feature-forge

Acceptance criteria define testable conditions a feature must meet. Use EARS format to structure functional requirements with clear conditions and expected outcomes, then layer in acceptance criteria to ensure developers and QA share the same success definition and eliminate ambiguity in what 'done' means.

Use interview-driven discovery to extract detailed requirements through structured questions. This uncovers hidden constraints, edge cases, and non-functional needs upfront, reducing rework and ensuring specifications capture both PM intent and implementation feasibility.

EARS (Easy Approach to Requirements Syntax) structures functional requirements with consistent phrasing: conditions, behaviors, and outcomes. This format eliminates ambiguity, improves traceability, and makes requirements directly testable against acceptance criteria.

Comprehensive specs cover functional requirements, acceptance criteria, non-functional requirements like performance and security, error handling paths, and an implementation checklist. This cross-functional approach ensures both product and engineering perspectives are documented and actionable.

Yes. The structured requirement-gathering and EARS-based spec process serves both PM and Dev roles. PMs define what to build with user stories and acceptance criteria; engineers use the same specs to scope implementation tasks, identify dependencies, and plan testing.

Ambiguous specs cause rework, scope creep, and misaligned delivery. Structured requirement gathering and EARS specifications eliminate guesswork, ensure testable acceptance criteria, surface security and error-handling needs early, and align product and engineering on a single source of truth.