/nw-jtbd-bdd-integration
Translating JTBD analysis to BDD scenarios - job story to Given-When-Then patterns, forces-based test discovery, job-map-based test discovery, and property-shaped criteria
$ npx -y skills add nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-jtbd-bdd-integration --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/nw-jtbd-bdd-integration
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Translating JTBD analysis to BDD scenarios - job story to Given-When-Then patterns, forces-based test discovery, job-map-based test discovery, and property-shaped criteria
SKILL.md
nw-jtbd-bdd-integration.SKILL.mdname: nw-jtbd-bdd-integration
description: Translating JTBD analysis to BDD scenarios - job story to Given-When-Then patterns, forces-based test discovery, job-map-based test discovery, and property-shaped criteria
user-invocable: false
disable-model-invocation: true
JTBD to BDD Integration
Use when translating JTBD discoveries (job stories, forces, job map) into testable BDD scenarios. Job stories map naturally to Given-When-Then because both emphasize context (situation/given), action (motivation/when), and outcome (result/then).
Job Story to Given-When-Then Translation
The Pattern
Job Story:
When [situation],
I want to [motivation],
so I can [outcome].
BDD Scenario:
Given [the situation from the job story]
When [user takes action aligned with the motivation]
Then [the outcome is achieved and measurable]
Worked Example
**Job Story**: "When I receive an alert that a production service is degraded, I want to see the most likely root cause with supporting evidence, so I can begin remediation within minutes instead of hours."
Scenario: Root cause surfaced from degradation alert
Given the monitoring system has detected degraded response times on the payment service
And the degradation started 5 minutes ago
When the operator opens the incident dashboard
Then the system displays the top 3 probable root causes ranked by likelihood
And each root cause includes supporting metrics and log evidence
And the most likely root cause is displayed within 10 seconds
Scenario: Remediation guidance from identified root cause
Given the operator has identified the root cause as database connection pool exhaustion
When the operator selects the recommended remediation action
Then the system presents a runbook with step-by-step instructions
And the estimated time to remediate is displayed
And the operator can execute the first step directly from the dashboard
Translation Rules
1. **Given** = situation from job story, made concrete with specific data 2. **When** = user action fulfilling the motivation 3. **Then** = measurable outcome, including quality attributes (time, confidence, completeness)
Multi-Scenario Expansion
One job story typically produces 3-5 BDD scenarios:
- **Happy path**: Outcome achieved as described
- **Anxiety path**: User's fear about new solution addressed
- **Habit path**: User transitioning from old workflow supported
- **Edge cases**: Derived from job map steps (see below)
Forces-Based Test Discovery
Use Four Forces to discover test scenarios that feature-driven thinking misses.
Force-to-Scenario Mapping
| Force | Test Question | Scenario Pattern | |-------|--------------|-----------------| | **Push** | What frustration drove the user here? | `Given [user has experienced the frustration]...` | | **Pull** | What outcome is the user hoping for? | `Then [the promised improvement is measurable]` | | **Anxiety** | What could go wrong with the new solution? | `Given [user has specific fear] When [fear-triggering event] Then [safety net activates]` | | **Habit** | What existing workflow might resist adoption? | `Given [user accustomed to old way] When [new approach encountered] Then [familiar patterns preserved]` |
Worked Example: Automated Deployment Tool
**Forces analysis**:
- Push: Manual deployments cause errors and take hours
- Pull: One-command deployment with automatic rollback
- Anxiety: "What if the automated rollback breaks worse than the original deploy?"
- Habit: Team SSH-es into servers and runs scripts manually
**Derived scenarios**:
# Push scenario: validates the frustration is resolved
Scenario: Deployment completes without manual intervention
Given the operator has configured deployment for the payment service
And the previous manual deployment took 3 hours with 2 errors
When the operator runs the automated deployment command
Then deployment completes within 15 minutes
And zero manual steps are required
# Pull scenario: validates the promised outcome
Scenario: Automatic rollback on health check failure
Given the deployment has completed and health checks are running
When the payment endpoint returns 500 errors for 30 seconds
Then the system automatically rolls back to the previous version
And the operator receives a notification with rollback details
# Anxiety scenario: addresses the specific fear
Scenario: Rollback preserves database state
Given the deployment included a database migration
And the health check has triggered an automatic rollback
When the rollback completes
Then the database schema matches the previous stable version
And no data is lost during the rollback process
And the operator can verify data integrity from the dashboard
# Habit scenario: eases the transition
Scenario: Manual override available during automated deployment
Given the operator is accustomed to SSH-based manual deployments
When the automated deployment is in progress
Then the operator can view real-time logs (familiar output format)
And the operator can pause or cancel the deployment at any stage
And manual SSH access remains available as a fallback
Job-Map-Based Test Discovery
Walk each of the 8 job map steps and generate at least one test scenario per step. Surfaces edge cases that happy-path thinking misses.
| Job Map Step | Missing Scenario Pattern | Example | |-------------|------------------------|---------| | **Define** | User lacks information to start | `Given the user has not reviewed the change log When they attempt to deploy Then the system warns about unreviewed changes` | | **Locate** | Required inputs unavailable or stale | `Given the build artifact is 30 days old When the user selects it for deployment Then the system flags the artifact as potentially stale` | | **Prepare** | Setup fails or environment misconfigured | `Given the target environment has a port conflict When preparation runs Then the s
Read more
name: nw-jtbd-bdd-integration description: Translating JTBD analysis to BDD scenarios - job story to Given-When-Then patterns, forces-based test discovery, job-map-based test discovery, and property-shaped criteria user-invocable: false disable-model-invocation: true
JTBD to BDD Integration
Use when translating JTBD discoveries (job stories, forces, job map) into testable BDD scenarios. Job stories map naturally to Given-When-Then because both emphasize context (situation/given), action (motivation/when), and outcome (result/then).
