Results for “acceptance-criteria”

Generate a structured specification document before writing implementation code, validating scope, drafting specs, and registering them in the project.

Generate comprehensive Product Requirements Documents (PRDs) for software systems and AI-powered features, including executive summaries, user stories, technical specifications, and risk analysis.

Creates professional GitHub issues—bug reports, feature requests, and technical tasks—with clear context, acceptance criteria, and labels for immediate action.

Conduct Gage R&R studies and validate measurement systems per AIAG MSA manual, covering variable and attribute studies, acceptance criteria, and calculation methods.

Write an implementation plan from an approved architecture and MVP scope. Use when the team needs milestones, workstreams, dependency ordering, acceptance criteria, and execution sequencing that connect product intent to shippable engineering work.

Takes a high-level feature from an Epic and generates a detailed Product Requirements Document (PRD) in Markdown, covering goals, user stories, requirements, and acceptance criteria.

Create job stories using the 'When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]' format with detailed acceptance criteria. Use when writing job stories, creating JTBD-style backlog items, or expressing user situations and motivations.

Generate implementation plans from approved designs — plan-generator, phase-based plans, parallel batch execution, task dependency graph, owner skill routing, acceptance criteria, global done criteria, plan frontmatter, layout contract, interaction contract, anti-drift rules, plan format, AD-2 byte-for-byte gate, scope definition, execution plan, phases and batches, task anatomy, plan file format

Converts existing PRDs into the prd.json format used by the Ralph autonomous agent system, including splitting large features into right-sized stories and creating a progress file.

Load this skill when the user says "verify-implementation", "verify implementation", or "/verify-implementation". Reviews the implementation against the issue requirements and project coding standards, runs automated checks, and produces a gated report before acceptance criteria are ticked off.

Create implementation-ready engineering plans for WelineFramework. Use in Plan mode, or when the user requests detailed requirements, code modification points, task cards, test cases, acceptance criteria, risk and rollback design, or a handoff package for execution-oriented AI agents.

Turns a rough request into working software via a governed build loop: align first, plan, then iterate one task at a time with deterministic backpressure and holdout-scenario judging.

Derives a comprehensive test plan and writes unit, integration, and end-to-end test cases from user stories and acceptance criteria, flagging issues in prior artifacts and declaring UAT readiness.

Derives a comprehensive test plan from user stories and acceptance criteria, then writes unit, integration, and end-to-end test cases. Flags issues in prior artifacts and declares UAT readiness.

Content Factory video production loop for Cursor agents. Use when the user says @video-loop, make/create/generate a video with Content Factory, or asks to run a calendar slot into a finished accepted video. Enforces plan APPROVE gate and video-acceptance criteria before completion.

Write a 5-part mini spec (goal, constraints, acceptance criteria, verification, done gate) before starting any multi-step, externally-delivered, or risky task. Triggers when: a request has 3+ steps, touches external delivery, or is easy to declare done too early. NOT for: single lookups, one-line edits, routine acks, or simple factual answers.

Verify a GitHub pull request against a Jira issue's goals, requirements, and acceptance criteria, then post a PR comment with the findings. Use when a user asks Codex or MoonMind to compare a PR to a Jira story/task/bug, confirm whether a PR satisfies Jira requirements, audit implementation coverage from Jira, or publish a Jira-vs-PR verification summary.

| Use when starting a chain from a GitHub issue — turning an issue URL or number into a triaged, planned, dispatched, and reviewed pull request. Classifies the thread (bug → root-cause discipline, feature → plan chain, question → drafted reply), synthesizes a spec from the issue's own acceptance criteria, then runs the standard chain with a PR exit. Trigger with /hyperflow:issue, "work on issue #N", "fix this issue <url>", "implement this issue", "triage issue #N and raise a PR".

Write the executable feature specification — the WHAT and WHY artifact that agents and reviewers treat as source of truth. Owns both /specify and /clarify modes. Load when the user asks to write a feature spec, write a specification, write an executable spec, define functional requirements, capture acceptance criteria as Given/When/Then, or when the spec-driven-development orchestrator routes here. Also triggers on "feature spec", "executable spec", "/specify", "/clarify", "write the spec for this feature", "specification for", "spec-driven", "machine-readable spec". Output: docs/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>-feature-spec.md. Hard gate: cannot Approve while [NEEDS CLARIFICATION] markers remain.

Use when delivery work needs structuring into epics — defining a new epic, refining or superseding an existing one, or decomposing a PRD's requirements into durable delivery structures that feed issue decomposition. Writes docs/product/epics/NN-<slug>.md (durable, id-stable, superseded-never-deleted), each epic tracing to the JTBD ids it serves and the PRD requirement IDs it bundles. In the A-Team pipeline this is a definition-phase output ("the Epics"). Do not use for full roadmap/portfolio planning across quarters (deliberately not ported), for delivery tickets or acceptance criteria (ticket-writer), or to create or revise jobs (jobs-to-be-done).

Design and apply QA methodology for software teams: test strategy, regression testing, CI failure triage, test automation, quality gates and metrics, risk-based testing, exploratory testing, test design techniques, AI code quality gates (independent verification, acceptance-criteria testability review for agentic Spec-Driven Development), mutation-guided test hardening and review evidence (surviving mutants, weak assertions, diff-aware mutation testing), agentic eval design (dataset test design, judge-as-system-under-test, flaky-eval discipline), QA career levels (Senior/Staff/Principal), and SDET engineering (test infrastructure, gTAA, CI/CD integration). Do not use for root-cause debugging of production incidents, security implementation or threat modeling, or evaluation framework governance and statistical analysis — route those to systematic-debugging, secure-software-engineering, and agent-evals-and-observability respectively.

