# User Story Writing For Salesforce

> Use this skill when authoring INVEST-compliant Salesforce user stories from gathered requirements: shaping the As-A/I-Want/So-That stem, writing Given-When-Then acceptance criteria, sizing complexity (S/M/L/XL), splitting stories that are too large for a sprint, and emitting handoff metadata that names the next downstream agent. Trigger keywords: user story, INVEST, story splitting, story sizing, As-A I-Want So-That, story handoff, recommended_agents, backlog item shape. NOT for requirements elicitation or stakeholder interviews (use admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf). NOT for the Given-When-Then technique itself in depth (use admin/acceptance-criteria-given-when-then). NOT for UAT test case design (use admin/uat-test-case-design). NOT for backlog prioritization (use admin/moscow-prioritization-for-sf-backlog).

- Skill: `pranavnagrecha/user-story-writing-for-salesforce` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 8 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add pranavnagrecha/user-story-writing-for-salesforce`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pranavnagrecha/user-story-writing-for-salesforce/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Product & Planning
- Author: PranavNagrecha (https://skillmd.com/u/pranavnagrecha)
- Updated: 2026-09-08
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pranavnagrecha/user-story-writing-for-salesforce

---


# User Story Writing For Salesforce

This skill activates after requirements have been gathered and the BA must reshape raw business needs into INVEST-compliant Salesforce user stories that downstream admin/dev agents can pick up without re-asking the user. It owns the *shape* of a story (stem, acceptance criteria, sizing, splitting, handoff metadata) — not the elicitation upstream and not the UAT/build/prioritization downstream.

---

## Before Starting

Gather this context before drafting stories:

- **Has elicitation actually happened?** A story without a real persona, real workflow, and real business outcome is a stub. If the requirement is still vague, return to `admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf` before writing stories.
- **Who is the persona, in Salesforce terms?** "User" is not a persona. The persona must resolve to a profile, permission set, or role (e.g. *Inside Sales Rep with Sales User profile*). Stories without a Salesforce-grounded persona break sharing and FLS reasoning during build.
- **Is there an existing story or epic this overlaps?** Duplicate stories pollute the backlog, race for the same record, and waste sprint capacity. Search the existing backlog before drafting a new story.
- **What downstream agents are available in the chain?** The `recommended_agents[]` handoff field only works if you know which agents the org runs (e.g. `object-designer`, `flow-builder`, `lwc-builder`, `permission-set-architect`). If unknown, default to `["object-designer", "permission-set-architect"]` and flag in `notes`.

---

## Core Concepts

### The INVEST Checklist

Every story must pass INVEST before it leaves the BA's hands. Salesforce-specific reading:

- **I — Independent.** The story does not block on another incomplete story. Salesforce dependency hotspots: page layout depends on record type, validation rule depends on field, sharing rule depends on OWD. If the story has a hard dependency, list it in `dependencies[]` and consider whether it can be split or reordered.
- **N — Negotiable.** Implementation detail (Flow vs Apex, screen vs record-triggered) is *not* fixed in the story body. The story states the *what*, the build agent picks the *how*. A story that names "use a Record-Triggered Flow with a fast field update" is over-specified.
- **V — Valuable.** The `So That` must name a concrete business outcome (revenue, time saved, error reduced, compliance met). "So that the system works" or "so that data is captured" are not valuable.
- **E — Estimable.** The build team can size it. If complexity is unknowable because the persona, object, or trigger condition is missing, the story is not estimable and must go back to refinement.
- **S — Small.** Fits in a single sprint with capacity to spare. The complexity heuristic below makes this concrete.
- **T — Testable.** Acceptance criteria are boolean pass/fail. Each Given-When-Then must be runnable in a sandbox without interpretation.

### The As-A / I-Want / So-That Stem

The canonical Salesforce shape:

```
As a [Salesforce-grounded persona — profile, permission set, or role],
I want [observable capability tied to a specific object/feature area],
So that [business outcome — revenue, time, error, compliance].
```

Anti-patterns to reject on sight:
- "As a user, I want…" — no persona.
- "As an admin, I want to add a field…" — describes the *implementation*, not the user need.
- "I want the system to automatically…" — system actions are not user wants; reshape as the persona who benefits.
- "So that the system works correctly" — not a business value statement.

### Given-When-Then Acceptance Criteria

This skill uses Given-When-Then but does **not** teach it in depth (that's `admin/acceptance-criteria-given-when-then`). The minimum bar here:

- Every story has **at least one** Given-When-Then block.
- Each block is structured: `Given <context>`, `When <action>`, `Then <observable Salesforce outcome>`.
- Observable outcome = a UI element, field value, error message, record state, or notification — not a database write or class invocation.
- Cover **happy path + at least one sad path** (validation failure, permission denial, null/empty case).

