Create user stories with Mike Cohn format and Gherkin acceptance criteria. Use when turning user needs into development-ready work with clear outcomes and testable conditions.
Installs just this skill. Get the whole plugin for auto-invocation.
⚡ How it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
Fires itselfClaude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.
You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
Slash command/user-story
👁️ Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Create user stories with Mike Cohn format and Gherkin acceptance criteria. Use when turning user needs into development-ready work with clear outcomes and testable conditions.
---name: user-story
argument-hint: "[feature or user need]"
description: Create user stories with Mike Cohn format and Gherkin acceptance criteria. Use when turning user needs into development-ready work with clear outcomes and testable conditions.
intent: >-
Create clear, concise user stories that combine Mike Cohn's user story format with Gherkin-style acceptance criteria. Use this to translate user needs into actionable development work that focuses on outcomes, ensures shared understanding between product and engineering, and provides testable success criteria.
type: component
theme: pm-artifacts
best_for:
- "Writing user stories with proper acceptance criteria"
- "Converting requirements into development-ready stories"
- "Establishing story quality standards across your team"
scenarios:
- "I need to write a user story for a new notification system in our B2B SaaS app"
- "Convert this PRD requirement into a properly formatted user story with Gherkin acceptance criteria"
estimated_time: "5-10 min"
---## Purpose
Create clear, concise user stories that combine Mike Cohn's user story format with Gherkin-style acceptance criteria. Use this to translate user needs into actionable development work that focuses on outcomes, ensures shared understanding between product and engineering, and provides testable success criteria.
This is not a feature spec—it's a conversation starter that captures *who* benefits, *what* they're trying to do, *why* it matters, and *how* you'll know it works.
## Input
**Works best with:** The feature or user need the story captures.
**Also useful:** The user role, the outcome they want, and edge cases the acceptance criteria must cover.
Anything supplied with the invocation itself — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it and skip whatever it covers; don't re-ask.
**Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The skill asks who the user is and what they're trying to accomplish before drafting story and Gherkin criteria.
**Example invocation:** `Write user stories for password reset via SMS for our banking app — include the lockout edge case.`
## Key Concepts
### The Mike Cohn + Gherkin Format
A user story combines:
**Use Case (Mike Cohn format):**
- **As a** [user persona/role]
- **I want to** [action to achieve outcome]
- **so that** [desired outcome]
**Acceptance Criteria (Gherkin format):**
- **Scenario:** [Brief description of the scenario]
- **Given:** [Initial context or preconditions]
- **and Given:** [Additional preconditions]
- **When:** [Event that triggers the action]
- **Then:** [Expected outcome]
### Why This Structure Works
- **User-centric:** Forces focus on who benefits and why
- **Outcome-focused:** "So that" emphasizes the value delivered, not just the action
- **Testable:** Gherkin acceptance criteria are concrete and verifiable
- **Conversational:** Story is the opening for discussion, not the final spec
- **Shared language:** Product, engineering, and QA all understand the format
### Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- **Not a task:** "As a developer, I want to refactor the database" (this is a tech task, not user value)
- **Not a feature list:** "I want dashboards, reports, and analytics" (this is too big—needs splitting)
- **Not vague:** "I want a better experience" (unmeasurable, no clear outcome)
- **Not a contract:** Stories are placeholders for conversation, not locked-in specs
### When to Use This
- Translating user needs into development work
- Backlog grooming and sprint planning
- Communicating value to engineering and design
- Ensuring testable acceptance criteria exist before development
### When NOT to Use This
- For pure technical debt or refactoring (use engineering tasks instead)
- When stories are too large (split first—see `skills/user-story-splitting/SKILL.md`)
- Before understanding the user problem (write a problem statement first)
---
## Application
### Step 1: Gather Context
Before writing a story, ensure you have:
- **User persona:** Who is this for? (reference `skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md`)
- **Problem understanding:** What need does this address? (reference `skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md`)
- **Desired outcome:** What does success look like?
- **Constraints:** Technical, time, or scope limitations
**If missing context:** Run discovery interviews or problem validation work first.
---
### Optional Helper Script (Template Generator)
If you want a consistent Markdown stub, you can generate one from CLI inputs. This script is deterministic and does not fetch data or write files.
```bash
python3 scripts/user-story-template.py --persona \"trial user\" --action \"log in with Google\" --outcome \"access the app without creating a new password\"
```
---
### Step 2: Write the Use Case
Use `template.md` for the full fill-in structure.
Fill in the template:
```markdown
### User Story [ID]:
- **Summary:** [Brief, memorable title focused on value to the user]
#### Use Case:
- **As a** [user name if available, otherwise persona, otherwise role]
- **I want to** [action user takes to get to outcome]
- **so that** [desired outcome]
```
**Quality checks:**
- **"As a" specificity:** Is this a specific persona (e.g., "trial user") or generic ("user")?
- **"I want to" clarity:** Is this an action the user takes, or a feature you're building?
