Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add getcrew44/crew44 --skill user-storygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/getcrew44/crew44Wrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/getcrew44/crew44/user-story)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/getcrew44/crew44/user-story"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/getcrew44/crew44/user-story.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00035 | $0.02546 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.01273 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00509 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00255 |
Grade A, and why
user-story scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 3d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- user-story — 98% identical, 3 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 273 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose
Create clear, concise user stories that combine Mike Cohn's user story format with Gherkin-style acceptance criteria. Use this to translate user needs into actionable development work that focuses on outcomes, ensures shared understanding between product and engineering, and provides testable success criteria.
This is not a feature spec—it's a conversation starter that captures who benefits, what they're trying to do, why it matters, and how you'll know it works.
Key Concepts
The Mike Cohn + Gherkin Format
A user story combines:
Use Case (Mike Cohn format):
- As a [user persona/role]
- I want to [action to achieve outcome]
- so that [desired outcome]
Acceptance Criteria (Gherkin format):
- Scenario: [Brief description of the scenario]
- Given: [Initial context or preconditions]
- and Given: [Additional preconditions]
- When: [Event that triggers the action]
- Then: [Expected outcome]
Why This Structure Works
- User-centric: Forces focus on who benefits and why
- Outcome-focused: "So that" emphasizes the value delivered, not just the action
- Testable: Gherkin acceptance criteria are concrete and verifiable
- Conversational: Story is the opening for discussion, not the final spec
- Shared language: Product, engineering, and QA all understand the format
Anti-Patterns (What This Is NOT)
- Not a task: "As a developer, I want to refactor the database" (this is a tech task, not user value)
- Not a feature list: "I want dashboards, reports, and analytics" (this is too big—needs splitting)
- Not vague: "I want a better experience" (unmeasurable, no clear outcome)
- Not a contract: Stories are placeholders for conversation, not locked-in specs
When to Use This
- Translating user needs into development work
- Backlog grooming and sprint planning
- Communicating value to engineering and design
- Ensuring testable acceptance criteria exist before development
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 3d ago First seen · 273 lines · 35 tokens per session scan A 9d9f73e66bc1
user-story is a skill published in the GitHub repository getcrew44/crew44 (359 stars, last pushed 2mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 35 tokens to every session and 2,546 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
done
Close an increment: ledger check, specweave verify, optional review, then specweave complete. Use when all tasks are done and saying "close increment", "we are done", or "finish up".
testgen-flow
Workflow for generating test cases from requirements (Issue Tracker / Wiki sources), exporting to a Test Management System, etc.
ring:implementing-tasks
Implementing a single planned task (Task N.M.T) end-to-end: selects the right backend agent by language and service type, drives one TDD RED->GREEN turn, then verifies coverage, lint, license headers, runtime, and delivery before handoff. Runs as Gate 0 before ring:reviewing-code. Use to drive ONE task inside an…
ring:validating-acceptance-criteria
Validating a completed task against its acceptance criteria, mapping each AC to evidence, and gating completion on explicit user sign-off (self-approval prohibited). Gate 5 of ring:running-dev-cycle / ring:running-dev-cycle-frontend, run at task cadence after ring:reviewing-code. Use when implementation and tests are…
tdd
A test-driven development workflow based on repeating three stages: write a failing test, make it pass, then improve the code. The tests focus on what users can do through public interfaces rather than internal implementation details.
mine-plan-review
Strictly review one implemented repository plan against AGENTS.md, architecture, the immutable plan, implementation commits, real runtime behavior, verification evidence, and downstream contracts. Use when the user invokes the host-specific mine-plan-review skill with a plan path, asks whether a plan can be accepted…