create-user-stories
Break a PRD or feature description into implementable user stories with acceptance criteria. Use when handing off to engineering or breaking down work for sprint planning.
81
77%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./product-skills/skills/create-user-stories/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description that clearly communicates both what the skill does and when to use it, with good natural trigger terms that users would actually say. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions performed beyond just 'break into user stories with acceptance criteria' — e.g., does it also estimate effort, identify dependencies, or suggest story prioritization?
Suggestions
Expand the capability list with more specific actions, e.g., 'Break a PRD or feature description into implementable user stories with acceptance criteria, estimate story points, and identify dependencies.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (PRD/feature breakdown) and a couple of actions (break into user stories, add acceptance criteria), but doesn't list multiple concrete actions beyond that — e.g., no mention of prioritization, estimation, dependency mapping, or story formatting. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (break a PRD or feature description into implementable user stories with acceptance criteria) and 'when' (use when handing off to engineering or breaking down work for sprint planning) with explicit trigger guidance. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'PRD', 'feature description', 'user stories', 'acceptance criteria', 'sprint planning', 'handing off to engineering'. These cover the most common phrasings well. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The combination of PRD breakdown, user stories, acceptance criteria, and sprint planning creates a clear niche that is unlikely to conflict with other skills. It's distinctly a product-to-engineering translation skill. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
64%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid prompt-template-style skill that provides actionable, concrete guidance for breaking PRDs into user stories. Its main strengths are the specific output format and practical tips (zero state, unhappy paths). Its weaknesses are the lack of an explicit iterative workflow for the decomposition process and some unnecessary explanatory text that Claude doesn't need.
Suggestions
Add an explicit step-by-step workflow for the decomposition process (e.g., 1. Identify user roles, 2. Map workflows, 3. Draft stories, 4. Validate sizing, 5. Check independence) with a validation checkpoint for story sizing.
Trim the introductory paragraph — Claude doesn't need to be told why user stories should be small, clear, and testable; just tell it the constraints directly.
Include a concrete before/after example showing a brief spec snippet transformed into 1-2 user stories to make the expected output format unambiguous.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary padding. Phrases like 'clear enough that engineers don't need to guess, and testable enough that QA knows when it's done' are explanatory fluff Claude doesn't need. The prompt template itself has some redundancy (e.g., explaining what acceptance criteria should look like both in the template and in the tips). However, it's not egregiously verbose. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a complete, copy-paste-ready prompt template with specific structure (title, story format, acceptance criteria in Given/When/Then format, priority levels, notes). The guidance is concrete and specific — e.g., '4-6 criteria per story', testable behaviors vs vague descriptions, specific examples like 'User sees a success message' not 'user has a good experience.' | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The skill describes what the output should look like but doesn't provide a clear multi-step workflow for the process of breaking down a PRD. There's no explicit sequence like 'first identify user roles, then map workflows, then split into stories, then validate sizing.' The principles are listed but not sequenced. For a task that involves iterative refinement (stories too big → split), there's no explicit feedback loop or validation checkpoint. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is reasonably organized with clear sections (prompt template, tips), but everything is inline in a single file with no references to supporting materials. The tips section mentions 'craft-spec' as an upstream skill but doesn't link to it. For a skill of this complexity, the structure is adequate but the cross-reference to craft-spec could be better signaled, and examples of good vs bad user stories could be split into a reference file. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- amplitude/builder-skills
- Commit
221ffaa
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.