ears-spec-authoring

name	ears-spec-authoring
description	Author acceptance criteria using EARS-lite shapes with stable AC-NNN IDs and explicit Q-NNN open questions. Use when drafting or editing `01-spec.md`, when transforming a tracker ticket into ACs, or when a user asks for a spec / requirements doc.
when_to_use	["Phase 1 (Specify) — converting a feature request into testable ACs.","Anywhere a vague requirement (\"must be fast\", \"should be secure\") needs to be made concrete."]
authoritative_references	["https://alistair.cockburn.us/coffee-cups-and-the-EARS-syntax/ (EARS background)",".windsurf/templates/spec.template.md","docs/spec-format.md"]

EARS-lite spec authoring

The five shapes

Every AC is one of:

Shape	Skeleton	Use when
Ubiquitous	The system shall <response>.	Always-true invariant.
Event-driven	When <trigger>, the system shall <response>.	An external event causes a behavior.
State-driven	While <state>, the system shall <response>.	Behavior holds throughout a state.
Optional feature	Where <feature included>, the system shall <response>.	Conditional on configuration.
Unwanted behavior	If <unwanted condition>, then the system shall <mitigation>.	Error / failure handling.

Rules (enforced by spec-review.md)

1. One AC = one condition + one outcome. Split anything with "and".
2. Stable IDs. Format AC-NNN. Never renumber. Insertions get the next number, even if it breaks reading order.
3. No implementation. No class names, no DB columns, no library names, no defaults.
4. No vague NFRs. "Fast" → < 200 ms p95 under 50 RPS OR demote to Q-NNN.
5. No silent defaults. If the user did not say which behavior to pick, write a Q-NNN.
6. Feature-flag the risky cutovers. For any cutover, migration, or behavior swap that is user-visible, raise a Q-NNN asking whether a feature flag with rollback procedure is required. Default to "yes, use a feature flag" unless the user explicitly waives it.

The Q-NNN escape hatch

When you would otherwise invent something, write:

## Open Questions
- **Q-001** — Source ticket says "users get a discount" but does not specify whether unauthenticated users qualify. Need decision before AC-005 can be written.

Resolve via direct user answer, then move it to ## Resolved Questions with the answer and date.

Worked example

Source ticket:

Users should be able to apply a gift card during checkout. It should reduce the order total. If the card has been used, show an error.

Bad (what to avoid):

AC-001: The system uses a GiftCard entity with a usedAt timestamp and returns 400 when usedAt != null.

Why bad: invents a class name, invents a column, invents an HTTP status.

Good:

## Acceptance Criteria

- **AC-001** — When an authenticated buyer submits a gift card code with their order, the system shall reduce the order total by the card's remaining balance, capped at the order subtotal.
- **AC-002** — When an authenticated buyer submits a gift card code that has already been fully redeemed, the system shall reject the request and inform the buyer that the card has no remaining balance.
- **AC-003** — When an authenticated buyer submits a gift card code that does not exist, the system shall reject the request and inform the buyer that the code is unknown.
- **AC-004** — While a gift card has remaining balance, the system shall allow it to be applied to multiple orders until the balance reaches zero.

## Open Questions
- **Q-001** — Should unauthenticated/guest checkouts be allowed to use gift cards? Source ticket only mentions "users".
- **Q-002** — Maximum number of gift cards per order? Default? (No source guidance.)
- **Q-003** — What user-facing error format does the buyer see? Banner? Inline field? (UI not specified.)

Self-check before handing off to review

• Could a junior tester write a Given/When/Then for every AC without asking me a clarifying question?
• If I removed the AC, would something user-visible change?
• Does any AC contain "and" / "or" that should be two ACs?
• Are all invented details (defaults, error formats, limits) demoted to Q-NNN?