The Contractor‑Ready Microflow Kit: 7 Interaction Specs That Prevent Rework

Treat a microflow as a minimal, independently testable feature: UI states, data contract, and acceptance gates. The kit compresses everything contractors need into seven explicit specs so the implementer doesn’t guess behavior.

List the seven specs at the top of every ticket and keep each one short, testable, and copyable. That makes them usable by developers, QA, and reviewers without separate interpretation sessions.

Ambiguity in handoffs usually lives in unstated edge cases and missing data. Explicit edge-case examples remove the most common source of questions by showing exactly what to expect and how the UI must behave.

Acceptance criteria that map directly to evidence (a test name, a fixture, or a screenshot) convert subjective review into binary gates. That turns code review conversations from “is this right?” into “does this test pass?”

Use short, repeatable templates. Below are three minimal templates to paste into any ticket so contractors can start work immediately. First, the empty state template establishes what the UI shows before any data exists, avoiding scope creep about onboarding or prompts.

Second, the error state template defines trigger conditions and exact copy (including microcopy for retry buttons). Third, the acceptance criteria template ties each criterion to a single piece of evidence—an automated test name, a fixture, or a screenshot path—so QA can close the ticket without subjective calls.

Write acceptance criteria in a testable form: name the actor, describe the system state, and define the observable outcome. Prefer checklist items that a CI job or QA checklist can verify automatically or with a single manual step.

Avoid vague language like 'behaves correctly' or 'looks good'. Instead specify exact payloads, sample timestamps, and allowed UI text. If a UI element is conditional, include the conditions (e.g., 'show X when response.count == 0 and user.role == admin').

Make the seven‑line checklist part of your issue template and require it for contractor stories. Small teams win by automating the boring parts: include a snippet the contractor can paste into a PR description that attaches fixture files and test names.

Store canonical sample data and screenshot examples in the repo (seed/fixtures and docs/screenshots). That reduces remote guessing and shrinks the feedback loop between reviewers and contractors.