agentleFS
UsermuseUsermuse/em-plugin/skills/user-stories/SKILL.md

user-stories

Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Break a feature into user stories (or job stories) — INVEST-shaped, 3-C's structure, each story citing the motivating customer quote and acceptance criteria that reflect what customers actually expect, grounded in Evermuse evidence. Use when the user wants to 'write user stories', 'break this into stories', 'create backlog items', 'define acceptance criteria', or 'write job stories'. Trigger terms: user stories, job stories, backlog items, acceptance criteria, story breakdown, JTBD stories. Not for a full spec or PRD — use write-feature-spec or create-prd for those.

23 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use brainstorm-experiments-new, brainstorm-experiments-existing and 7 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • skytiger6724Skill

    brainstorm-experiments-new

    Design lean startup experiments (pretotypes) for a new product. Creates XYZ hypotheses and suggests low-effort validation methods like landing pages, explainer videos, and pre-orders. Use when validating a new product idea, creating pretotypes, or testing market demand.

    Also in 9 projects that use this

  • skytiger6724Skill

    brainstorm-experiments-existing

    Design experiments to test assumptions for an existing product — prototypes, A/B tests, spikes, and other low-effort validation methods. Use when validating assumptions, testing feature ideas cheaply, or planning product experiments.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • 45ckSkill

    pestle-analysis

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • About-IntelligenceSkill

    positioning-ideas

    Brainstorm product positioning ideas differentiated from competitors.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • About-IntelligenceSkill

    product-name

    Brainstorm 5 unique, memorable product names with rationale aligned to brand values and target audience.

    Also in 7 projects that use this

  • +4 more from skytiger6724

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Required — one parallel batch of searches: Verify the product (Rule 1), then fire in a single parallel batch:

    line 29

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

User Stories & Job Stories (grounded in customer evidence)

Turn a feature ($ARGUMENTS) into a set of independent, testable stories where each story cites the customer quote that motivates it, and every acceptance criterion reflects a stated customer expectation — not an invented one. This is the difference between a backlog of guesses and a backlog you can defend.

Step 0 — Relevance & availability

Confirm this is customer-facing product work and Evermuse is present. If the MCP isn't connected, produce the stories from the templates but label them ⚠ ungrounded and tell the user to authorize the MCP. (See ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/using-evermuse/SKILL.md, Step 0.)

Evermuse Grounding (required)

Follow ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/using-evermuse/SKILL.md.

Required — one parallel batch of searches. Verify the product (Rule 1), then fire in a single parallel batch:

  • 3–4 evidence searches, each worded from a different angle (limit up to 50). Evidence comes back rich and varied — expect large, useful result sets.
  • one guidance search and one context search (limit up to 50). These are usually sparse or empty; run them anyway and note when they're thin.

Read each response's digest — it reports how many more results exist. Use judgment on whether a query is worth pulling deeper (raise limit toward the 100 max and/or page with next_offset to avoid repeats), weighing payload size, remaining context, task complexity, and the value of the data. For deep pulls, consider spawning sub-agents — instruct them to return every citation with the same metadata the tools return (url, who_said_it, meeting_name, created_at) so you can still cite.

Optional — considered use. Once grounded, reach for the other tools only when they add value: a quote-angled search for verbatim voice, read_source for a single deep dive, inline citations (references/citations.md), and add_source to save the deliverable. Sources, citations, and saving are optional — not required.

Instructions

  1. Pick the format that fits. Both are valid; choose per the user's ask (offer to switch):
    • User story — role-centric: "As a [role], I want [action], so that [benefit]." Follows the 3 C's (Card / Conversation / Confirmation).
    • Job story — situation-centric (JTBD): "When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]." Reach for this when the trigger/context matters more than the role, which the evidence often reveals.
  2. Derive stories from the evidence, not the design alone. Group quotes and needs by distinct user situations/jobs; each cluster becomes one story. Replace the source skill's reliance on "$DESIGN + $ASSUMPTIONS" with evidence as the primary driver — designs and assumptions refine stories, but the corpus decides which stories exist and how they rank.
  3. Respect INVEST. Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable. Split any story too big for one sprint.
  4. Write acceptance criteria that mirror stated expectations. Each AC should trace to something a customer expressed — a needed behavior, an edge case they hit, a performance bar they complained about. 4–6 criteria per story; observable and testable.
  5. Rank by demand. Order stories by how strongly the evidence backs them (mentions across accounts). Flag any story that's a guess (no evidence) as assumption — validate.
  6. Chain onward. Stories feed test-scenarios (Given/When/Then from these ACs) and write-feature-spec. Reuse this grounding rather than re-searching (credits — Rule 7).

Story templates

User story

Title: [feature name] As a [role], I want [action], so that [benefit]. 1 Design: [link] Acceptance Criteria: 1–6 observable, testable criteria — each tracing to a stated expectation.

Job story

Title: [job outcome] When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome]. 1 Design: [link] Acceptance Criteria: 6–8 outcome-focused criteria (situation recognized, motivation enabled, feedback visible, edge cases handled).

Each story block ends with its inline citation.


Further reading

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

Reviews can't be read right now.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.