| name | pm-user-story |
| description | Write or critique a user story — a small unit of user value framed from a real persona's need, not a restated task. Frames stories around who/what/why, keeps them INVEST and testable, maps them across the journey, and resists writing stories that add no clarity. Applies the always-true core and gates context-dependent decisions (strict formula vs. free-form, whether to write a story at all, acceptance-criteria depth, splitting into a map, communication framing). Trigger when asked to write user stories, turn a persona or need into stories, frame requirements as stories, build a story map, apply INVEST, or review/strengthen existing stories. |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"uxcel","version":"1.0.0"} |
User Story Skill
How this skill behaves (read first)
This is a generative skill, and user stories are where requirements quietly turn back into a task list. The default move is to restate a feature as a story — "Add login feature," or the hollow "As a user, I want a button so I can submit" — describing what to build instead of who needs what and why. A real user story is a small, testable unit of user value, grounded in a real persona's need, that gives the team a shared who/what/why — and the discipline to not write one when it adds nothing the spec already says. So this skill gates:
- Establish whose need this is, whether it's real, and what the story feeds — a story with no grounded user is an assumption in costume.
- Apply the always-true core — frame from user value, keep the story small with detail pushed to acceptance criteria, make it INVEST/testable, map stories across the journey, and cut stories that add no clarity.
- Surface the context-dependent decisions (strict formula vs. free-form, write-a-story-at-all, acceptance-criteria depth, splitting into a map, communication framing) with trade-offs.
Then it hands off to pm-spec-quality-audit (which flags task-stories, untestable stories, and broken traceability) and pm-assumption-rigor-audit (is the user need evidenced or assumed?).
Scope: this skill owns the user-story artifact. It defers building the persona to pm-personas-jtbd, framing the underlying problem to pm-problem-statement, and the full spec/PRD and acceptance-criteria depth to pm-product-spec (audited by pm-spec-quality-audit). Agile ceremonies, backlog grooming, and sprint mechanics are out of scope.
Step 0 — Establish context before writing stories
Ask if not known; state the assumption if proceeding without an answer:
- Whose need is this, and is it real? A story starts from a research-grounded persona and a validated need — "As Maria, who has no time to configure settings…" beats "users prefer automation." If the persona or need is assumed, say so; an ungrounded story propagates the assumption into the backlog. (Build the persona in
pm-personas-jtbd.)
- How complex is the need? A single discrete need fits the "As a [persona], I want [action], so that [benefit]" formula; a feature spanning multiple user types or layered benefits may need to be split or written free-form.
- Does a story add clarity the PRD/spec doesn't already have? If the team gets full context elsewhere, a story is documentation for its own sake. Write it only when it earns its place.
- What does it feed? A backlog, a spec, or an imminent sprint — this sets how much acceptance-criteria detail to attach now.
The always-apply core (true for any user story)
- Frame from user value, not the task. "As a [persona], I want [action], so that [benefit]" expresses intent and value, not a technical to-do. ❌ "Add login feature" / "Improve dashboard performance." ✅ "As a returning user, I want to log in quickly so I can access my saved data." Each story is a problem to solve, not a feature to ship.
- Ground each story in a real persona and need. Go from persona → story; for complex or early problems, dig into the user's frustrations first so the story reflects a real obstacle, not an assumed one. Build from insight, not convenience.
- Treat the formula as a starting point, not a rule. When a feature involves multiple user types, several actions, or layered benefits, one sentence won't hold it — splitting or writing free-form is valid, as long as who, what, and why stay clear.
- Keep the story a small unit of value; push detail to acceptance criteria. The story names the need; specifics like filter types, edge cases, and interaction rules live in the acceptance criteria and the spec that follow. Don't inflate a story into a mini-spec.
- Make it INVEST and testable. Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable. Acceptance criteria define "done" so design, engineering, and QA share one definition of success ("users can add, view, and remove saved destinations").
- Map stories across the journey. Story mapping connects four blocks — problem → functionalities → user stories → tasks — so every requirement traces back to a real user need. Organizing the spec by story keeps the work grounded; the map itself is a shared-understanding tool before anything is formally documented.
- Spot and fix weak stories. Missing context, overly technical phrasing, or no measurable goal signal a task in disguise. Repair by returning to who–what–why and reviewing against the persona.
