highest SOTA, let's use that" (benchmark-only thinking) ❌ "Why can't it answer this? You're an AI!" (not understanding capability boundaries)

What PMs SHOULD do: ✅ "In this 50-item test set, the model's accuracy on refund policy questions is 70%, the main failure modes are... I suggest optimizing from XX direction" (specific + data + suggestions) ✅ "For this scenario our latency budget is only 500ms, which of these three models can meet that? What accuracy can we achieve?" (constraints + trade-offs) ✅ "User feedback says AI responses are too verbose, here are 5 Bad Cases, can we adjust the Prompt or do we need fine-tuning?" (problem + evidence + options)

text


---

## Appendix F: AI Product Development Cadence & Milestones

### 6 Milestones for AI Product 0→1

M1: Problem Validation (1-2 weeks) Goal: Confirm AI is the right solution Output: AI Opportunity Assessment (including scoring matrix) Check: Score ≥ 3.5? Data accessible?

M2: Prompt Prototype (2-4 weeks) Goal: Prove feasibility with prompts Output: System Prompt V1 + 50 test results Check: Core scenario accuracy > 70%?

M3: RAG MVP (4-8 weeks) Goal: Minimum closed loop of knowledge base retrieval + generation Output: Basic RAG pipeline + 100-item evaluation baseline Check: RAGAS Faithfulness > 0.80?

M4: Alpha Internal Testing (2-4 weeks) Goal: Internal team daily use Output: Alpha usage feedback + Bad Case logs Check: Internal tester satisfaction > 3.5/5?

M5: Beta External Testing (4-8 weeks) Goal: Friendly customers real-world use Output: Beta evaluation report + improvement checklist Check: Willingness to pay > 50%? NPS > 30?

M6: GA Official Launch (2-4 weeks) Goal: Public commercial availability Output: Product launch + safety guardrails ready + monitoring ready Check: All safety checklist items passed?

text


### AI Product Iteration Cadence

| Iteration Type | Frequency | Content |
|---------|------|------|
| Prompt Optimization | Weekly | Fine-tune prompts based on Bad Cases |
| RAG Optimization | Bi-weekly | Chunking strategy / retrieval parameter tuning |
| Model Upgrade Evaluation | Quarterly | New model evaluation + migration assessment |
| Fine-tuning Iteration | Quarterly | Update fine-tuning with new annotated data |
| Safety Review | Monthly | Safety metrics review + red team spot checks |
| Golden Dataset Update | Monthly | Add new queries, retire outdated queries |

---

## Appendix G: AI Cost Optimization Practical Handbook

### 4 Phases of Cost Optimization

Phase 1: Monitoring Transparency (Day 1) □ Log token consumption for every AI call □ Cost breakdown by feature / by user / by model □ Free user vs. paid user cost comparison □ Build a cost dashboard

Phase 2: Low-Hanging Fruit (Month 1) □ Prompt streamlining (remove redundant instructions) — save 10-20% □ Output token limits (max_tokens) — save 5-15% □ Identical query result caching — save 20-40% □ Common FAQ pre-generation + caching — save 30-50%

Phase 3: Architecture Optimization (Months 2-3) □ Model routing (simple → small model) — save 40-60% □ Semantic caching (similar query reuse) — save 20-40% □ Batch processing (non-real-time scenarios) — save 20-50%

Phase 4: Deep Optimization (Months 4-6) □ Fine-tune small models to replace large models — save 50-80% □ Custom inference infrastructure — save 30-60% □ On-premise deployment of open-source models — TCO optimization

text


### Cost Anomaly Detection Rules

Alert trigger conditions: □ Single user daily cost > 200% of yesterday □ Single user daily cost > overall P99 □ Free user daily cost > $1 □ Large model share in model routing > 40% (check if routing is broken) □ Cache hit rate < 30% (check if cache is broken) □ AI gross margin < 50% (check cost structure)

text


---

## Appendix H: AI PM Daily Practical Scenarios

### Scenario 1: Prompt Debugging

PM daily workflow:

Discover Bad Case (user complaint / evaluation failure / self-discovery)
Analyze: Is it a prompt problem? Retrieval problem? Model capability problem?
If it's a prompt problem → pinpoint which specific sentence is problematic
Modify prompt → test on the Bad Case
Regression test on the full Golden Dataset
Evaluation comparison report → pass → gradual rollout

Debugging tips:

Add Few-Shot first (fastest results)
Then modify constraint statements ("You must..." / "You must not...")
Finally modify role description (least impact)
Change only one thing at a time, A/B compare

text


### Scenario 2: Model Upgrade Evaluation

When upstream models upgrade (e.g., Claude Sonnet 3.5→4):