- **"So that" outcome:** Does this explain the user's motivation? Or is it just restating the action?
**Common mistakes:**
- ❌ "As a user, I want a login button, so that I can log in" (restating the action)
- ✅ "As a trial user, I want to log in with Google, so that I can access the app without creating a new password"
- **and Given:** [Additional context or preconditions]
- **and Given:** [Additional context as needed]
- **and Given:** [UI-focused context ensuring 'When' can happen]
- **and Given:** [Outcomes-focused context ensuring 'Then' is delivered]
- **When:** [Event that triggers the action—aligns with 'I want to']
- **Then:** [Expected outcome—aligns with 'so that']
```
**Quality checks:**
- **Multiple Givens are okay:** Preconditions stack up (e.g., "Given I'm logged in" + "Given I have items in my cart")
- **Only one When:** If you need multiple "When" statements, you likely have multiple stories—split them
- **Only one Then:** If you need multiple "Then" statements, you likely have multiple stories—split them
- **Alignment:** Does "When" match "I want to"? Does "Then" match "so that"?
**Red flags:**
- **Multiple Whens/Thens:** Sign of scope creep—split the story (reference `skills/user-story-splitting/SKILL.md`)
- **Vague Thens:** "Then I see improved performance" (unmeasurable—make it specific)
---
### Step 4: Add a Summary
Write a short, memorable summary that captures the story's value:
```markdown
- **Summary:** [Brief, human-readable title]
```
**Examples:**
- ✅ "Enable Google login for trial users to reduce signup friction"
- ✅ "Bulk delete items to save time for power users"
- ❌ "Add delete button" (feature-centric, not value-centric)
---
### Step 5: Validate and Refine
- **Read aloud to the team:** Does everyone understand who, what, why?
- **Test acceptance criteria:** Can QA write test cases from this?
- **Check for splitting:** If the story feels too big, use `skills/user-story-splitting/SKILL.md`
- **Ensure testability:** Can you prove "Then" happened?
---
## Examples
See `examples/sample.md` for full examples (good, bad, and split-needed stories).
Mini example excerpt:
```markdown
### User Story 042:
- **Summary:** Enable Google login for trial users to reduce signup friction
#### Use Case:
- **As a** trial user visiting the app for the first time
- **I want to** log in using my Google account
- **so that** I can access the app without creating and remembering a new password
#### Acceptance Criteria:
- **Scenario:** First-time trial user logs in via Google OAuth
- **Given:** I am on the login page
- **and Given:** I have a login account
- **When:** I click the "Sign in with Google" button and authorize the app
- **Then:** I am logged into the app and redirected to the onboarding flow
```
---
## Common Pitfalls
### Pitfall 1: Technical Tasks Disguised as User Stories
**Symptom:** "As a developer, I want to refactor the API, so that the code is cleaner"
**Consequence:** This is an engineering task, not a user story. No user value is delivered.
**Fix:** If there's no user outcome, it's not a user story—use an engineering task or tech debt ticket instead.
---
### Pitfall 2: "As a User" (Too Generic)
**Symptom:** Every story starts with "As a user"
**Consequence:** No persona clarity. Different users have different needs.
**Fix:** Use specific personas: "As a trial user," "As a paid subscriber," "As an admin," etc. (reference `skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md`)
---
### Pitfall 3: "So That" Restates "I Want To"
**Symptom:** "I want to click the save button, so that I can save my work"
**Consequence:** No insight into *why* the user cares. Just restating the action.
**Fix:** Dig into the motivation: "so that I don't lose my progress if the page crashes" (real outcome).
---
### Pitfall 4: Multiple When/Then Statements
**Symptom:** Acceptance criteria with 5 "When" statements and 5 "Then" statements
**Consequence:** Story is too big. Likely multiple features bundled together.
**Fix:** Split the story using `skills/user-story-splitting/SKILL.md`. Each When/Then pair should be its own story (or at least evaluated for splitting).
---
### Pitfall 5: Untestable Acceptance Criteria
**Symptom:** "Then the user has a better experience" or "Then it's faster"
**Consequence:** QA can't verify success. Ambiguous definition of "done."
**Fix:** Make it measurable: "Then the page loads in under 2 seconds" or "Then the user sees a success confirmation message."
---
## References
### Related Skills
- `skills/user-story-splitting/SKILL.md` — How to break large stories into smaller ones
- `skills/proto-persona/SKILL.md` — Defines the "As a [persona]" section
- `skills/problem-statement/SKILL.md` — Stories should address validated problems
- `skills/epic-hypothesis/SKILL.md` — Epics decompose into user stories
### Optional Helpers
- `skills/user-story/scripts/user-story-template.py` — Deterministic Markdown stub generator (no network access)
### External Frameworks
- Mike Cohn, *User Stories Applied* (2004) — Origin of the "As a / I want / so that" format
- Gherkin (Cucumber) — "Given/When/Then" acceptance criteria format
