From product-ops
Score a story draft against INVEST criteria and seven agile coaching principles. Returns a structured report with pass/fail per dimension and specific rewrites for failures.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/product-ops:refine-storyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Score a story draft against INVEST criteria and seven agile coaching principles. Returns a structured report with pass/fail per dimension and specific rewrites for every failure.
Score a story draft against INVEST criteria and seven agile coaching principles. Returns a structured report with pass/fail per dimension and specific rewrites for every failure.
$ARGUMENTS = the story draft to review (paste the full story text, or describe the story if no draft is available yet).
Read the story draft. Identify:
If only a description is provided (no draft), construct a minimal story from the description to give the scoring something to evaluate, and note that the review is based on a reconstructed draft.
Score each of the six INVEST dimensions. For each, produce PASS or FAIL with a one-sentence explanation.
| Criterion | Question | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Independent | Can this be delivered without waiting on another in-progress story? | Coupled to another story's implementation |
| Negotiable | Does it describe the what/why and leave room for how? | Specifies UI layout, API shape, or implementation approach |
| Valuable | Does the benefit statement name a real outcome for the role? | "So that the code is cleaner" — that's a refactor, not a user story |
| Estimable | Is there enough detail to estimate effort? | Vague scope, unknown integration, missing constraints |
| Small | Can it be completed in a single sprint or PR? | Epic-sized scope, more than 7-8 acceptance criteria |
| Testable | Can every acceptance criterion be verified with a concrete test? | "Works correctly", "Handles all edge cases" |
Evaluate each of the seven principles with PASS or FAIL. For every FAIL, provide a specific issue and a suggested rewrite.
Principle 1 — AC Outcome-Orientation
Acceptance criteria describe behavior observable by the persona in domain language. Fail if criteria reference:
{ status: 'ok' }")Principle 2 — DoD Explicit and Separated
The story either references a project-level DoD or defines story-specific DoD items in a ## Definition of Done section separate from acceptance criteria. Fail if:
Principle 3 — Estimation Deferred to Refinement
Size estimate and model recommendation belong to the story artifact as metadata fields. Fail if the story body contains planning discussion artifacts or team-internal estimation notes that are not proper metadata.
Principle 4 — Scope Boundaries Explicit
Non-obvious exclusions are named. Fail if adjacent features could reasonably be assumed in scope but are not addressed. Look for stories where a reader might reasonably expect feature X to be included.
Principle 5 — Vertical Slice over Horizontal Layer
The story delivers a user-visible outcome end-to-end. Fail if the story delivers only:
These are technical tasks or enablers, not user stories.
Principle 6 — Each AC Independently Testable
Every acceptance criterion can be verified in isolation. Fail if:
Principle 7 — Technical Notes as Disposable Context
Technical notes help the implementer start faster; they are not requirements. Fail if:
If no ## Definition of Done section is present:
If the story delivers no user-visible outcome:
Format the output using the Output section below.
## INVEST Scorecard
| Criterion | Result | Notes |
|--------------|--------|-------|
| Independent | PASS | ... |
| Negotiable | FAIL | ... |
| Valuable | PASS | ... |
| Estimable | PASS | ... |
| Small | PASS | ... |
| Testable | FAIL | ... |
## Coaching Principles
1. **AC Outcome-Orientation**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Suggested rewrite:* [rewritten criterion, if failing]
2. **DoD Explicit and Separated**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Suggested rewrite:* [rewritten DoD section or recommendation, if failing]
3. **Estimation Deferred to Refinement**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
4. **Scope Boundaries Explicit**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Suggested addition:* [out-of-scope statement, if failing]
5. **Vertical Slice over Horizontal Layer**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Reclassification suggestion:* [technical task / enabler framing, if failing]
6. **Each AC Independently Testable**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Suggested rewrite:* [rewritten criterion(ia), if failing]
7. **Technical Notes as Disposable Context**: PASS/FAIL
- [Explanation]
- *Suggested move:* [criterion text to add to AC section, if failing]
## Definition of Done
[PRESENT / MISSING — recommendation]
## Horizontal Work
[NONE / FLAGGED — reclassification recommendation if flagged]
## Summary
**X of 6 INVEST criteria passing. Y of 7 coaching principles passing.**
Priority fixes:
1. [Highest-impact issue and action]
2. [Second issue and action]
...
Omit sections that are not applicable (e.g., omit Horizontal Work if no flag was raised). Keep each explanation to 1-2 sentences. Rewrites should be concrete and ready to paste into the story.
npx claudepluginhub cpliakas/claude-code-digital-coworkers --plugin product-opsAnalyzes user stories with JTBD and '50 Quick Ideas' framework. Scores 6 dimensions, detects antipatterns, and suggests improvements. For sprint analysis and backlog refinement.
Writes user stories and acceptance criteria using INVEST principles and Given/When/Then format. Helps teams scope, split, and review backlog items before sprint planning.
Provides user story templates using As-a/I-want/So-that format, Given-When-Then acceptance criteria, story splitting, and INVEST criteria for agile backlog refinement and requirements definition.