A customer asks to invite a teammate. Your app already has users, so it sounds like a new button and an email. Then the estimate arrives, and the work is much larger than you expected.
Sometimes the estimate is too broad. Sometimes a small visible change affects rules your first version never needed. You can get a better answer by asking for the decisions behind the estimate.
Describe the outcome before the interface
Take a hypothetical subscription app built for individual users. “Add team invitations” leaves several questions unanswered. Does the teammate get a separate account? Can they see all existing records? Who pays for the extra seat? Can they invite more people?
Write a short example instead: “The account owner can invite one colleague to view shared project records. The colleague cannot change billing or invite anyone else.” That gives the engineer something concrete to evaluate.
It also exposes decisions you can simplify. If customers only need to share a finished report, a carefully controlled sharing feature may satisfy the immediate need without introducing a full team model.
Ask which existing assumptions change
An engineer should be able to explain where the work sits: interface, data, permissions, billing, integrations, or operations. For invitations, an application that assumes every record belongs to one person may need an organization or workspace concept first.
That change can affect old records and existing users. Moving data into a new structure needs a migration plan, a way to verify the result, and a recovery approach if the change fails. Deploying an older code version does not necessarily undo the data migration.
Ask for the assumptions and uncertainties separately from the implementation estimate. If the engineer cannot yet tell how ownership works, a bounded investigation with a written result may be more useful than pretending the full feature has a precise estimate.
Agree on examples that count as finished
Acceptance criteria are simply examples everyone agrees the product must handle. For the invitation feature, a first version might require:
- An authorized owner can invite a colleague to the correct workspace.
- An expired or revoked invitation cannot grant access.
- Reusing an invitation does not create duplicate memberships.
- The invited person receives the agreed role and cannot change billing.
- Removing a teammate removes the access the feature granted.
These examples are more useful than “the invitation button works.” They describe the business result and its boundaries. They can also become tests of user-visible behavior, consistent with Playwright's testing guidance.
Reduce scope without leaving a broken promise
You might start with one role, one invitation at a time, and no bulk invitations. You might postpone self-service seat upgrades while handling billing changes through a documented process.
Those are product choices. Leaving access removal undefined is a different kind of omission: the feature cannot reliably deliver the permissions it promises.
Request a proposal that names the smallest useful version, the supporting changes it requires, the work excluded, and the evidence that will demonstrate completion. This makes estimates easier to compare and reduces surprises during delivery.
Five prompts to use with your AI coding assistant
Before you begin: Use the same project conversation for all five prompts. Inspect first, approve the plan yourself, and never test against live customer data or secrets.
These prompts assume your assistant can inspect the relevant project. Ask it to say clearly if it cannot. Use the prompts one at a time, reviewing each response before moving to the next step.
1. Map
I want to add this feature: [DESCRIBE THE FEATURE]. Translate the request into plain-English user requirements and inspect the current implementation for reusable components. Ask essential missing questions; do not code.
2. Audit
Perform a change-impact analysis across screens, APIs, data models, user permissions, notifications, integrations, and current user journeys. List edge cases and hidden dependencies.
3. Plan
Offer minimal, practical, and extended scopes. For each, show included/excluded behavior, acceptance criteria, impacted files, migration needs, tests, and tradeoffs. Recommend the smallest useful scope.
4. Challenge
Act as a skeptical reviewer: identify scope gaps, fragile assumptions, compatibility risks, missing tests, and nontrivial rollback limitations. Revise the implementation plan.
5. Implement
Only after I approve one scope, implement it in a development environment in reviewable stages. Validate acceptance criteria and produce a release checklist. Do not deploy automatically.
DitchNow helps founders turn customer requests into a workable scope and build plan. Bring one feature request and the current app; the first useful question is what the customer needs to achieve.
About DitchNow
DitchNow is based in Haarlem, Netherlands, and helps founders and teams fix and extend software and put AI to work. Meet DitchNow.