acceptance-criteria-generator
Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Write testable acceptance criteria for user stories using Given-When-Then (BDD) format with edge cases and negative scenarios. Use when working on product discovery, PRDs, user stories, OKRs, or backlog planning.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- imohammadfaraz/claude-skills-for-product-managertheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GustavoGutierrez/engineering-skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 16, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- imohammadfaraz/claude-skills-for-product-manager★ 19same name
- GustavoGutierrez/engineering-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository59 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-memory-designerSkill
- ai-cost-optimizerSkill
- ai-evaluation-builderSkill
- ai-latency-optimizerSkill
- ai-solution-architectSkill
- ai-workflow-builderSkill
- context-engineeringSkill
- human-in-the-loop-designerSkill
- multi-agent-plannerSkill
- prompt-engineerSkill
- prompt-optimizerSkill
- prompt-reviewerSkill
- adr-generatorSkill
- api-designerSkill
- architecture-reviewSkill
- component-diagram-builderSkill
- container-diagram-builderSkill
- data-flow-analyzerSkill
- integration-plannerSkill
- observability-plannerSkill
- scalability-advisorSkill
- solution-architectureSkill
- system-context-builderSkill
- experiment-designerSkill
- go-to-market-plannerSkill
- pricing-strategy-advisorSkill
- mcp-best-practicesSkill
- mcp-client-generatorSkill
- mcp-security-reviewSkill
- mcp-server-generatorSkill
- mcp-tool-generatorSkill
- analytics-instrumentation-plannerSkill
- competitive-analysisSkill
- epic-generatorSkill
- feature-prioritizationSkill
- idea-validatorSkill
- north-star-metric-advisorSkill
- okr-builderSkill
- persona-generatorSkill
- prd-generatorSkill
- problem-statement-builderSkill
- product-discovery-assistantSkill
- product-vision-builderSkill
- sprint-plannerSkill
- story-mappingSkill
- user-story-generatorSkill
- value-proposition-designerSkill
- chunking-strategy-advisorSkill
- embedding-strategy-advisorSkill
- hybrid-search-advisorSkill
- knowledge-ingestion-plannerSkill
- rag-architecture-designerSkill
- retriever-optimizerSkill
- ai-governance-advisorSkill
- ai-threat-modelingSkill
- guardrails-builderSkill
- owasp-llm-reviewerSkill
- prompt-injection-detectorSkill
- skill-nameSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Write testable acceptance criteria for user stories using Given-When-Then (BDD) format with edge cases and negative scenarios.
- Distinctive: line 63
Verify criteria make the story Testable.
- Distinctive: line 107
Use concrete values in Given clauses (specific user role, data state).
- Distinctive: line 111
Keep 3–7 criteria per story.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Acceptance Criteria Generator
Purpose
Write testable acceptance criteria for user stories using Given-When-Then (BDD) format with edge cases and negative scenarios.
Input: User story (As/Want/So format)
Output: Acceptance criteria set with happy path, edge cases, and negative scenarios
Examples: See examples.md for worked input/output.
Workflow
Step 1: Parse user story
Extract:
- Persona (actor)
- Action (behavior)
- Benefit (expected outcome)
- Story ID (if provided)
Step 2: Write happy path criteria
Minimum 1 scenario in Given-When-Then:
Given [precondition]
When [action]
Then [observable outcome]
Each Then clause must be verifiable without interpretation.
Step 3: Add edge cases
Identify 2–4 edge cases:
- Boundary values
- Empty/null states
- Concurrent actions
- Permission variations
Step 4: Add negative scenarios
Identify 1–3 failure scenarios:
- Invalid input
- Unauthorized access
- System unavailable
- Timeout/error handling
Step 5: Cross-check against INVEST
Verify criteria make the story Testable. If not, flag story for revision.
Step 6: Validate
Run Validation checklist.
Decision Rules
| Condition | Action |
| User story missing or incomplete | Stop; request full story or run user-story-generator |
| Then clause is subjective | Rewrite with observable, measurable outcome |
| Criteria describe implementation | Rewrite as behavior ("API returns 200" → "user sees confirmation") |
| No negative scenarios | Add at least one error/unauthorized case for user-facing stories |
| Criteria overlap across scenarios | Deduplicate; ensure each tests distinct behavior |
Validation
- ≥1 happy path in Given-When-Then format
- ≥2 edge case scenarios
- ≥1 negative scenario
- All Then clauses are observable/testable
- No implementation details unless NFR-related
- Scenarios cover the full "so that" benefit
- Each scenario has unique ID (AC-001...)
Anti-patterns
- Subjective criteria — "page loads fast", "looks good".
- Implementation criteria — "calls endpoint X with payload Y".
- Happy path only — no error handling scenarios.
- Duplicate scenarios — same behavior tested multiple ways.
- Untestable benefits — criteria don't verify the "so that" clause.
Best Practices
- Use concrete values in Given clauses (specific user role, data state).
- Then clauses should be verifiable by QA without code knowledge.
- Name scenarios descriptively: AC-001-happy-login, AC-002-invalid-password.
- Align negative scenarios with NFRs (security, performance) when relevant.
- Keep 3–7 criteria per story; split story if more needed.
Output Structure
# Acceptance Criteria: US-XXX — [Story title]
## Story
**As a** ... **I want** ... **so that** ...
## Happy Path
### AC-001: [Scenario name]
- **Given** ...
- **When** ...
- **Then** ...
## Edge Cases
### AC-002: [Scenario name]
- **Given** ...
- **When** ...
- **Then** ...
## Negative Scenarios
### AC-003: [Scenario name]
- **Given** ...
- **When** ...
- **Then** ...
## Coverage Check
| Story benefit | Covered by |
|---------------|------------|
| [benefit] | AC-001, AC-003 |
## Open Questions
- [ ] [Ambiguity needing PO decision]Next Skills
| Outcome | Recommended Skill |
| Map stories on board | product/story-mapping |
| More stories needed | product/user-story-generator |
| Release planning | product/epic-generator |
| PRD traceability | product/prd-generator |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