### Complexity Sizing — S / M / L / XL

Use this heuristic when sizing — not story points, not Fibonacci, just a 4-bucket size that downstream agents can consume:

| Size | Heuristic | Typical example |
|---|---|---|
| **S** | Single object, single field/perm change, no automation, no UI work. | Add a required field; grant a permission set. |
| **M** | Single object with one declarative automation (validation rule, simple flow), or one record page tweak. | Auto-set a field via flow; restrict edit via VR. |
| **L** | Multi-object, multi-step flow, or 1 LWC; may touch sharing or page layouts; single integration touchpoint. | Lead-to-Opportunity conversion flow with related records. |
| **XL** | Spans multiple personas, multi-system integration, or requires Apex/LWC + sharing redesign. **An XL must be split** before it leaves refinement. | Quote-to-cash refactor; new approval routing across regions. |

XL stories are not committed — they are split. See the next section.

### Story Splitting Techniques

When a story is XL (or arguably L but unclear), apply one of these splits in order of preference:

1. **By workflow steps.** "Convert lead → create opportunity → notify rep" → 3 stories.
2. **By business rule.** "Approval required for discount > 10% AND deal > $100k" → 2 stories, one rule per story.
3. **By data variation.** "Works for Direct, Partner, and Channel deals" → 3 stories, one record type at a time.
4. **By persona.** "Reps see X; managers see Y; execs see Z" → 3 stories per persona.
5. **By happy path / sad path.** Ship the happy path first, then layer error/exception/edge stories.

Each child story still has to pass INVEST on its own. A split that produces children that can't be demoed independently is the wrong split.

### Handoff Metadata — The JSON Shape

Every story emits a handoff JSON. Downstream agents (`object-designer`, `flow-builder`, `lwc-builder`, `permission-set-architect`) read this to pick up work without re-asking the user:

```json
{
  "story_id": "US-LEAD-042",
  "title": "Auto-assign hot leads to inside sales queue",
  "as_a": "Marketing Operations Specialist with the Marketing Ops profile",
  "i_want": "incoming Leads with Score >= 80 to land in the Inside Sales queue automatically",
  "so_that": "high-intent leads are followed up within the 5-minute SLA window",
  "acceptance_criteria": [
    "Given a Lead with Score >= 80, When it is created, Then OwnerId is set to the Inside Sales queue.",
    "Given a Lead with Score < 80, When it is created, Then OwnerId remains the original creator.",
    "Given a Lead update where Score crosses from 79 to 80, When saved, Then OwnerId reassigns to Inside Sales queue."
  ],
  "complexity": "M",
  "recommended_agents": ["flow-builder", "permission-set-architect"],
  "recommended_skills": ["flow/record-triggered-flow-patterns", "admin/queue-design"],
  "dependencies": ["US-LEAD-040 (Lead Score field exists)"],
  "notes": "Confirm queue membership before flow build. No Apex required at this size."
}
```

Field rules:
- `recommended_agents[]` — **required, non-empty**. Names the next agent(s) in the chain. If unsure, default to `["object-designer"]` and flag in `notes`.
- `recommended_skills[]` — pointers into the SfSkills repo (e.g. `flow/record-triggered-flow-patterns`). Optional but strongly preferred.
- `dependencies[]` — story IDs or named prerequisites (field exists, queue exists, integration live).
- `complexity` — exactly one of `S | M | L | XL`. XL means *not committable* — split first.

---

## Common Patterns

### Pattern: Reshape a Vague Requirement Into a Story

**When to use:** A stakeholder has said "we need lead routing." That's an epic, not a story.

**How it works:**
1. Identify the persona — who actually performs (or benefits from) the work daily?
2. Identify the trigger — what record event or user action starts the workflow?
3. Identify the outcome — what observable state confirms it worked?
4. Draft the As-A / I-Want / So-That stem.
5. Add 3+ Given-When-Then criteria — happy + sad + edge.
6. Size with the S/M/L/XL heuristic; split if XL.
7. Emit the handoff JSON with `recommended_agents[]` populated.

**Why not skip steps:** A story with no Given-When-Then is a wish, not a backlog item. Build agents will refuse to pick it up.

### Pattern: Split an XL Story

**When to use:** Sizing came back XL, or the team can't agree on size (which usually means it's XL with hidden scope).

**How it works:**
1. Pick the split axis (workflow, rule, data, persona, happy/sad).
2. Draft each child story with its own stem + Given-When-Then.
3. Verify each child passes INVEST independently.
4. Order the children: happy path first, sad path last; high-value first when possible.
5. Add cross-references in `dependencies[]`.
6. Replace the parent story with a tracker/epic; do not commit it.

**Why not just commit the XL:** XL stories drag across sprints, block dependent work, and demo poorly. The split is the correctness step.