Run old vs. new model comparison on existing Golden Dataset
Focus on:
- Which scenarios improved? (don't need attention)
- Which scenarios regressed? (need focused attention!)
- Cost changes (new models are usually more expensive)
- Latency changes
Deep analysis of regression scenarios → may need prompt adjustments
Cost-benefit analysis → decide whether to migrate
If migrating: 5%→25%→100% gradual rollout

text


### Scenario 3: User Says "AI Isn't Smart Enough"

User's "not smart enough" could mean: ├── Didn't understand their intent → Query rewriting / clarification mechanism ├── Response too generic → Retrieval not precise enough / missing user profile ├── Response incorrect → Knowledge base outdated / hallucination / insufficient model capability ├── Wrong format → Prompt output format constraints insufficient ├── Response too slow → Model too large / no streaming output ├── Missing citations → RAG didn't return sources ├── Unnatural tone → Prompt role description needs adjustment └── Didn't remember context → Conversation history management issue

PM's diagnostic process:

Look at actual conversation logs (don't just rely on user reports)
Reproduce the issue yourself
Pinpoint the specific link in the chain
Apply targeted remedy, not generic "optimize AI"

text


---

## Appendix I: AI Product Technology Radar

### AI Technology Trends Worth Watching in 2025-2026

| Technology | Maturity | Impact on PMs | Action Recommendation |
|------|--------|-----------|---------|
| **Long Context Windows (1M+)** | Available | May simplify RAG design | Evaluate ROI of long context vs. RAG |
| **Multimodal (Vision + Voice)** | Rapidly maturing | Expands product scenarios | Think about scenarios multimodal can unlock |
| **AI Agent Standardization** | Early stage | Agents will become as common as APIs | Watch MCP/A2A and other Agent protocols |
| **Small Language Models (SLM) Boom** | In progress | On-device + low-cost inference | Evaluate feasibility of small models in specific scenarios |
| **AI Code Generation** | Mainstream | Changes software development | Use AI tools to accelerate prototype validation |
| **Real-time AI (Voice/Video)** | Rapidly maturing | Voice Agents become new entry points | Evaluate applicable scenarios for voice interaction |
| **AI Safety Automation** | Early stage | Reduces safety ops costs | Watch automated red team testing tools |
| **RAG 2.0** | Early stage | GraphRAG/Agentic RAG maturing | Try new patterns in complex scenarios |

### Impact of Technology Trends on Product Strategy

Trend 1: Accelerating model commoditization → The moat is not in model choice, but in data flywheel and user experience → Design model-switchable architecture (don't lock into one vendor)

Trend 2: Rapidly declining inference costs → AI can unlock more and more scenarios → But also means competitors can quickly replicate your AI features → Differentiation lies in proprietary data and deep integration

Trend 3: Agents moving from demo to production → 2025-2026 is the critical year for Agents from experimentation to production → Agent reliability, safety, and cost remain major challenges → PMs need to think: Do users really need an Agent? Or just a better UI?

Trend 4: AI shifting from "assisting" to "doing" → AI from assistive tool → autonomously completing work → Sequoia: Service-as-a-Software → PM's reflection: Does your product help users do, or do it for users?

Version History

Version	Date	Change Description
V1.1.0	2026-06-16	Deep upgrade: Added AI Agent 4 design patterns + 5 architecture patterns (Reflection/Tool Use/Planning/Multi-Agent + ReAct/Plan-Execute/LLM Compiler/BabyAGI/Smolagents) + framework selection decision tree, multi-Agent collaboration modes (Hierarchical/Peer Collaboration/Market Bidding), Agentic RAG architecture design (5-generation evolution + ReAct loop + GraphRAG 94% accuracy + RAGAS evaluation framework), RAG technology selection full-stack guide (document parsing layer/text chunking layer/Embedding/vector database/hybrid retrieval + RRF), EU AI Act compliance deep dive (4-tier risk classification + 2026 deadline + GDPR overlapping obligations), China generative AI regulatory system (dual filing system + deep synthesis labeling + 748 models filed), AI Evaluation Evals system (9-step process + 5-dimension framework + 9-tool matrix + CI/CD quality gates), LLM industry chain 4-tier panorama (compute/models/platforms/applications), 2026 AI industry top 10 trends. Unified copyright notice + disclaimer. Based on four rounds of deep research (Andrew Ng/Microsoft GraphRAG/EU AI Act/Cyberspace Administration of China/OpenAI/LangChain and other authoritative sources)
V1.0	2026-06-02	Initial version, covering 12 phases + AI PM full-stack capabilities

Copyright Notice

Author: yinjianheng (殷健恒) Contact: email: yinjianheng@foxmail.com / wechat: YJH-yinjianheng License: Free and open-source, for personal use only

温馨提示：本 Skill 为个人开源作品，仅供个人学习、研究及非商业用途。未经作者书面授权，严禁任何形式的商业使用（包括但不限于转售、捆绑销售、商业培训、SaaS化服务等）。作者已委托专业知识产权律师团队进行全网监测，侵权必究。

