| name | qa-acceptance |
| description | Produce QA acceptance criteria and a manual validation plan for a feature change — golden path, edge cases, error states, performance limits, and explicit pass/fail evidence. |
| key | paperclipai/bundled/quality/qa-acceptance |
| recommendedForRoles | ["qa","engineer","product"] |
| tags | ["qa","acceptance","validation","testing"] |
QA Acceptance
Write acceptance criteria that a reviewer can run against the running app and decide pass or fail without asking the author. The criteria are the contract — automated tests cover correctness, QA covers feature-level behavior.
When to use
- A feature change is heading to QA and needs a written validation plan.
- A reviewer is asked to verify a PR that touches user-visible behavior.
- An incident postmortem requires a regression check before reopen-prevention.
- A release candidate needs a pre-cut smoke pass.
When not to use
- The change is unit-test-only (utility refactor, internal naming). Acceptance criteria are unnecessary churn.
- You are asked to write tests against API contracts. Use contract testing, not feature QA.
Acceptance criteria format
Each criterion is a single, independently-verifiable statement:
- **Given** <starting state>, **when** <action>, **then** <observable outcome>.
Example:
- **Given** a CSV export with 0 rows, **when** the user clicks Export, **then** the file downloads with only the header row and the UI shows "Exported 0 rows".
Avoid criteria that combine multiple whens or thens. Split them.
What every plan must cover
- Golden path. The most common successful flow, end to end.
- Empty and minimum states. Zero items, one item, missing optional inputs.
- Boundary inputs. Max length strings, max numeric values, unicode, RTL text where applicable.
- Error states. Network failure, permission denied, validation failures, conflict (409), not found (404).
- Concurrency and ordering. Two users acting at once, race against background jobs, refresh during mutation.
- Performance envelope. The largest realistic input the change must handle without UI hangs or timeouts.
- Backward compatibility. Existing data, existing URLs, persisted user preferences continue to work.
- Telemetry and audit. Events, logs, or activity entries the change is supposed to emit.
If a section is genuinely not applicable, write "N/A: " — do not silently omit.
Evidence
Each criterion needs evidence on the verification pass:
- Screenshot or short clip for UI behavior.
- Copied console / network output for API behavior.
- Log snippet or activity row for telemetry.
- Timing measurement for performance criteria.
"Looks good to me" without evidence is not a pass.
Quarantine and follow-up
- A failing criterion blocks acceptance unless explicitly waived by the owner with a tracked follow-up issue.
- "Known issue" without a linked follow-up is not a waiver.
- If you add a new criterion mid-pass, restart the pass — partial coverage hides regressions.
Handoff back to the author
Return the validation plan with three sections:
- Pass. Criteria that passed, with one-line evidence summaries.
- Fail. Criteria that failed, with the exact reproduction.
- Blocked. Criteria you could not run, with why.
The author owns turning failures into either fixes or accepted deferrals.
Anti-patterns
- Acceptance phrased as test plan ("write a Cypress test for X"). Acceptance is what is true after the change ships; tests are how you check.
- Criteria that depend on inspecting implementation details (selectors, query plans). Stay observable.
- Long checklists with no priority. Mark must-pass criteria distinctly from nice-to-have.
- Validation reports that say "passed" with no evidence. Reviewers cannot audit those.
