Claude-skill-registry gherkin-authoring
Gherkin acceptance criteria authoring. Use when writing Given/When/Then scenarios, feature files, or BDD-style specifications. Provides syntax reference, best practices, and Reqnroll integration guidance.
git clone https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/majiayu000/claude-skill-registry "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/data/gherkin-authoring" ~/.claude/skills/majiayu000-claude-skill-registry-gherkin-authoring && rm -rf "$T"
skills/data/gherkin-authoring/SKILL.mdGherkin Authoring
Gherkin/BDD acceptance criteria authoring for executable specifications.
When to Use This Skill
Keywords: Gherkin, Given/When/Then, BDD, behavior-driven development, feature files, scenarios, acceptance criteria, Reqnroll, Cucumber, SpecFlow, executable specifications
Use this skill when:
- Writing acceptance criteria in Given/When/Then format
- Creating .feature files for BDD testing
- Converting requirements to executable specifications
- Setting up Reqnroll tests in .NET projects
- Understanding Gherkin syntax and best practices
Quick Syntax Reference
Feature File Structure
Feature: <Feature Name> <Feature description> Background: Given <common precondition> Scenario: <Scenario Name> Given <precondition> When <action> Then <expected outcome> Scenario Outline: <Parameterized Scenario> Given <precondition with <parameter>> When <action with <parameter>> Then <expected outcome with <parameter>> Examples: | parameter | | value1 | | value2 |
Step Keywords
| Keyword | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Setup preconditions | Given a user is logged in |
| Describe action | When the user clicks submit |
| Assert outcome | Then the form is saved |
| Additional step (same type) | And an email is sent |
| Negative condition | But no error is shown |
Writing Effective Scenarios
The Three A's Pattern
Gherkin maps to the Arrange-Act-Assert pattern:
| Gherkin | AAA | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Given | Arrange | Set up the test context |
| When | Act | Perform the action under test |
| Then | Assert | Verify the expected outcome |
Single Behavior Per Scenario
Good - One behavior:
Scenario: User login with valid credentials Given a registered user exists When the user enters valid credentials Then the user is logged in
Bad - Multiple behaviors:
Scenario: User login and profile update Given a registered user exists When the user enters valid credentials Then the user is logged in When the user updates their profile Then the profile is saved
Declarative vs Imperative Style
Declarative (Preferred) - What, not how:
Scenario: Successful checkout Given a customer with items in cart When the customer completes checkout Then the order is confirmed
Imperative (Avoid) - Too detailed:
Scenario: Successful checkout Given a customer is on the home page And the customer clicks "Products" And the customer clicks "Add to Cart" on item 1 And the customer clicks "Cart" icon And the customer clicks "Checkout" button ...
Background Section
Use Background for common setup shared across all scenarios in a feature:
Feature: Shopping Cart Background: Given a customer is logged in And the product catalog is available Scenario: Add item to cart When the customer adds a product to cart Then the cart contains 1 item Scenario: Remove item from cart Given the cart contains a product When the customer removes the product Then the cart is empty
Background Guidelines
- Keep Background short (1-3 steps)
- Only include truly common setup
- Don't include anything not needed by ALL scenarios
- Consider splitting features if Background grows large
Scenario Outline
Use Scenario Outline for parameterized tests:
Scenario Outline: Validate email format Given a user registration form When the user enters email "<email>" Then the validation result is "<result>" Examples: | email | result | | user@example.com | valid | | invalid-email | invalid | | @missing-local.com | invalid | | user@ | invalid |
When to Use Scenario Outline
Use for:
- Testing same logic with different data
- Boundary testing
- Error message variations
- Multiple valid/invalid inputs
Avoid when:
- Scenarios have fundamentally different flows
- Setup differs significantly between examples
- Only 1-2 examples (use separate scenarios)
Tags
Organize and filter scenarios with tags:
@smoke @authentication Feature: User Login @happy-path Scenario: Successful login ... @security @negative Scenario: Account lockout after failed attempts ...
Common Tag Categories
| Category | Examples |
|---|---|
| Priority | @critical, @high, @medium, @low |
| Type | @smoke, @regression, @e2e |
| Feature | @authentication, @checkout, @search |
| State | @wip, @pending, @manual |
| Non-functional | @security, @performance, @accessibility |
Integration with Canonical Spec
Gherkin acceptance criteria map to canonical specification:
requirements: - id: "REQ-001" text: "WHEN a user submits valid credentials, the system SHALL authenticate the user" priority: must ears_type: event-driven acceptance_criteria: - id: "AC-001" given: "a registered user with valid credentials" when: "the user submits the login form" then: "the user is authenticated" and: - "a session is created" - "the user is redirected to dashboard"
Mapping Rules
| Canonical Field | Gherkin Element |
|---|---|
| Given step(s) |
| When step(s) |
| Then step(s) |
| Additional And/But steps |
Best Practices
Scenario Naming
Good:
- Describes the behavior being tested
- Uses domain language
- Specifies the outcome
Scenario: User receives confirmation email after registration Scenario: Cart total updates when quantity changes Scenario: Search returns relevant results sorted by relevance
Bad:
- Generic or vague
- Implementation-focused
- Missing outcome
Scenario: Test registration Scenario: Click add button Scenario: Verify database
Step Reusability
Write steps that can be reused:
Reusable:
Given a user with role "<role>" Given the user has "<count>" items in cart When the user performs "<action>"
Not Reusable:
Given John Smith is logged in as admin Given the user has 3 items in cart for checkout test When the user clicks the blue submit button
Avoid Coupling to UI
Good - Behavior-focused:
When the user submits the form with invalid data Then an error message is displayed
Bad - UI-coupled:
When the user clicks the red Submit button at the bottom Then a red error div appears below the form
Reqnroll Integration (.NET)
Step Definition Example
[Binding] public class LoginSteps { private readonly ScenarioContext _context; public LoginSteps(ScenarioContext context) { _context = context; } [Given(@"a registered user exists")] public void GivenARegisteredUserExists() { var user = new User("test@example.com", "password123"); _context["user"] = user; } [When(@"the user enters valid credentials")] public void WhenTheUserEntersValidCredentials() { var user = _context.Get<User>("user"); var result = _authService.Login(user.Email, user.Password); _context["loginResult"] = result; } [Then(@"the user is logged in")] public void ThenTheUserIsLoggedIn() { var result = _context.Get<LoginResult>("loginResult"); result.Success.Should().BeTrue(); } }
Project Setup
<PackageReference Include="Reqnroll" Version="2.*" /> <PackageReference Include="Reqnroll.NUnit" Version="2.*" />
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Feature-length scenarios | Hard to maintain | Split into focused scenarios |
| Imperative steps | Brittle, verbose | Use declarative style |
| Technical jargon | Not business-readable | Use domain language |
| Coupled to UI | Breaks on UI changes | Focus on behavior |
| No Background | Duplicated Given steps | Extract common setup |
| Too many Examples | Slow, redundant | Test boundary cases only |
Validation Checklist
Before finalizing a Gherkin scenario:
- Single behavior per scenario
- Declarative, not imperative
- Uses domain language
- Given establishes context only
- When contains single action
- Then asserts observable outcomes
- No implementation details
- Scenario name describes behavior
References
Detailed Documentation:
- Syntax Reference - Complete Gherkin syntax
- Best Practices - BDD best practices
Related Skills:
- Canonical specification structurecanonical-spec-format
- Specification workflow navigationspec-management
- EARS requirement patternsears-authoring
Last Updated: 2025-12-24
Version History
- v1.0.0 (2025-12-26): Initial release