Requirement material into stories

Role, goal, and value stated.
Acceptance that can be checked.

Turn requirement material, meeting notes, and customer feedback into user stories with acceptance criteria: role, goal, value, and verifiable conditions. No invented research findings or priority rationale; acceptance criteria must be checkable and uncertainties are listed for confirmation.

Roles from sourceCheckable acceptanceNo invented priority

Review the stories

Your result will appear here

We derive roles and goals from your material, turn vague requests into verifiable conditions, and list every unproven assumption for confirmation.

SAMPLE OUTPUT

Here is exactly what you receive.

This is the complete output for the source text in the demo above: a completeness score, itemised revision notes, what was marked as an assumption or left open and why, and the drafted stories. It is a demonstration, not a customer case.

SAMPLE

User story result (sample)

Completeness score88/100

+50

Set the role and goal from the material

The source only says the operations team complained. That becomes a role and goal, with a note that other users may still need confirming.

Convert subjective requests into an acceptance structure

“Simple to use” and “fast” cannot be judged. They become a given / action / observable-result structure, with the criteria still needed listed.

Split one request into two stories

Success and failure paths were packed into a single sentence. They become two stories with separate criteria so the error message is not overlooked.

Drafted user stories

# Bulk import

## Story 1
As an operations user who maintains data in bulk, I want to import many records at once so I do not add them one by one.

Value: repeated manual entry becomes a single action.

## Acceptance criteria
- Given: signed in with import permission and a file matching the template.
- Action: upload the file and confirm the import.
- Result: every record in the file is written and the page shows the success count.

## Story 2
As someone importing data, I want to see the specific reason when an import fails so I know which row to fix.

## Acceptance criteria
- Given: a file containing a record that does not meet the rules.
- Action: run the import.
- Result: the system lists the failing row numbers and reasons, and valid records are still written.

TODO: confirm whether partial success or a full rollback applies

## To confirm
- The role is derived from the source (“operations team”); other users may exist
- “Simple to use” and “fast” have no judgeable criteria
- File format, per-import row limit, and timeout behaviour are not stated

## Priority
To be decided: the source calls it important without a rationale and gives no basis for the sprint placement

WHAT DRAFTING DOES

A story exists so acceptance has something to stand on.

Roles come from the material

“As a user” is not a role. Who is using it and in what situation, if the material says, is what belongs in a story.

Value is an outcome

“Convenient order management” is not value. Say what the user stops doing or gains once it is built.

Acceptance must be judgeable

“Easy to operate” cannot be verified. Given a state, an action, and an observable result — that is when a story is done.

WHY IT IS WORTH DOING

A requirement you cannot write acceptance for, you cannot finish.

Subjective words are no standard at all

“Good experience” and “fast response” mean different things to everyone, and testing turns into an argument.

Invented research is hard to walk back

“Users widely reported” gets quoted as the justification for the requirement over and over once it is written.

Priority is a human decision

Ordering depends on team goals and capacity. A document that decides it creates commitments nobody owns.

Note: common practice for user stories is the role / goal / value form paired with acceptance criteria that can be judged. Teams differ on story granularity, estimation, and how priority is set. This site drafts documents only; it verifies nothing against user data and offers no product or project management advice.

DRAFTING DEMO

The same requirement, organised.

Before

Build a bulk import feature. The operations team says adding records one by one is too painful. They want it simple to use, import should be fast, and errors should show a message. This is quite important, we will do it next sprint.

Drafted

# Bulk import

## Story 1
As an operations user who maintains data in bulk, I want to import many records at once so I do not add them one by one.

Value: repeated manual entry becomes a single action.

## Acceptance criteria
- Given: signed in with import permission and a file matching the template.
- Action: upload the file and confirm the import.
- Result: every record in the file is written and the page shows the success count.

## Story 2
As someone importing data, I want to see the specific reason when an import fails so I know which row to fix.

## Acceptance criteria
- Given: a file containing a record that does not meet the rules.
- Action: run the import.
- Result: the system lists the failing row numbers and reasons, and valid records are still written.

TODO: confirm whether partial success or a full rollback applies

## To confirm
- The role is derived from the source (“operations team”); other users may exist
- “Simple to use” and “fast” have no judgeable criteria
- File format, per-import row limit, and timeout behaviour are not stated

## Priority
To be decided: the source calls it important without a rationale and gives no basis for the sprint placement

Demo sample: “simple” and “fast” become items to confirm, acceptance is written as a state, an action, and an observable result, and priority is left for you. Paste your material to get your version (sign-in required; one credit per run).

WHY YOU CAN TRUST IT

We put “no invented research” into our product principles.

Research findings are never written

Interview findings, survey percentages, sample sizes, and personas are absent unless you supply them — otherwise they become an open question.

Acceptance has to be judgeable

Subjective wording like “simple” or “fast” never enters acceptance criteria; it becomes the specific condition still needed.

Priority stays yours

Story points, effort, and ordering are written as to be decided, so the document makes no commitment nobody owns.

Content is not stored

Submitted text is used for this single AI request and is not intentionally persisted. See the Privacy Policy.

FAQ

Ask these before you pay.

Will you estimate story points or effort?

No. Story points, effort, and priority are written as to be decided. Your team sets those against its own capacity; a document that decides them creates commitments nobody owns.

What if the material never says who the user is?

We derive the most likely role from the material, label it as an assumption, and list it for confirmation. We never invent a persona.

How do you handle requests like “simple to use”?

They stay out of the acceptance criteria. We say the requirement is not judgeable as written and list the concrete conditions to confirm with the stakeholders.

What does one draft cost?

One credit per run, usually done in seconds, returning the stories, revision notes, and items to confirm.

Do credits expire?

No. Credits never expire — whatever you do not use carries over to the next cycle instead of resetting.

Is there batch processing or an API?

Not yet. Each run processes one document and consumes one credit; there is no bulk upload or API today. Email us with your use case and we will assess it.

Is my content stored?

Not intentionally. Text is used for this single AI request only. See the Privacy Policy.

What content fits?

Pre-sprint backlogs, customer feedback notes, requirements review records, customer needs relayed by sales — any material that needs to become actionable stories with acceptance criteria.

SIMPLE PRICING

Prove the value before you upgrade.

Starter

$9/ month

For an occasional publishing cadence, with a focused monthly credit allocation.

50 optimization credits per monthly renewal
Complete GEO analysis
Chinese and English output
Markdown export

Pro

Recommended$29/ month

For frequent publishers who iterate on content continuously.

250 optimization credits per monthly renewal
Complete GEO analysis
Chinese and English output
Markdown export

Advanced

$79/ month

Our largest monthly credit allocation, for the heaviest continuous usage.

1,000 optimization credits per monthly renewal
Complete GEO analysis
Chinese and English output
Markdown export

Credits never expire: unused credits carry over instead of resetting. Credits apply to this site only and are not shared with other sites.

Prices shown are USD baselines; final currency, taxes, and discounts are determined by Paddle for the checkout location.