By name: bdd-formulation description: Use when writing new Gherkin scenarios, refining existing feature files, or reviewing scenarios for clarity - applies BRIEF principles and BDD best practices to craft scenarios that serve as living documentation
BDD Formulation
Overview
Formulation is the craft of writing Gherkin that serves as living documentation. Good scenarios are concrete examples of business rules, not test scripts.
When to Use
- Writing new Cucumber scenarios
- Reviewing or refining existing feature files
- A feature file feels bloated, unclear, or hard to maintain
- Scenario names restate the Rule or describe mechanisms
The BRIEF Framework
From Seb Rose — six principles for scenario quality:
| Principle | Ask yourself | Anti-pattern |
|---|---|---|
| Business language | Would a stakeholder understand this? | "refs/notes/yaks", "fast-forward merge" |
| Real data | Are the values vivid and concrete? | "test yak", "yak-a", "user1" |
| Intention revealing | Does it say what, not how? | Click-by-click UI steps |
| Essential | Does every line serve the rule? | Setup for unrelated concerns |
| Focused | One rule per scenario? | Scenario fails from unrelated changes |
| Brief | Five lines or fewer? | Stakeholders skip long scenarios |
Rules vs Examples
From Liz Keogh:
- Rule = acceptance criterion (abstract business rule)
- Example = scenario (concrete illustration with real data)
The Rule keyword states a crisp business rule. Examples illustrate it with specific instances.
# BAD: Rule describes mechanism
Rule: Pulling yaks from origin
# GOOD: Rule states business rule
Rule: After syncing, all users have the same yaks
If the Example heading reads more like a rule than the Rule does, promote it.
Formulation Checklist
Review each scenario against these questions:
Is the Rule a crisp business rule? Not a mechanism, not vague. "Pushing to origin" is a mechanism. "Syncing stores yaks on the remote" is a rule.
Does the Example name add information beyond the Rule? Don't restate the rule. Name the specific instance.
Is the data real and vivid, with a consistent narrative? Pick one concrete story and carry it through the whole feature. Reuse the same entities across scenarios so the feature reads like a coherent narrative, not a collection of isolated test cases. Introduce new entities only when the rule demands it.
# BAD: Each scenario invents unrelated data "test yak"... "deploy pipeline"... "security audit"... # GOOD: One story runs through the feature "make the tea"... "buy biscuits"... "wash the cups"...Is every line essential? Remove setup that doesn't serve the rule. Collapse round-trips where possible (set state before syncing, not in a separate sync cycle).
One rule per scenario? If an example tests two rules, split it. If multiple examples under one rule test the same thing, merge them.
Are cross-cutting concerns inline? Output/logging assertions belong as additional Then steps on existing scenarios, not as separate rules.
Does the docstring show exact output? When asserting on output, use a docstring with precise expected text. Loose "should include" checks are vague.
Review Process
When reviewing an existing feature file:
- Read each Rule in turn
- Ask: "What is the business rule here?"
- Apply BRIEF to each Example
- Look for duplicates across rules
- Look for rules that are too broad — break them up
- Ensure consistent narrative throughout
- Check that setup is minimal
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|---|
| Rule describes mechanism | State the business rule |
| Test labels as data | Use vivid, consistent narrative |
| Each scenario uses unrelated data | Carry one story through the whole feature |
| Example name restates rule | Name the specific instance |
| Multiple rules under one Rule | Break into focused rules |
| One broad rule, many examples | Does each example illustrate a different rule? |
| Separate rule for logging | Add assertions to existing scenarios |
| Unnecessary round-trips in setup | Collapse steps where possible |
Sources
- Seb Rose: "Keep Your Scenarios BRIEF" (cucumber.io/blog)
- Liz Keogh: "Acceptance Criteria vs. Scenarios" (lizkeogh.com)
- Liz Keogh: "Step Away from the Tools" (lizkeogh.com)
- Liz Keogh: "It's about the examples you can't find" (lizkeogh.com)