### Pattern: Emit Handoff JSON Alongside Markdown

**When to use:** Always. The markdown is for humans; the JSON is for the next agent.

**How it works:**
1. Write the story as markdown for backlog tools (Jira, ADO, GitHub Issues).
2. Below the markdown, emit the JSON block in a fenced code block.
3. Populate `recommended_agents[]` from the chain available in the org.
4. Validate the JSON with `scripts/check_invest.py` (this skill's checker) before finalizing.

---

## Decision Guidance

| Situation | Recommended Approach | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Persona is "user" or "admin" | Reject and ask BA to ground in a Salesforce profile/perm set/role | Generic personas break sharing and FLS reasoning |
| Story body names Flow vs Apex | Reject — that's a build-time decision | Violates INVEST-Negotiable |
| Acceptance criteria test the UI ("the button is blue") | Rewrite to test behavior ("clicking Save creates the record") | UI is Salesforce's responsibility; ACs test outcomes |
| Story has only happy-path AC | Add at least one sad path before sizing | Half-tested stories regress in UAT |
| Story sizes to XL | Split before committing | XL is uncommittable by definition |
| Story depends on another in-flight story | Add to `dependencies[]`; consider reordering | Independent-I in INVEST |
| Story mixes "the user does X" and "the system does Y" | Split by action source | Mixing actors hides automation triggers |
| `recommended_agents[]` is unknown | Default to `["object-designer"]` and flag in `notes` | Empty handoff metadata breaks the chain |

---

## Recommended Workflow

Step-by-step instructions an AI agent or BA follows when this skill activates:

1. **Confirm prerequisites** — verify requirements were gathered (skill: `admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf`). If not, route there first.
2. **Draft the stem** — As-A (Salesforce-grounded persona), I-Want (observable capability), So-That (business outcome). Reject generic personas and "the system" wants.
3. **Author Given-When-Then ACs** — 1 happy path minimum, 1+ sad path, edge cases as applicable. Each AC must be boolean-testable in a sandbox.
4. **Size with S/M/L/XL** — apply the heuristic table. XL means not committable.
5. **Split if needed** — pick a split axis, draft child stories, verify each child passes INVEST independently.
6. **Emit handoff JSON** — populate `recommended_agents[]`, `recommended_skills[]`, `dependencies[]`, `complexity`, `notes`. Validate with `scripts/check_invest.py`.
7. **Run review checklist** — INVEST pass, persona grounded, AC count > 0, complexity present, handoff JSON valid.

---

## Review Checklist

- [ ] Every story has a Salesforce-grounded persona (profile / permission set / role) — not "user" or "admin"
- [ ] Every `So That` names a concrete business outcome (revenue, time, error, compliance)
- [ ] Every story has at least one Given-When-Then acceptance criterion
- [ ] At least one sad path AC is present per story
- [ ] No story body names a specific Flow type, Apex class, or LWC component (Negotiable)
- [ ] Complexity is exactly one of S / M / L / XL
- [ ] No story is committed at XL — XL is split first
- [ ] Handoff JSON is present, valid, and `recommended_agents[]` is non-empty
- [ ] Dependencies on other stories are explicit in `dependencies[]`
- [ ] Story word count is reasonable (under ~250 words for the body); if it isn't, split

---

## Salesforce-Specific Gotchas

1. **Page-layout and record-type chains** — A story to "show a new field on the layout" is not Independent if the field doesn't exist yet. The build order is field → layout → validation rule. Surface this in `dependencies[]` or split the parent.
2. **Sharing-rule stories that look small** — "Managers can see their team's Cases" sounds S, but if OWD is Public Read/Write, the answer is "they already can" and the real story is OWD tightening. Sizing without checking OWD produces wrong-sized stories.
3. **Persona drift between stem and AC** — Stem says "Sales Rep" but the AC tests "Sales Manager can approve." That's two stories; split by persona.

---

## Output Artifacts

| Artifact | Description |
|---|---|
| Story markdown | Human-readable As-A / I-Want / So-That + Given-When-Then ACs, sized S/M/L/XL |
| Handoff JSON | Machine-readable shape consumed by `object-designer`, `flow-builder`, `lwc-builder`, `permission-set-architect` |
| Split rationale | When an XL is split into children, a short note explaining the split axis chosen |
| INVEST self-check report | Output of `scripts/check_invest.py` confirming the story passes structural lints |

---

## Related Skills

- `admin/requirements-gathering-for-sf` — runs upstream; produces the raw needs this skill reshapes
- `admin/acceptance-criteria-given-when-then` — owns the GWT technique in depth; this skill only enforces presence
- `admin/uat-test-case-design` — runs downstream; turns ACs into UAT scripts after build
- `admin/moscow-prioritization-for-sf-backlog` — runs alongside; orders the stories this skill produces
- `agents/object-designer/AGENT.md`, `agents/flow-builder/AGENT.md`, `agents/lwc-builder/AGENT.md`, `agents/permission-set-architect/AGENT.md` — common downstream consumers of the handoff JSON