mcpbeat Sign in

Nw Leanux Methodology Agent Skill

LeanUX backlog management methodology - user story template, story sizing, story states, task types, Definition of Ready/Done, anti-pattern detection and remediation

2k tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
588
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself

Install

one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/nWave-ai/nWave --skill nw-leanux-methodology

The instruction itself

24 sections, as written by the author

LeanUX Backlog Management Methodology

"A backlog is not a todo list. It's a collection of validated hypotheses waiting to become working software."

Story States

| State | Meaning | Entry Criteria |

|-------|---------|----------------|

| Draft | Idea captured, not validated | Has problem statement |

| Ready | Validated, has UAT, ready to build | All DoR items complete |

| In Progress | Actively being built | UAT test written (RED) |

| In Review | Code complete, awaiting review | All tests green |

| Done | Merged, deployed, validated | UAT passes in production |

| Blocked | Cannot proceed | Blocker documented |

Story Sizing Criteria

Right-Sized

Completable in 1-3 days | 3-7 UAT scenarios | Delivers demonstrable value | Explainable in 2 minutes

Oversized Indicators

>7 UAT scenarios | >3 days effort | Multiple distinct user outcomes | Cannot demonstrate in single session

Splitting Strategy

Split by user outcome, not technical layer. Each resulting story delivers independently demonstrable value.

Example: "User Management" (20 scenarios) splits into:

  • "Quick Login" (5 scenarios) -- returning customer on trusted device
  • "New Registration" (4 scenarios) -- first-time customer sign-up
  • "Password Recovery" (3 scenarios) -- customer who forgot credentials
  • "Profile Settings" (4 scenarios) -- customer updating preferences

Definition of Ready (DoR) - Hard Gate

Stories pass ALL 8 items before proceeding to DESIGN wave.

Checklist with Pass/Fail Examples

1. Problem statement clear and in domain language

  • Pass: "Maria wastes 30 seconds typing credentials on every visit"
  • Fail: "Users need authentication"

2. User/persona identified with specific characteristics

  • Pass: "Returning customer (2+ orders) on trusted personal device"
  • Fail: "User" or "Customer"

3. At least 3 domain examples with real data

  • Pass: "Maria on her MacBook, last login 5 days ago, goes directly to dashboard"
  • Fail: "User logs in successfully"

4. UAT scenarios in Given/When/Then (3-7 scenarios)

  • Pass: "Given Maria authenticated 5 days ago on 'MacBook-Home'..."
  • Fail: "Test login functionality"

5. Acceptance criteria derived from UAT

  • Pass: "Sessions older than 30 days require re-authentication"
  • Fail: "System should work correctly"

6. Story right-sized (1-3 days, 3-7 scenarios)

  • Pass: "2 days effort, 5 scenarios, single demo-able feature"
  • Fail: "Epic with 20 scenarios"

7. Technical notes identify constraints

  • Pass: "Requires JWT token storage, GDPR cookie consent"
  • Fail: "No technical considerations"

8. Dependencies resolved or tracked

  • Pass: "Depends on US-041 (completed) and Auth service API (available)"
  • Fail: "Unspecified external dependencies"

Validation Output Format

## Definition of Ready Validation

### Story: {story-id}

| DoR Item | Status | Evidence/Issue |
|----------|--------|----------------|
| Problem statement clear | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| User/persona identified | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| 3+ domain examples | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| UAT scenarios (3-7) | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| AC derived from UAT | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Right-sized | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Technical notes | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Dependencies tracked | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |

### DoR Status: PASSED / BLOCKED

Failure Recovery

When DoR fails:

  • Display specific failures with remediation guidance
  • Do not proceed to peer review or handoff
  • Return to user with action items
  • Re-validate after fixes applied

Definition of Done (DoD) - Completion Criteria

DoD validation owned by acceptance-designer during DISTILL->DELIVER transition. Product-owner defines checklist, acceptance-designer enforces.

Checklist:

  • All UAT scenarios pass (green) | All supporting tests pass (unit, integration, component)
  • Code refactored, no obvious debt | Code reviewed and approved
  • Merged to main branch | Deployed to staging/production
  • Story can be demoed to user

Anti-Pattern Detection and Remediation

Implement-X

  • Signal: Task starts with "Implement X" or "Add X"
  • Problem: No user context, technical focus, vague completion
  • Bad: "Implement user authentication"
  • Good: "Returning Customer Quick Login -- Maria wastes 30 seconds..."
  • Fix: Start with user pain point, rewrite as problem statement

Generic Data

  • Signal: Examples use "user123", "[email protected]"
  • Problem: Lacks real-world context, harder to validate
  • Bad: "Given user123 logs in with password123"
  • Good: "Given Maria Santos ([email protected]) on her MacBook"
  • Fix: Replace all generic data with real names and realistic values

Technical Acceptance Criteria

  • Signal: AC describes implementation ("Use JWT tokens")
  • Problem: Prescribes solution, not testable outcome
  • Bad: "Use JWT tokens for session management"
  • Good: "Session persists for 30 days on trusted device"
  • Fix: Focus on observable user outcome, move tech choices to DESIGN

