nWave/skills/nw-leanux-methodology/SKILL.md
LeanUX backlog management methodology - user story template, story sizing, story states, task types, Definition of Ready/Done, anti-pattern detection and remediation
npx skillsauth add nwave-ai/nwave nw-leanux-methodologyInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
"A backlog is not a todo list. It's a collection of validated hypotheses waiting to become working software."
| State | Meaning | Entry Criteria | |-------|---------|----------------| | Draft | Idea captured, not validated | Has problem statement | | Ready | Validated, has UAT, ready to build | All DoR items complete | | In Progress | Actively being built | UAT test written (RED) | | In Review | Code complete, awaiting review | All tests green | | Done | Merged, deployed, validated | UAT passes in production | | Blocked | Cannot proceed | Blocker documented |
Completable in 1-3 days | 3-7 UAT scenarios | Delivers demonstrable value | Explainable in 2 minutes
7 UAT scenarios | >3 days effort | Multiple distinct user outcomes | Cannot demonstrate in single session
Split by user outcome, not technical layer. Each resulting story delivers independently demonstrable value.
Example: "User Management" (20 scenarios) splits into:
Stories pass ALL 8 items before proceeding to DESIGN wave.
1. Problem statement clear and in domain language
2. User/persona identified with specific characteristics
3. At least 3 domain examples with real data
4. UAT scenarios in Given/When/Then (3-7 scenarios)
5. Acceptance criteria derived from UAT
6. Story right-sized (1-3 days, 3-7 scenarios)
7. Technical notes identify constraints
8. Dependencies resolved or tracked
## Definition of Ready Validation
### Story: {story-id}
| DoR Item | Status | Evidence/Issue |
|----------|--------|----------------|
| Problem statement clear | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| User/persona identified | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| 3+ domain examples | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| UAT scenarios (3-7) | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| AC derived from UAT | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Right-sized | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Technical notes | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
| Dependencies tracked | PASS/FAIL | {evidence or issue} |
### DoR Status: PASSED / BLOCKED
When DoR fails:
DoD validation owned by acceptance-designer during DISTILL->DELIVER transition. Product-owner defines checklist, acceptance-designer enforces.
Checklist:
Flow from Ready story to Done story follows double-loop TDD:
| Category | Meaning | Guideline | |----------|---------|-----------| | Must Have | Required for MVP | Without this, release has no value | | Should Have | Important for full product value | Significant value, workaround exists | | Could Have | Nice-to-have for enhanced experience | Desirable if time/budget allows | | Won't Have | Deferred to future releases | Acknowledged, explicitly out of scope |
Assign MoSCoW during Phase 2 (CRAFT) when multiple stories emerge from same requirements conversation.
| | Low Effort | High Effort | |---|---|---| | High Value | Quick wins -- do first | Strategic investments -- plan carefully | | Low Value | Fill-ins -- do if time allows | Eliminate or defer |
Quick wins build momentum and stakeholder confidence. Strategic investments need baseline measurement and roadmap planning (see jtbd-workflow-selection skill).
During Phase 4 (HANDOFF), include brief risk assessment. Categorize:
Business Risks: market changes | regulatory changes | stakeholder availability | budget/timeline constraints Technical Risks: integration complexity | technology uncertainty | data migration | performance/security unknowns Project Risks: resource availability | scope creep potential | communication challenges | testing coverage gaps
For each risk: probability (low/medium/high) | impact (low/medium/high) | mitigation approach (avoid, mitigate, transfer, accept). Detailed risk management belongs to downstream waves -- product-owner surfaces risks, does not manage them.
When handing off to DESIGN wave (solution-architect), include:
testing
Acceptance test creation methodology for the DISTILL wave. Domain knowledge for the acceptance designer agent: port-to-port principle, prior wave reading, wave-decision reconciliation, graceful degradation, and document back-propagation.
testing
Methodology for minimizing test count while maximizing behavioral coverage - behavior definition, anti-pattern catalog, consolidation patterns, stopping criterion, coverage-preserving validation
testing
Methodology for minimizing test count while maximizing behavioral coverage - behavior definition, anti-pattern catalog, consolidation patterns, stopping criterion, coverage-preserving validation
development
Design mandates for acceptance tests - hexagonal boundary, business language abstraction, user journey completeness, pure function extraction, 3 Pillars (domain language / chained narrative / production composition), and the layered ATD discipline (Universe-bound assertion, layer-dependent PBT mode, two-tier acceptance, example-based sad paths)