Disclaimer

Non-Professional Advice: The content provided by this Skill is for learning and reference only and does not constitute any form of professional advice (including but not limited to legal advice, financial advice, or technical decision-making advice). Users should consult appropriately qualified professionals before making any commercial or technical decisions.
Information Accuracy: While this Skill has made every effort to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of its content, it does not guarantee the completeness, accuracy, or applicability of all information. The AI field evolves extremely rapidly, and some content may become outdated over time. Users should verify critical information independently.
Limitation of Liability: To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the author assumes no liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, or consequential losses arising from the use of or reliance on the content of this Skill, including but not limited to business losses, data loss, system failures, or third-party claims.
Third-Party Content: The copyright of third-party frameworks, methodologies, tools, and standards referenced in this Skill (such as EU AI Act, Cyberspace Administration of China regulations, OpenAI, etc.) belongs to their respective rights holders. Such references do not constitute any affiliation or endorsement relationship between the author and the third-party rights holders.
Usage Compliance: Users should ensure that their use of this Skill complies with the laws, regulations, industry standards, and internal corporate policies of their country/region. Special reminder: AI product compliance requirements vary by region; please consult professional legal counsel.

Warm Tips

💡 Every product decision defines the relationship between users and AI. Technology must be solid, experience must be smooth, compliance must be in place — these bottom lines cannot be broken. No matter how good the product is, it's better to clock off early and spend more time with the people who matter. —— yinjianheng (殷健恒)

Warm Reminder

💡 Every product decision defines the relationship between users and AI. Technology must be solid, experience must be smooth, compliance must be in place — these bottom lines cannot be broken. No matter how good the product is, it's better to clock off early and spend more time with the people who matter. —— yinjianheng (殷健恒)

AI Product Manager Super Workbench

Install

AI PM Super Workbench V1.1.0 International Edition

⚠️ Output Standards (Must Follow in Every Response)

Quick Navigation: What Do I Want to Do?

AI PM vs Traditional PM: Deep Cognitive Differences

AI PM Role Genealogy: What Type of AI PM Are You?

Three Core Types (Marily Nika + Diego Granados Framework, 2025)

China AI PM Four Specialization Tracks (ByteDance / Alibaba / Tencent)

AI Product Technology Fundamentals: 10 Concepts Every PM Must Know

1. How Large Language Models (LLMs) Work (PM Perspective)

2. Token & Token Economics

3. Model Parameters (7B/70B/405B...)

4. Inference vs Training

5. Embedding

6. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

7. AI Agent

8. Fine-tuning

9. Temperature, Top-P, Top-K

10. Hallucination

12-Phase Complete AI Product Lifecycle

AI Agent Four Design Patterns + Five Architecture Patterns

Four Design Patterns (Andrew Ng)

Five Architecture Patterns

Framework Selection Decision Tree

Multi-Agent Collaboration Patterns

Three Collaboration Patterns

Multi-Agent System Design Principles

Agentic RAG Architecture Design

Five Generations of RAG Evolution

Agentic RAG Core Architecture (ReAct Loop)

GraphRAG Knowledge Graph Integration

RAGAS Evaluation Framework

RAG Technology Selection Full-Stack Guide

Document Parsing Layer

Text Chunking Layer

Embedding Model Selection

Vector Database Selection

Hybrid Retrieval + RRF Fusion

EU AI Act Compliance In-Depth Guide

Four-Tier Risk Classification

Key Timeline

Maximum Fines

GDPR and AI Act Overlapping Obligations

China Generative AI Regulatory System

Dual Filing System

Deep Synthesis Content Labeling

AI Evaluation (Evals) System

9-Step Evaluation Process

5-Dimension Evaluation Framework

Tool Matrix

CI/CD Integration Quality Gate

LLM Industry Chain Four-Layer Panorama

2026 AI Industry Top 10 Trends

Phase 1: AI Strategy & Opportunity Identification

Phase 2: Data Strategy & Infrastructure

Phase 3: Model Selection & Architecture Decisions

Phase 4: Prompt & Context Engineering

Phase 5: RAG Design & Implementation

Phase 6: Agents & Multi-Agent Systems

Phase 7: Model Fine-tuning & Adaptation

Phase 8: AI UX & Interaction Design

Phase 9: Evaluation Systems & Quality Assurance

Phase 10: Safety Guardrails & Red Teaming

Phase 11: AI Observability & Production Operations

Phase 12: AI Commercialization & Monetization

AI PM Workflow System

Dual-Track AI Product Development

AI PM Standard Weekly Cadence

AI Product Pre-Launch Checklist

Competency Model & Career Development

AI PM Capability Pyramid

From AI PM to Chief AI Officer

AI PM Essential Technical Knowledge Checklist

Document Factory

AI Product Professional Documents

Diagram Factory

Must-Draw Diagrams for AI PMs

Prototype Factory

AI Governance & Compliance