Job Story to Given-When-Then Translation
The Pattern
Job Story: When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]. BDD Scenario: Given [the situation from the job story] When [user takes action aligned with the motivation] Then [the outcome is achieved and measurable]
Worked Example
**Job Story**: "When I receive an alert that a production service is degraded, I want to see the most likely root cause with supporting evidence, so I can begin remediation within minutes instead of hours."
Scenario: Root cause surfaced from degradation alert Given the monitoring system has detected degraded response times on the payment service And the degradation started 5 minutes ago When the operator opens the incident dashboard Then the system displays the top 3 probable root causes ranked by likelihood And each root cause includes supporting metrics and log evidence And the most likely root cause is displayed within 10 seconds Scenario: Remediation guidance from identified root cause Given the operator has identified the root cause as database connection pool exhaustion When the operator selects the recommended remediation action Then the system presents a runbook with step-by-step instructions And the estimated time to remediate is displayed And the operator can execute the first step directly from the dashboard
Translation Rules
1. **Given** = situation from job story, made concrete with specific data 2. **When** = user action fulfilling the motivation 3. **Then** = measurable outcome, including quality attributes (time, confidence, completeness)
Multi-Scenario Expansion
One job story typically produces 3-5 BDD scenarios:
- **Happy path**: Outcome achieved as described
- **Anxiety path**: User's fear about new solution addressed
- **Habit path**: User transitioning from old workflow supported
- **Edge cases**: Derived from job map steps (see below)
Forces-Based Test Discovery
Use Four Forces to discover test scenarios that feature-driven thinking misses.
Force-to-Scenario Mapping
| Force | Test Question | Scenario Pattern | |-------|--------------|-----------------| | **Push** | What frustration drove the user here? | `Given [user has experienced the frustration]...` | | **Pull** | What outcome is the user hoping for? | `Then [the promised improvement is measurable]` | | **Anxiety** | What could go wrong with the new solution? | `Given [user has specific fear] When [fear-triggering event] Then [safety net activates]` | | **Habit** | What existing workflow might resist adoption? | `Given [user accustomed to old way] When [new approach encountered] Then [familiar patterns preserved]` |
Worked Example: Automated Deployment Tool
**Forces analysis**:
- Push: Manual deployments cause errors and take hours
- Pull: One-command deployment with automatic rollback
- Anxiety: "What if the automated rollback breaks worse than the original deploy?"
- Habit: Team SSH-es into servers and runs scripts manually
**Derived scenarios**:
# Push scenario: validates the frustration is resolved Scenario: Deployment completes without manual intervention Given the operator has configured deployment for the payment service And the previous manual deployment took 3 hours with 2 errors When the operator runs the automated deployment command Then deployment completes within 15 minutes And zero manual steps are required # Pull scenario: validates the promised outcome Scenario: Automatic rollback on health check failure Given the deployment has completed and health checks are running When the payment endpoint returns 500 errors for 30 seconds Then the system automatically rolls back to the previous version And the operator receives a notification with rollback details # Anxiety scenario: addresses the specific fear Scenario: Rollback preserves database state Given the deployment included a database migration And the health check has triggered an automatic rollback When the rollback completes Then the database schema matches the previous stable version And no data is lost during the rollback process And the operator can verify data integrity from the dashboard # Habit scenario: eases the transition Scenario: Manual override available during automated deployment Given the operator is accustomed to SSH-based manual deployments When the automated deployment is in progress Then the operator can view real-time logs (familiar output format) And the operator can pause or cancel the deployment at any stage And manual SSH access remains available as a fallback
Job-Map-Based Test Discovery
Walk each of the 8 job map steps and generate at least one test scenario per step. Surfaces edge cases that happy-path thinking misses.
| Job Map Step | Missing Scenario Pattern | Example | |-------------|------------------------|---------| | **Define** | User lacks information to start | `Given the user has not reviewed the change log When they attempt to deploy Then the system warns about unreviewed changes` | | **Locate** | Required inputs unavailable or stale | `Given the build artifact is 30 days old When the user selects it for deployment Then the system flags the artifact as potentially stale` | | **Prepare** | Setup fails or environment misconfigured | `Given the target environment has a port conflict When preparation runs Then the s
AI agents that guide you from idea to working code, with human judgment at every gate. nWave runs inside Claude Code. It breaks feature delivery into seven waves (discover, diverge, discuss, design, devops, distill, deliver).
Repo: nWave-ai/nWave
Other skills on nwave.
- /nw-ab-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-abr-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for validating agent quality - template compliance, safety, testing, and priority validation
Open skill - /nw-ad-critique-dimensions
Review dimensions for acceptance test quality - happy path bias, GWT compliance, business language purity, coverage completeness, walking skeleton user-centricity, priority validation, observable behavior assertions, traceability coverage, and walking skeleton boundary proof
Open skill - /nw-agent-creation-workflow
Detailed 5-phase workflow for creating agents - from requirements analysis through validation and iterative refinement
Open skill - /nw-agent-testing
5-layer testing approach for agent validation including adversarial testing, security validation, and prompt injection resistance
Open skill - /nw-architectural-styles-tradeoffs
Architectural style selection decision matrices, trade-off analysis, structural enforcement rules, and combination patterns. Load when choosing or evaluating architecture styles.
Open skill

