Code review & standards
How to define acceptance criteria and definition of done within PRs to ensure deployable and shippable changes.
Crafting precise acceptance criteria and a rigorous definition of done in pull requests creates reliable, reproducible deployments, reduces rework, and aligns engineering, product, and operations toward consistently shippable software releases.
Published by
Jerry Jenkins
July 26, 2025 - 3 min Read
Establishing clear acceptance criteria and a concrete definition of done (DoD) within pull requests is essential for aligning cross-functional teams on what constitutes a deployable change. Acceptance criteria describe observable outcomes the feature or fix must achieve, while the DoD codifies the completeness, quality, and readiness requirements. When teams articulate these upfront, developers gain precise targets, testers understand what to validate, and product owners confirm that business value is realized. The DoD should be testable, verifiable, and independent of the implementation approach. It should also evolve with the product and technology stack, remaining concrete enough to avoid vague interpretations. A well-defined framework reduces ambiguity and accelerates the review process.
In practice, a robust DoD integrates functional, nonfunctional, and operational aspects. Functional criteria verify correct behavior, edge cases, and user experience. Nonfunctional criteria address performance, security, accessibility, and reliability, ensuring the solution remains robust under expected load and conditions. Operational criteria cover deployment readiness, rollback plans, and monitoring visibility. The acceptance criteria should be written as concrete, verifiable statements that can be checked by automated tests or explicit review. By separating concerns—what the feature does, how well it does it, and how it stays reliable—the PR review becomes a structured checklist rather than a subjective judgment. This clarity helps prevent last-minute regressions.
Define ready versus done with explicit, testable milestones.
A practical approach starts with a collaborative definition of ready and a shared DoD document. Teams convene to agree on the minimum criteria a PR must meet before review begins, including passing test suites, updated documentation, and dependency hygiene. The DoD should be versioned and accessible within the repository, ideally as a living document tied to the project’s release cycle. When the PR creator references the DoD explicitly in the description, reviewers know precisely what to evaluate and what signals indicate completion. Regular refresh sessions keep the criteria aligned with evolving priorities, tooling, and infrastructure, ensuring the DoD remains relevant rather than stagnant bureaucracy.
The acceptance criteria should be decomposed into measurable statements that are resilient to changes in implementation details. For example, “the feature should load in under two seconds for typical payloads” is preferable to vague “fast enough.” Each criterion should be testable, ideally mapped to automated tests, manual checks, or both. Traceability is key: link criteria to user stories, business goals, and quality attributes. A well-mapped checklist supports continuous integration by surfacing gaps early, reducing the probability of slipping into post-release bug-fix cycles. When criteria are explicit, it’s easier for reviewers to determine if the PR delivers the intended value without overreliance on the developer’s explanations.
Keep the DoD consistent with product and operations needs.
Integrating DoD requirements into pull request templates streamlines the process for contributors. A template that prompts the author to confirm test coverage, security considerations, accessibility checks, and deployment instructions nudges teams toward completeness. It also offers reviewers a consistent foundation for evaluation. The template can include fields for environment variables, configuration changes, and rollback procedures, which tend to be overlooked when creativity outpaces discipline. By making these prompts mandatory, teams reduce the risk of missing operational details that would hinder deployability. A consistent template supports faster review cycles and higher confidence in the change’s readiness for production.
Another crucial element is the explicit definition of “done” across the lifecycle. DoD can differentiate between “in progress,” “ready for review,” and “done for release.” This stratification clarifies expectations: a PR may be complete from a coding perspective but not yet ready for a production promotion if integration tests fail or monitoring lacks observability. Clear handoffs between branches, test environments, and staging reduce friction and confusion. Documented escalation paths help troubleshoot when criteria are not met, preserving momentum while ensuring that quality gates are not bypassed. A precise DoD acts as a contract between developers and operations, reinforcing reliability.
Proactive risk mitigation and graceful rollback expectations.
Beyond the static criteria, teams should implement lightweight signals that indicate progress toward acceptance. Success metrics, test coverage thresholds, and performance baselines can be tracked automatically and surfaced in PR dashboards. These signals reinforce confidence without requiring manual audits for every change. When a PR meets all DoD criteria, automated systems can proceed with deployment pipelines, while any deviations trigger guardrails such as manual reviews or additional tests. The goal is a predictable flow: each PR travels through the same gatekeeping steps, with objective criteria guiding decisions rather than subjective judgments. Consistency is the bedrock of scalable software delivery.
Risk management is an integral part of acceptance criteria. Identify potential failure modes, backout strategies, and contingency plans within the DoD. For high-risk changes, require additional safeguards, such as feature flags, canary deployments, or circuit breakers. Document how rollback will be executed and how customer-facing communications will be handled if issues arise. When risk is acknowledged and mitigated within the PR process, teams can move more decisively with confidence. The DoD becomes a living framework for anticipating problems, not a bureaucratic checklist. This proactive stance reduces emergency rollbacks and protects user trust.
Embedding automation to enforce criteria accelerates release velocity.
The role of reviewers is to verify alignment with the DoD and to surface gaps early. Reviewers should approach PRs with a structured mindset, checking traceability, test results, and documentation updates. They should ask pointed questions: Do the acceptance criteria cover edge cases? Are the tests comprehensive and deterministic? Is the DOD still applicable to the current implementation? Constructive feedback should be specific, actionable, and timely. When reviewers consistently enforce the DoD, the team cultivates a culture of excellence where quality is a default, not an afterthought. The result is a smoother path from code to production with fewer surprises for end users.
Another practice is to integrate DoD validation into the CI/CD pipeline. Automated checks can verify test coverage thresholds, static analysis results, security scans, and dependency freshness before a PR can advance. Deployability checks should simulate real-world conditions, including load tests and recovery scenarios. When pipelines enforce the DoD, developers receive immediate signals about readiness, not after lengthy manual reviews. This integration reduces throughput bottlenecks and keeps the release cadence steady. It also makes it easier to onboard new contributors, who can rely on transparent, machine-checked criteria rather than ambiguous expectations.
Cultural alignment is essential for the DoD to be effective. Leadership should model a commitment to quality and allocate time for rigorous reviews. Teams benefit from shared language around acceptance criteria, ensuring everyone interprets metrics similarly. Regular retrospective discussions about what the DoD captured, what it missed, and how it could be improved foster continuous learning. When acceptance criteria echo user value and operational realities, the PR process becomes a collaborative, value-driven activity rather than a bureaucratic hurdle. This alignment cultivates trust across product, engineering, and operations, reinforcing a sustainable pace of delivery that remains maintainable over time.
The payoff is a sustainable, deployable, and shippable software lifecycle. A well-crafted acceptance framework paired with a precise definition of done reduces rework, clarifies responsibilities, and accelerates feedback loops. Teams that obsess over measurable outcomes, automated verification, and transparent criteria build a strong foundation for high-quality releases. The PRs that embody these principles deliver not only features but confidence—confidence in stability, performance, and user satisfaction. As the product matures, this disciplined approach to acceptance criteria and DoD becomes a competitive advantage, allowing organizations to innovate responsibly while maintaining operational excellence.
