Write acceptance criteria as input-and-outcome checks before asking AI to build a prototype. A convincing screen is not enough: reviewers need to know what should happen when information is valid, missing, conflicting, or rejected.
Separate the brief from project history
Lovable documents project contents including chat, preview, code, version history, and settings, with edits automatically saved to version history. That history records changes; it does not replace your own definition of acceptable behaviour.
As editorial advice, keep a short acceptance brief that a reviewer can read independently of the build conversation. State the intended demonstration, its exclusions, and the evidence needed to accept it. Avoid turning every design preference into a blocking requirement.
Specify a hypothetical booking form
Consider a fictional Kochi workshop offering two demonstration sessions on 12 November 2026: 10:00 and 14:00, both explicitly labelled India Standard Time. Use invented names and a dummy contact value, not customer information.
The prototype brief could require a name, a session choice, and a contact field. Define the contact rule narrowly for this demonstration, such as exactly ten digits; do not present it as comprehensive validation of Indian telephone numbers.
Exclude payments, live messages, and actual reservations. If submission is simulated, require a visible “demonstration only” label so the reviewer cannot mistake it for a real booking.
Fill the acceptance worksheet
For each check, record input, expected outcome, and review evidence:
- Valid case: “Demo Attendee”, ten dummy digits, and 10:00 selected. Expect a confirmation summary matching the chosen session.
- Missing choice: Leave the session blank. Expect an understandable error and no success message.
- Invalid contact: Enter five digits. Expect the stated format rule to be explained without clearing other valid fields.
- Simulated failure: Provide valid inputs but invoke the agreed failure scenario. Expect a failure message, preserved entries, and a clear retry option.
- Repeated submission: Submit twice. Define whether the demonstration shows one confirmation or a warning; do not leave the outcome ambiguous.
Evaluate all five cases against observable results, not the generated explanation of what the code supposedly does.
Stop when success cannot be observed
Stop the build request if a criterion says only “works properly” or “looks professional”. Rewrite it as something a reviewer can inspect. Next, approve the brief and request the smallest demonstration that covers it.
If you subsequently compare access in the coding catalog, check access format and save terms before buying. Marketplace account/code/token offers are not proof of official subscription equivalence.
Sources and scope
Source material checked 29 October 2026; features/policies may change. Lovable project documentation establishes saved project contents and automatic version history. The booking specification and acceptance checks are hypothetical editorial advice, not documented booking capabilities or marketplace commitments.