- Don't write a story that adds no clarity. Not every feature needs one. If the PRD/spec already gives the team the context, a story adds noise, not value — the test is always "does this add clarity that isn't captured elsewhere?"
- Communicate the story clearly. Lead with the user value and the decision in plain product language, not design/feature language ("prioritizes the most commonly used filters to reduce choice overload," not "we added a filter component"). Synthesize to one direction and cut noise so stakeholders grasp the intent fast.
The context-dependent decisions (surface, don't auto-apply)
Present each with its trade-off and a recommendation tied to Step 0; let the user choose. Mechanically stamping every ticket into the "As a user…" template is the failure mode.
| Decision | Apply when | Avoid / adapt when | Default recommendation |
|---|
| Strict formula vs. free-form | The formula for a discrete, single-persona need | Forcing one sentence onto a multi-user / layered feature | Formula by default; split or go free-form when who/what/why won't fit one line |
| Write a story at all | When it adds shared who/what/why the spec lacks | Generating a story per ticket as ritual documentation | Write only when it adds clarity not already captured elsewhere |
| Acceptance-criteria depth now | Enough AC to define "done" for the current stage; fuller AC when feeding a sprint/spec | Front-loading exhaustive AC during early framing, or shipping a story with none | Attach AC that define done; defer testability depth and structure to pm-product-spec / spec-quality |
| Single story vs. split into a map | Split when a story spans multiple actions/personas or is too big to finish in a sprint (INVEST: Small) | One giant epic-as-story, or over-splitting into technical task-stories | Split by user value; map problem → functionality → story → task |
| Communication framing | Leading with the decision and user value when presenting to stakeholders | Design-language or feature-list framing that buries the decision | State the user value first, structure for scanning, remove noise |
Validate the result (orchestration)
Hand-offs name each lens by its installable skill name. Invoke one only if that skill is installed; if it isn't, this skill's own core already carries these rules — proceed without it rather than blocking.
After producing or revising, hand it to the audit lenses rather than declaring it done. These are candidate lenses — posture per docs/orchestration-policy.md, or route the whole artifact through pm-product-review. Here assumption-rigor is the always-relevant lens (auto-runs); the others are offered, tied to what the artifact actually contains. If the user invoked this skill for one specific thing, respect that scope.
pm-assumption-rigor-audit (auto-runs) — is the persona and need each story rests on grounded in evidence, or assumed? Flag stories built on an untested belief about who the user is or what they need.pm-spec-quality-audit (offer — if it writes stories that feed a spec) — the core spec check here: it flags task-stories (a feature restated as a story with no user value), untestable stories with no acceptance criteria, and broken traceability between requirements and the user need. It also owns acceptance-criteria depth and full-flow coverage that the story itself defers downstream.
Composition (per docs/orchestration-policy.md §9): the story is fed by upstream work rather than auditing it — the persona (pm-personas-jtbd) and the problem (pm-problem-statement) are upstream inputs. If the audits show a story is really a task or rests on an assumed user, resolve toward the purpose: a user story exists to keep the team building for a real person's real need — if it doesn't name who benefits and why, it's a task wearing a story's clothes. For a full idea-to-plan build, pm-idea-to-plan is the compositional front door that sequences this step with the rest of the ladder and enforces evidence before the spec.
Common do/don't patterns
| ❌ Don't | ✅ Do |
|---|
| "Add login feature" / "Improve dashboard performance" | "As a returning user, I want to log in quickly so I can access my saved data" |
| "As a user, I want a button so I can submit" | Name a real persona, a genuine action, and the value behind it |
| Invent the user the story serves | Ground it in a research-based persona and a validated need |
| Force every feature into one "As a…" sentence | Use the formula as a default; split or go free-form for complex needs |
| Pack filter types and edge cases into the story | Keep the story small; push specifics to acceptance criteria |
| Leave the story untestable | Make it INVEST; AC define "done" for design, eng, and QA |
| A flat backlog of unrelated stories | Map problem → functionality → story → task so each traces to a need |
| Write a story for every ticket out of habit | Skip the story when the spec already gives full context |
| Describe the solution in design/feature language | Lead with user value and the decision in plain product language |
| Ship stories unchecked | Hand off to spec-quality + assumption-rigor |
Source lessons (Uxcel)
