Generates user stories in the standard persona, action, benefit story format from product requirements or feature descriptions. Use when breaking a feature into stories for sprint planning, writing tickets, or communicating scope to engineering. For testable Given/When/Then acceptance criteria on a story, use deliver-acceptance-criteria; for boundary and failure scenarios, use deliver-edge-cases.
npx skills add https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills --skill deliver-user-stories
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->
User stories are concise descriptions of functionality from the user's perspective. They capture who needs something, what they need, and why - without prescribing how to build it. Good user stories enable teams to break large features into estimable, deliverable increments while maintaining focus on user value.
deliver-acceptance-criteriadeliver-edge-casesdeliver-prd first; stories should trace back to documented requirementsiterate-refinement-notesWhen asked to create user stories, follow these steps:
Review the PRD or feature description. Understand the overall goal, target users, and scope boundaries. User stories should trace back to documented requirements.
Determine which users interact with this feature. Each story should be written for a specific persona, not generic "users." Different personas may need different stories for the same feature.
Decompose the feature into distinct user goals. Each story should deliver a complete, valuable capability - something the user can actually do when the story is done.
Use the format: "As a [persona], I want [action] so that [benefit]." The benefit clause is critical - it explains why this matters and helps prioritize.
Write specific, testable criteria using Given/When/Then format. Acceptance criteria define "done" - if all criteria pass, the story is complete.
Validate each story against INVEST: Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Small, Testable. Revise stories that don't meet these criteria.
Include relevant design references, technical considerations, and dependencies. These help implementers understand the full picture.
Use the template in references/TEMPLATE.md to structure the output. A complete output carries, per story: Story Header; User Story Statement; Context & Background; Acceptance Criteria; Design Notes; Technical Notes; Dependencies; Out of Scope; and Open Questions where any remain. Multi-story documents nest these sections under one heading per story, as the example shows.
Before finalizing, verify:
See references/EXAMPLE.md for a completed example.
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or similar documentation tasks.
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
Agile product ownership toolkit for Senior Product Owner including INVEST-compliant user story generation, sprint planning, backlog management, and velocity tracking. Use for story writing, sprint planning, stakeholder communication, and agile ceremonies.
Expert guidance for writing secure, reliable, and performant Claude Code hooks - validates design decisions, enforces best practices, and prevents common pitfalls. Use when creating, reviewing, or debugging Claude Code hooks.
Use when creating or developing anything, before writing code or implementation plans - refines rough ideas into fully-formed designs through structured Socratic questioning, alternative exploration, and incremental validation
Structured manuscript/grant review with checklist-based evaluation. Use when writing formal peer reviews with specific criteria methodology assessment, statistical validity, reporting standards compliance (CONSORT/STROBE), and constructive feedback. Best for actual review writing, manuscript revision. For evaluating claims/evidence quality use scientific-critical-thinking; for quantitative scoring frameworks use scholar-evaluation.
Conducts structured requirements workshops to produce feature specifications, user stories, EARS-format functional requirements, acceptance criteria, and implementation checklists. Use when defining new features, gathering requirements, or writing specifications. Invoke for feature definition, requirements gathering, user stories, EARS format specs, PRDs, acceptance criteria, or requirement matrices.
Use markdown formatting when drafting content intended for external systems (GitHub issues/PRs, Jira tickets, wiki pages, design docs, etc.) so formatting is preserved when the user copies it. Load this skill before producing any draft the user will paste elsewhere.
Take product-on-purpose/deliver-user-stories from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
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.