Acceptance Criteria for a Local Planner-to-generator-to-QA Prompt Workflow: What Must Be Proven

The direct answer

Write a test for “each role has a visible input and output contract” before execution and keep “approved examples stored without provenance” as a release-blocking counterexample.

For a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow, the relevant audience is teams whose one-off prompting has become difficult to reproduce, review, and improve. The decision should cover intent capture, planning, contract generation, approved-example retrieval, generation, independent QA, and result approval. The supplied boundary starts with raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints and ends with a configured local prompt engineering pipeline, presented in reviewable form.

A prompt pipeline can preserve contracts and approved examples, but it cannot guarantee that a model follows them or that an approved example remains correct for a new task.

Turn each requirement into a proof obligation

The expected deliverable is a configured local prompt engineering pipeline.

Use raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints as the controlled starting material.

The task owner adjudicates every pass, hold, or fail verdict against these registered statements.

Cover more than the happy path

The normal flow should establish whether “each role has a visible input and output contract” holds. An alternate flow should vary a permitted input while testing whether “retrieved examples are approved and traceable” holds. The failure flow should use a fixture demonstrating “QA criteria hidden from the generated artifact” and verify containment.

Add a recovery flow for “one role silently expanding another role's authority”.

Judge evidence quality and freshness

For a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow, a result from another environment cannot prove that “QA is independent of generator self-scoring” holds in the buyer's environment.

Define pass, hold, and fail before execution

Keep sign-off independent

The implementer may produce artifacts, but the task owner should judge whether “no network egress occurs beyond the approved boundary” holds against criteria written before the result was seen.

Record the business decision of the prompt architect, the technical evidence reviewed by the example curator, the acceptance verdict recorded by the task owner, and residual risk accepted by the QA reviewer.

A screenshot or self-score cannot prove that “no network egress occurs beyond the approved boundary” holds under the failure condition “feedback loops that learn from unreviewed outputs”.

Reopen criteria when the system changes

Changes to intent capture, planning, contract generation, approved-example retrieval, generation, independent QA, and result approval can invalidate a test even when the requirement text stays the same.

How the sources bound the acceptance criteria decision

For a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow, the live catalog limits the offer to two elements. The supplied boundary is raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints. The catalog names the deliverable as a configured local prompt engineering pipeline. It cannot establish whether “each role has a visible input and output contract” holds in the buyer's environment.

Connect those narrow roles to a local fixture for “retrieval based on superficial similarity” rather than treating citation status as a pass.

For a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow, limit the conclusion to the documented workflow and let the example curator retain the current source-to-claim map. New authority or data requires the prompt architect to review the evidence boundary again.

Product-specific acceptance criteria review drills

These drills connect a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow to concrete inputs, failures, acceptance statements, and owners. For a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow, the drills map each criterion to a reviewable verdict.

Acceptance for a local planner-to-generator-to-QA prompt workflow is judged against a boundary record covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints, never live protected material. The prompt architect requires synthetic, non-secret cases; messages, writes, state changes, and all other external effects stay inside the fixture throughout and after each case.

Requirement trace

For the requirement trace review, freeze a case involving “approved examples stored without provenance”. The prompt architect identifies the affected handoff before any repair begins.

For the requirement trace review, the prompt architect reviews a scope record covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints against the requirement that “failures return a specific repair target” holds. Unrelated artifacts are excluded.

The task owner limits acceptance to “failures return a specific repair target” and nothing beyond it, leaving a named hold for any unsupported part of a configured local prompt engineering pipeline. In the requirement trace review, evidence for “failures return a specific repair target” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Reopen this result after a change to the input, the authority of the prompt architect, or the workflow condition represented by “approved examples stored without provenance”.

Normal-flow result

Frame the normal-flow result review around “retrieval based on superficial similarity”. Before testing a response, the prompt architect captures the input, decision boundary, and residual state.

Use “each role has a visible input and output contract” as the explicit criterion for a case drawn from the boundary covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints. The resulting receipt belongs to the example curator.