Oversized Stories

  • Signal: >7 scenarios or >3 days effort
  • Problem: Too large to track, deliver, or demo meaningfully
  • Bad: "Complete user management (20 scenarios)"
  • Good: "Quick Login (5 scenarios), Password Reset (4 scenarios)"
  • Fix: Split into focused stories by user outcome

No Examples

  • Signal: Abstract requirements without concrete examples
  • Problem: Ambiguous, untestable, different interpretations
  • Bad: "Users should be able to manage their settings"
  • Good: "Maria changes notification frequency from daily to weekly"
  • Fix: Add 3+ concrete narratives with real data

Tests After Code

  • Signal: Tests written after implementation
  • Problem: Technical debt, test coverage gaps
  • Fix: UAT scenarios defined in DISCUSS wave, tests written RED first in DELIVER wave

UAT-First Development Flow

Flow from Ready story to Done story follows double-loop TDD:

  • Write UAT test from scenario: Translate first Gherkin scenario to executable test. Run -> RED (correct).
  • Build outside-in: What does UAT need? Integration -> RED -> code -> GREEN. What does integration need? Unit -> RED -> code -> GREEN.
  • Refactor: All tests green, safe to refactor.
  • Next scenario: Repeat for each UAT scenario. All scenarios green -> Story is DONE.

Story Prioritization

MoSCoW Classification

| Category | Meaning | Guideline |

|----------|---------|-----------|

| Must Have | Required for MVP | Without this, release has no value |

| Should Have | Important for full product value | Significant value, workaround exists |

| Could Have | Nice-to-have for enhanced experience | Desirable if time/budget allows |

| Won't Have | Deferred to future releases | Acknowledged, explicitly out of scope |

Assign MoSCoW during Phase 2 (CRAFT) when multiple stories emerge from same requirements conversation.

Value/Effort Matrix

| | Low Effort | High Effort |

|---|---|---|

| High Value | Quick wins -- do first | Strategic investments -- plan carefully |

| Low Value | Fill-ins -- do if time allows | Eliminate or defer |

Quick wins build momentum and stakeholder confidence. Strategic investments need baseline measurement and roadmap planning (see jtbd-workflow-selection skill).

Risk Identification Checklist

During Phase 4 (HANDOFF), include brief risk assessment. Categorize:

Business Risks: market changes | regulatory changes | stakeholder availability | budget/timeline constraints

Technical Risks: integration complexity | technology uncertainty | data migration | performance/security unknowns

Project Risks: resource availability | scope creep potential | communication challenges | testing coverage gaps

For each risk: probability (low/medium/high) | impact (low/medium/high) | mitigation approach (avoid, mitigate, transfer, accept). Detailed risk management belongs to downstream waves -- product-owner surfaces risks, does not manage them.

Wave Handoff Package

When handing off to DESIGN wave (solution-architect), include:

  • Structured requirements document with business context
  • User stories with detailed acceptance criteria
  • Stakeholder analysis and engagement plan
  • Business rules and domain model
  • Risk assessment with categorized risks (see checklist above)
  • Non-functional requirements and quality attributes
  • DoR validation results (all PASSED)
  • Peer review approval

Other skills for the same job

different authors, same section of the catalogue
Protocolsio Integration
by christophacham
×4

Integration with protocols.io API for managing scientific protocols. This skill should be used when working with protocols.io to search, create, update, or publish protocols; manage protocol steps and materials; handle discussions and comments; organize workspaces; upload and manage files; or integrate protocols.io functionality into workflows. Applicable for protocol discovery, collaborative protocol development, experiment tracking, lab protocol management, and scientific documentation.

16k tokens
Tailored Resume Generator
by frostant
×4

Analyzes job descriptions and generates tailored resumes that highlight relevant experience, skills, and achievements to maximize interview chances

3k tokens
Excalidraw Diagram Generator
by github
vendor ×3

Generate Excalidraw diagrams from natural language descriptions. Use when asked to "create a diagram", "make a flowchart", "visualize a process", "draw a system architecture", "create a mind map", or "generate an Excalidraw file". Supports flowcharts, relationship diagrams, mind maps, and system architecture diagrams. Outputs .excalidraw JSON files that can be opened directly in Excalidraw.

36k tokens scripts
Expo Dev Client
by openai
vendor ×3

Build and distribute Expo development clients locally or via TestFlight

961 tokens
Executing Plans
by ZhanlinCui
×3

Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints

542 tokens
Anndata
by christophacham
×3

Data structure for annotated matrices in single-cell analysis. Use when working with .h5ad files or integrating with the scverse ecosystem. This is the data format skill—for analysis workflows use scanpy; for probabilistic models use scvi-tools; for population-scale queries use cellxgene-census.

16k tokens
Benchling Integration
by christophacham
×3

Benchling R&D platform integration. Access registry (DNA, proteins), inventory, ELN entries, workflows via API, build Benchling Apps, query Data Warehouse, for lab data management automation.

14k tokens
Biopython
by christophacham
×3

Comprehensive molecular biology toolkit. Use for sequence manipulation, file parsing (FASTA/GenBank/PDB), phylogenetics, and programmatic NCBI/PubMed access (Bio.Entrez). Best for batch processing, custom bioinformatics pipelines, BLAST automation. For quick lookups use gget; for multi-service integration use bioservices.

24k tokens

How to use it

Copy the folder

Take nwave-ai/nw-leanux-methodology from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.

Check the name does not clash

The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.