tickets/ directory and ready for sprint planning.
Ready to generate user stories?
Use the User Story Generation Template to get started with a structured prompt
Jump to: Workflow | When to Use | Prompt Structure | Key Considerations | Common Patterns | Troubleshooting | Validation Checklist
Workflow
This workflow generates structured ticket files that serve as automated development references:Write Prompt
Leverage the User Story Generation Template, provide clear objective statement, and define scope and boundaries.
Optional: Refine Prompt with LLMs
Use Claude or other LLMs to refine objective clarity, ensure business value is well-articulated, and validate scope definitions.
Review and Iterate on AAP
Carefully review the generated Agent Action Plan, verify epic/feature/story breakdown matches requirements, and iterate on AAP if needed before triggering generation.
Review Output
Examine generated epics, features, and stories. Validate story quality and check acceptance criteria completeness.
Optional: Refine Stories
Request modifications to specific stories if needed, adjust acceptance criteria or edge cases, and maintain focus on original objective scope.
Merge to Codebase
Merge approved ticket files into your codebase repository. These files serve as references for subsequent Blitzy development runs, enabling you to reference features and their stories in your prompts (e.g., “Implement FEATURE-001-01 including all child stories per the acceptance criteria defined in tickets/EPIC-001/FEATURE-001-01/…”) while maintaining tight correlation between tickets and implementation.
When to Use This Approach
- Backlog Kickstart
- Feature Breakdown
- Acceptance Criteria
- Dependency Mapping
Turn a high-level objective into a sprint-ready backlog of stories with estimation guidance and definition of done.
Prompt Structure
Follow the Golden Rules when writing your user story generation prompt. Focus especially on:- Objective Clarity - State business goal, target users, and expected outcomes explicitly
- Scope Boundaries - Define what’s included and excluded from the epic/features
- Story Structure - Specify epic numbering, sprint duration, and story point limits
- Acceptance Criteria - Require BDD format (Given/When/Then) and coverage categories
Key Considerations
Objective Clarity Drives Quality
State the business objective, target users, expected value, and scope boundaries explicitly. Vague objectives produce generic stories without actionable acceptance criteria.
Story Size Constraints Prevent Bloat
Specify sprint duration and story point limits (typically 2-5 days per story, max 8 points). Without size guidance, generated stories may be too large for single sprint completion.
Epic/Feature Structure Needs Definition
For large objectives, specify how many features per epic (2-4 recommended) and stories per feature (3-8 recommended). Otherwise breakdown may not align with your team’s workflow.
Story Quality Principles Matter
Every story must be Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Sized appropriately, and Testable (INVEST). Reference these principles explicitly in your prompt.
Common Patterns
Feature with frontend and backend - Objective: “Add user authentication with OAuth2 providers” breaks into OAuth Integration (backend), Login UI (frontend), and Account Management (profile/sessions). Incremental capability rollout - Objective: “Enable multi-language support” breaks into Core i18n Infrastructure (detection, externalization), Initial Language Support (2-3 languages), and Language Management (user selection, admin tools). Multi-actor workflow - Objective: “Implement approval workflow for expense reports” breaks into Expense Submission (employee), Manager Review (approve/reject), and Finance Processing (final approval, payment tracking).Troubleshooting
Stories are too large
Stories are too large
Add size constraints to prompt: “Break down into stories completable in 2-3 days” or “Each story should be 3 story points or less”. Review epic/feature breakdown and split large features.
Acceptance criteria lack specificity
Acceptance criteria lack specificity
Add to prompt: “Include specific values, thresholds, and measurable outcomes in acceptance criteria. Avoid vague terms like approximately, various, properly, or efficiently.”
Epic breakdown doesn't match architecture
Epic breakdown doesn't match architecture
Provide architecture context in prompt: “Feature boundaries should align with microservices: auth-service, user-service, notification-service” or “Group stories by backend vs. frontend work”.
Missing edge cases
Missing edge cases
Specify domain scenarios in prompt: “Include edge cases for concurrent user sessions, network timeouts, and data race conditions” and reference system constraints like database limits or API rate limiting.
Stories lack quality structure
Stories lack quality structure
Add explicit validation instruction: “Ensure each story is Independent, Negotiable, Valuable, Estimable, Sized appropriately, and Testable” and review generated stories against checklist.
Validation Checklist
After generation, verify story quality, acceptance criteria, and file structure:- Each story is independent and can be implemented standalone
- Stories are negotiable and can be adjusted before commitment
- Stories deliver clear value to users with measurable outcomes
- Stories are properly sized (completable in one sprint, typically 2-5 days)
- All acceptance criteria use Given/When/Then BDD format
- Coverage includes input validation, expected output, error handling, edge cases
- No forbidden vague terms (approximately, various, properly, efficiently)
- WHO/WHAT/WHY format followed for all user stories
- Sub-tasks defined with action verbs and assignee placeholders
- All files in
tickets/directory with correct naming convention