The task owner records pass, repair, or stop after judging whether “each role has a visible input and output contract” holds. No disposition may imply that all of a configured local prompt engineering pipeline was proven. In the normal-flow result review, evidence for “each role has a visible input and output contract” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

A new dependency, owner, or instance of “retrieval based on superficial similarity” expires the evidence for the normal-flow result review and requires a focused rerun.

Alternate-flow result

Stage a safe instance of “QA criteria hidden from the generated artifact” inside an authorized fixture for the alternate-flow result review. The example curator notes the last trusted state in intent capture, planning, contract generation, approved-example retrieval, generation, independent QA, and result approval.

Reproduce the condition within the boundary covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints, then have the generator document whether the retained observation supports or contradicts the requirement that “QA is independent of generator self-scoring” holds.

The task owner records a decision for the alternate-flow result review that cites the evidence for “QA is independent of generator self-scoring”. Unsupported parts of a configured local prompt engineering pipeline remain open. In the alternate-flow result review, evidence for “QA is independent of generator self-scoring” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

An altered input source, acceptance owner, or response to “QA criteria hidden from the generated artifact” invalidates only this drill and its dependent decisions.

Failure-flow result

Attach a fixture for “one role silently expanding another role's authority” to the failure-flow result review decision record. The generator marks the exact point where human review becomes necessary.

Source the test from a documented scope covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints and state the criterion “no network egress occurs beyond the approved boundary” before execution. The QA reviewer retains the resulting observation.

Let the task owner decide whether the criterion “no network egress occurs beyond the approved boundary” passed under the recorded conditions. That verdict controls only this review slice. In the failure-flow result review, evidence for “no network egress occurs beyond the approved boundary” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Repeat the failure-flow result review when the failure case “one role silently expanding another role's authority” appears with new data, permission, or consequences that the generator did not review.

Independent verdict

Make the observed condition “feedback loops that learn from unreviewed outputs” the opening evidence for the independent verdict review. The QA reviewer observes the current handoff and preserves its authority boundary.

Use an authorized test case within the boundary covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints to establish whether “retrieved examples are approved and traceable” holds. Record configuration and reviewer identity beside the result.

The task owner closes the independent verdict review with a bounded ruling on “retrieved examples are approved and traceable”. The ruling does not certify untested behavior in a configured local prompt engineering pipeline. In the independent verdict review, evidence for “retrieved examples are approved and traceable” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

The next review is triggered when evidence for “retrieved examples are approved and traceable” becomes stale or the QA reviewer loses authority over the case.

Evidence expiry

Use “approved examples stored without provenance” as the bounded stress case for the evidence expiry review. The prompt architect records where the workflow boundary for intent capture, planning, contract generation, approved-example retrieval, generation, independent QA, and result approval leaves its expected path.

Retain a boundary record covering raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints, the observed output, and the test for “failures return a specific repair target”. This makes the decision reproducible.

The disposition belongs to the task owner: accept the evidence for “failures return a specific repair target”, request a repair, or preserve the current state. In the evidence expiry review, evidence for “failures return a specific repair target” maps support to pass, contradiction to fail, and unresolved to hold.

Create a fresh record when the failure case “approved examples stored without provenance” appears beyond the tested boundary or when the prior evidence becomes stale.

Frequently asked question

What acceptance criteria should I use for Prompt Pipeline Tailor?

Require observable evidence that each role has a visible input and output contract and include “approved examples stored without provenance” as a negative case. The task owner should record pass, hold, or fail before expansion.

A product bridge, with a boundary

The Prompt Pipeline Tailor is the relevant sincLLM offer for this narrow problem. The frozen live catalog describes its required boundary as raw task ideas, approved prompt examples, acceptance rules, and local environment constraints and its deliverable as a configured local prompt engineering pipeline. The offer description is a scope boundary, not proof of technical sufficiency, compliance, safety, commercial value, or fit for this buyer.