Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when a product decision or feature needs a written record - what to capture in a task document (PRD, decision record) and where to attach it, since TaskTrooper has no epic
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Some decisions and specs are too big for a task description and need a durable document. The failure mode is either not writing one (decisions get lost) or attaching PRDs to every subtask (noise).
Core principle: TaskTrooper has no epic. One document on the analiz task a feature goes through; task descriptions carry the per-task detail for small direct work.
TaskTrooper has no epic/parent task type. For a feature that goes through analiz, attach the PRD to the analiz task with add_task_document. Every implementation task the architect derives from it carries derived_from: ["A-N"], which is how list_task_documents A-N reaches the developer working that task. For small direct work with no analiz, the task's own description is the PRD — don't open a document for it.
## Context — the problem, who has it, why now
## Goals — measurable outcomes
## User Stories — As [persona], I want [capability], so that [outcome]
## Acceptance Criteria — observable, per acceptance-criteria-gwt
## Out of Scope — explicitly excluded
## Non-Goals — deliberately not solved here, with the reason
## Open Questions — tagged blocking/non-blocking and who answers; only genuinely open ones — never a question you can answer from context
A "Reporting v1" analiz task gets one PRD via add_task_document on the analiz task itself: context (boards are opaque past 200 tasks), goals (3 reports), user stories, AC per report, out of scope (exports, scheduling), non-goals (a BI tool — rationale: no usage data locally to justify it), open questions (retention window — blocking, needs the stakeholder). The implementation tasks the architect creates carry derived_from: ["A-N"]; they don't each re-attach the document.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Use when writing acceptance criteria for a task - express each as an observable Given/When/Then that QA can execute, including negative cases
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the diff adds or changes an endpoint, resolver, RPC, job or query that takes an object id, a role check, a request binding or a tenant filter - BOLA/IDOR, function-level authorization, mass assignment and tenant scoping
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use on every UI change - semantic HTML, labels for controls, keyboard-navigable dialogs/menus, visible focus, and never color as the only signal
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when a task changes any screen, form, dialog, menu or control - Lighthouse/axe scan of the changed screens, a keyboard walk, and the thresholds that fail a task
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
How to work a task returned with review, QA or UAT findings. Use when a task is in need_revision or PR review comments are in your context.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use when the repository keeps its alerting in code, or a person asks for alerts outside TaskTrooper - PrometheusRule YAML, a Cloud Monitoring alert policy in Terraform, a Datadog monitor, each routed to TaskTrooper's alert ingest URL so it opens an incident here
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.