Run the Ouroboros specification-first development loop: reduce ambiguity with a Socratic interview grounded in live git data (commits, churn, contributors), freeze an immutable seed/spec, render the execution plan through spec-kit (/speckit.plan → /speckit.tasks), execute against that contract through cli-anything agent-native CLI harnesses (cli-hub, --json evidence), verify before claiming success, and keep looping until completion is actually verified. Use when the user wants spec-first clarification, git-aware interviews, immutable requirements, drift-aware implementation, harness-driven execution, or a persistent completion loop that should keep going until tests / checks / acceptance criteria pass. Triggers on: ooo, ouroboros, interview, seed, run workflow, evaluate, evolve, ooo ralph, specification first, socratic interview, git-aware interview, ambiguity reduction, execution plan, cli harness execute, persistent completion.

Run a structured discovery interview and produce a complete, developer-ready Product Requirements Document. Load when the user asks to write a PRD, create product requirements, document a feature, define user stories with acceptance criteria, or turn a rough idea into a formal product requirements document. Also triggers on "document this feature", "write requirements for", "create a one-pager", "turn this into a PRD", "I need a PRD for", or any request to produce a structured product document for stakeholder alignment or engineering handoff. Supports Full PRD, Lean PRD, and One-Pager formats. Note: for executable feature specifications (FRs, NFRs, ACs as Given/When/Then consumable by AI coding agents), route to `feature-spec` instead — PRDs frame the product, feature-specs encode the implementable contract.

Local CLI issue tracker for todos, follow-ups, structured records, and the canonical pattern for decomposing multi-step work into a parent + subissues with acceptance criteria, dependency edges, and priority. Use when the user mentions a task to remember, a bug to track, an open question, anything that needs to outlive the current turn, or when planning multi-heartbeat work that needs `chainlink issue ready`-driven pickup across sessions. Includes guidance on writing descriptions future-you can act on (handles, success path, failure path) and idempotency tactics for actions that might fire twice (boundary firing, overlapping heartbeats, retried subagent completion). Pairs with five-whys (chainlink is the storage backend for RCA trees). Storage is local — issues live under a `.chainlink/` directory in the operator's repo.

Enriches vague, low-detail prompts into structured, agent-optimized XML before execution. INVOKE IMMEDIATELY — before any tool use or file reads — when you detect any of these signals: prompt under 10 words with no file path or error message; vague action verbs with no object ("fix the bug", "make it better", "clean this up", "refactor this", "optimize performance", "improve the UI", "add authentication", "add payments", "add notifications", "build the feature"); CLARIFIER_ADVISORY in your context window; user says "clarify", "help me describe this", "enrich this prompt", "structure my request". Also triggers on: "make this work", "it's broken", "it looks bad", "add X" with no further detail, "implement Y" with no constraints. Do NOT trigger on: prompts ending with ?, prompts containing error messages or stack traces, prompts with specific file paths, prompts already containing acceptance criteria or success metrics.

Sets up and audits the Claude Code harness for a project: CLAUDE.md, .claude/rules, skills, subagents, settings.json permissions, hooks, verification loop. Commands: kickoff (scaffold new setup), check-playbook (score an existing one), scouting-report (last scorecard), adjust (fix bloat/misplaced instructions), drill (turn advisory prose into real hooks/permissions/CI), decline (record an accepted risk), gameplan (work order with acceptance criteria before building), watch-film (check a diff against that order for scope creep/weakened tests/false claims). Use for setting up Claude Code, or on: "Claude ignores my CLAUDE.md", "it's huge and still misses things", "it said done but ran nothing", "it changed files I didn't ask about", "it weakened a test to pass", "rule, skill, or hook?", "is my setup any good". Not for code quality (code-audit), test coverage (test-assessment), one-off prompt wording (genie-proof-prompts), new skill authoring (skill-creator), or compacting a conversation (handoff).

Use to CREATE or REVIEW a Job to be Done (JTBD) in Alan Klement's demand-side, progress-based sense — a job is the progress a customer is trying to make, never a task or feature. Trigger whenever someone wants to write or draft a JTBD, job statement, or job story; figure out the real motivation, struggle, or progress behind a feature, request, or product; understand why customers switch, adopt, or churn; turn interview notes or research into jobs; or pressure-test, sharpen, or rewrite existing JTBDs into proper jobs. Also trigger on "grill my JTBD", "is this a real job or just a task/feature", "what's the actual job here", "why would they switch". In an A-Team target repo, jobs are durable artifacts — this skill writes docs/product/jtbd/NN-<slug>.md per CONTRACT.md and never deletes or silently rewrites a job. Do NOT use for writing PRDs, roadmaps, tickets, or acceptance criteria (those consume a finished JTBD), or for implementation user stories.

Create OR review a page-brief — the artifact BETWEEN a wireflow and the full PRD. It turns each unique page/screen of a product into documented requirements TIED TO JOBS: a self-contained board card per page (what the page is accountable for, the job-tagged checklist of what it must let you do, the journeys it appears in, what it connects to, and the acceptance criteria that say how you'd know it's right). It is the "PRD per page", not a sitemap — and it stops ABOVE the screen: no components, no layout, no hierarchy. Use whenever the user wants to "spec the pages", "document each screen", turn a wireflow + live design into per-page requirements, or asks "what does this page need to do / which jobs pass through it" — even if they never say "page-brief". Natural NEXT STEP after the wireflow skill. ALSO use it to REVIEW an existing page-brief / screen catalog. In the A-Team pipeline this is a definition-phase skill: output lands in docs/features/<slug>/briefs/pages/, job codes are the durable [[NN]] ids from doc