Job Stories Expert

Overview

Write job stories using the Jobs-to-Be-Done (JTBD) framework. Unlike traditional user stories that focus on roles ("As a user..."), job stories focus on the situation, motivation, and desired outcome. This shift produces requirements that are more grounded in real user context and less likely to encode assumptions about who the user is.

When to Use

• Feature definition -- When you need to articulate what to build and why, grounded in user context.
• Backlog creation -- When populating a backlog with work items that stay focused on user outcomes.
• Requirement workshops -- When collaborating with stakeholders to define what "done" looks like.
• Design briefs -- When giving designers context about the situation and motivation behind a feature.

When NOT to Use

• When you need strategic backlog items with business context -- use wwas/ instead.
• When you need lightweight stories for a team already fluent in user story format.
• When the work is purely technical with no direct user-facing situation.

The Job Story Format

When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome].

Key Principle: Focus on the Job, Not the Role

User stories say "As a [role]..." which anchors the requirement to a persona. Job stories remove the role and instead describe the situation -- the real-world context that creates the need. This matters because:

• The same person may have different needs in different situations.
• Different people in the same situation often have the same need.
• Situations are observable and testable; roles are abstract labels.

Example comparison:

The job story version is more specific, more testable, and provides better design guidance.

Writing Good Job Stories

Situations (When...)

Good situations are:

• Specific and observable -- You could watch someone be in this situation.
• Contextual -- They describe what is happening, not who the person is.
• Triggering -- They explain what creates the need right now.

Motivations (I want to...)

Good motivations are:

• Action-oriented -- They describe doing something, not having something.
• Solution-agnostic -- They describe the capability, not the implementation.
• Singular -- One motivation per story.

Outcomes (So I can...)

Good outcomes are:

• Benefit-focused -- They describe the end result, not the means.
• Measurable or observable -- You can tell if the outcome was achieved.
• Meaningful -- They connect to something the user genuinely cares about.

INVEST Quality Criteria

Apply INVEST to every job story before it enters the backlog:

Story Template

For each job story, produce a card with the following structure:

### [Title]

**Job Story:**
When [situation], I want to [motivation], so I can [outcome].

**Design:** [Link to design file or "TBD"]

**Acceptance Criteria:**

1. [ ] [Observable outcome that verifies the story is complete]
2. [ ] [Observable outcome]
3. [ ] [Observable outcome]
4. [ ] [Observable outcome]
5. [ ] [Observable outcome]
6. [ ] [Observable outcome]

Acceptance Criteria Guidelines

• Write 6-8 acceptance criteria per story.
• Focus on outcomes, not implementation steps.
• Each criterion should be independently verifiable.
• Use the pattern: "[Thing] [does/shows/enables] [expected behavior] [under condition]."
• Include edge cases and error states, not just the happy path.

Good acceptance criteria examples:

1. The spending summary shows all transactions from the current period, grouped by category.
2. Transactions from previous periods are excluded from the current period total.
3. The summary updates within 5 seconds of a new transaction being recorded.
4. If no transactions exist for the current period, a message explains that no spending has been recorded yet.
5. The summary is accessible on mobile screens without horizontal scrolling.
6. Category totals match the individual transaction amounts (no rounding discrepancies).

Bad acceptance criteria examples (avoid):

• The API returns a 200 status code (implementation detail)
• The React component renders correctly (implementation detail)
• It works (not testable)
• The user is happy (not observable)

Worked Example

Context: A budgeting application for personal finance.

Weekly Budget Check

Job Story: When I am preparing my weekly budget on Sunday evening, I want to see how much I have spent so far this month by category, so I can decide where to cut back before the month ends.

Design: [Link to Figma mock]

Acceptance Criteria:

1. The spending view shows the current month's transactions grouped by category (e.g., groceries, dining, transport).
2. Each category displays the total spent and the remaining budget for that category.
3. Categories that have exceeded their budget are visually distinguished from those within budget.
4. Tapping a category shows the individual transactions within it.
5. The view loads within 2 seconds on a standard mobile connection.
6. If no budget has been set for a category, the category still appears with total spent but no remaining budget indicator.
7. The date range is fixed to the current calendar month and is clearly displayed.
8. A "last updated" timestamp shows when transaction data was last synced.

Integration with Other Skills

• Use summarize-meeting/ to capture the discovery conversations that inform job stories.
• Use wwas/ when you need to add strategic business context (the "Why") to backlog items.
• Feed completed job stories into ../jira-expert/ for ticket creation.
• Use brainstorm-okrs/ to connect job stories back to team objectives.

References

• See references/jtbd-guide.md for Jobs-to-Be-Done theory, comparison with user stories, and story splitting techniques.
• See assets/job_story_template.md for ready-to-use templates.

Troubleshooting

Success Criteria

• 100% of job stories in the backlog follow the "When / I want to / So I can" format correctly
• All situations reference observable, specific contexts (pass the "could you video this?" test)
• All motivations are solution-agnostic (no UI element names or implementation details)
• Each story has 6-8 acceptance criteria focused on observable outcomes, not implementation
• Every job story passes all 6 INVEST criteria before entering a sprint
• Defect rate on stories written in JTBD format is 20%+ lower than stories written in traditional format (measured over 3 months)
• Team members can articulate the difference between a job story and a user story and choose the appropriate format for the context

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: Writing job stories using JTBD "When/Want/So" format, applying INVEST quality criteria, writing outcome-focused acceptance criteria, converting existing user stories to job stories, facilitating story-writing workshops, integrating job stories with Jira backlog items.

Out of Scope: Strategic backlog items with business context (hand off to wwas/), product ideation and opportunity discovery (hand off to discovery/brainstorm-ideas/), detailed technical specifications, UX research and user interviewing methodology.

Limitations: Job stories work best when the team has access to real user research (interviews, observation, support data). Without user context, teams will invent situations that may not reflect reality. The format is less natural for purely technical or infrastructure work where there is no direct user situation. Job stories and user stories are complementary -- some teams use both formats for different types of work.

Integration Points