The User Story That Says Nothing

Monday morning. Sprint planning. Team of 6 developers.

Product Owner: “OK, let’s move to the next story.”

The PO reads the story:

USER-347: As a user, I want to be able to log out of the application
to secure my account.

Acceptance Criteria:
- User can log out
- Session is terminated after logout
- User is redirected to login page

PO: “There you go. It’s clear. Questions?”

Dev 1: “Uh… yes. Concretely, what do I do?”

PO: “You add a logout button.”

Dev 1: “OK. But where? In the header? In a dropdown menu? In user settings?”

PO: “Ah… good question. I’d say… in the header.”

Dev 2: “And backend-wise, how do we do it? Do we just invalidate the JWT token? Delete the refresh token? Keep the session history?”

PO: “Uh… I don’t know. You’re the developers, right?”

Dev 3: “And if the user has multiple active sessions? Do we disconnect just the current session or all sessions?”

PO: “Good question. I don’t know.”

Dev 1: “And do we show a confirmation before logging out? Or logout directly?”

PO: “We should have a confirmation, I think.”

Dev 2: “And if the API is down during logout? Do we still disconnect client-side?”

PO: “Uh…”

Dev 3: “And do we track the logout event in Analytics?”

PO: “Probably yes.”

Dev 1: “And design-wise, do we have a mockup?”

PO: “No, not yet.”

45 minutes later:

PO: “OK, I’ll clarify all this with the designer and the team. We’ll come back to this story in the next planning.”

The story goes back to the backlog.

Dev 1 (aside): “The story said ‘As a user, I want to log out’. But it didn’t say how, where, or what to do exactly.”

Dev 2: “Welcome to the world of user stories.”

Vague user story generating 45 minutes of questions

The Problem With User Stories

User stories in Agile format (“As X, I want Y so that Z”) are supposed to describe the user need.

But they never say what to do concretely.

Catastrophic result:

The Five Symptoms of Vague User Story Syndrome

1. “OK But Concretely, What Do I Do?” (Story Doesn’t Say What to Develop)

The Scenario: You read a user story. It describes a user need in 2 sentences. But you don’t know what to code.

Real example:

Typical user story:

USER-521: As an administrator, I want to manage user permissions
to secure access to sensitive data.

Acceptance Criteria:
- Administrators can modify permissions
- Changes are saved
- Users without permission cannot access data

The developer reads the story:

Dev: “OK… but concretely, what do I do?”

The questions that emerge:

  1. Interface: Table with checkboxes? Dropdown? Toggle switches? Modal?
  2. Granularity: Permissions by role? By user? By group? By resource?
  3. Backend: New permissions model? DB migration? REST API or GraphQL?
  4. Validation: Who can modify which permissions? Super admin only?
  5. UI/UX: Dedicated page? Section in settings? Inline editing?
  6. Scope: Just read/write? Or granular permissions (create, read, update, delete, admin)?

None of these questions have answers in the user story.

Result: 3 clarification meetings before being able to start coding.

User story generating 15 unanswered questions

The Problem:

Developer quote:

“I read the user story. I understand the need. But I don’t know what to code. The story says ‘manage permissions’, but it doesn’t say if it’s a full CRUD, a simple toggle, or a complex permissions matrix.”

Result: User stories are not actionable.

2. Endless Grooming (4h Per Week to Transform Stories Into Tasks)

The Scenario: Your team spends 4 hours per week in “backlog grooming” to transform vague user stories into developable tasks.

Typical grooming session timeline:

2:00 PM: Grooming starts. 8 stories to groom.

2:05 PM: Story 1: “As a user, I want to search for products.”

Questions:

2:45 PM: 40 minutes later, story finally clarified. Split into 5 sub-tasks.

2:50 PM: Story 2: “As an admin, I want to export reports.”

Questions:

3:30 PM: Story clarified. Split into 4 sub-tasks.

3:35 PM: Story 3: “As a user, I want to share content.”

Questions:

4:15 PM: Story clarified.

4:20 PM: Story 4…

6:00 PM: Grooming ends. 4 hours to groom 8 stories.

The team is exhausted.

4 hours of grooming for 8 user stories

The Problem:

Real Statistic:

Study on 67 Agile teams:

Scrum Master quote:

“We spend our Friday afternoons grooming the backlog. We read vague stories, ask 15 questions, clarify, split. Then next week, we start again. It’s exhausting.”

Result: Grooming consumes 20% of team time.

3. The Gap Between “What’s Written” And “What Actually Needs To Be Done”

The Scenario: The user story says one thing. But what actually needs to be developed is completely different.

Real example:

What’s written (user story):

USER-892: As a user, I want to receive notifications
to be informed of new messages.

What REALLY needs to be done (after clarification):

  1. Backend:
    • Create notifications table (id, user_id, message_id, content, read, created_at)
    • Create API POST /notifications to create a notification
    • Create API GET /notifications to list notifications
    • Create API PATCH /notifications/:id/read to mark as read
    • Add trigger on messages to create notification automatically
    • Implement batching system (max 1 notif per minute to avoid spam)
  2. Frontend:
    • Create NotificationBell component with count badge
    • Create NotificationList dropdown
    • Implement polling every 30s or WebSocket for real-time
    • Add notification sound (with browser permission)
    • Add /notifications page to see complete history
    • Implement “mark all as read”
  3. Design:
    • Mockups for notification bell, dropdown, list
    • Empty states, 1 notif, 10+ notifs
    • Animations (badge pulse, slide-in)
  4. Infrastructure:
    • Setup Redis for notifications cache
    • Setup job queue for async sending
    • Monitoring: delivery rate, latency
  5. Tests:
    • Backend unit tests (7 files)
    • Frontend E2E tests (4 scenarios)
    • Performance tests (10k notifications)

Gap between the story (2 lines) and the real implementation (50+ tasks).

User story 2 lines vs 50 real tasks

The Problem:

Developer quote:

“The story said ‘receive notifications’. It seemed simple. Then we realized we needed to create the entire infrastructure, the UI component, browser permissions, polling, caching… The story took 3 weeks instead of 2 days.”

Result: User stories hide the real complexity.

4. “We Should Re-Groom This Story” (Stories Reworked 3 Times)

The Scenario: A story is groomed. Then re-groomed. Then re-re-groomed. Because it’s never clear enough.

Typical story timeline:

Week 1: Story creation

PO creates the story:

USER-234: As a user, I want to filter results.

Week 2: First grooming

Team: “Filter how? By what?”

PO: “Ah yes, need to specify.”

Story updated:

USER-234: As a user, I want to filter results
by category, price and date to find what I'm looking for.

Acceptance Criteria:
- Available filters: category, price, date
- Results update when applying a filter

Week 3: Second grooming

Dev: “OK but technically, how do we do it? Dropdown? Checkboxes? Range slider for price?”

PO: “Uh… good question. I’ll ask the designer.”

Story updated:

USER-234: As a user, I want to filter results
with dropdowns (category, date) and a range slider (price).

Week 4: Third grooming

Dev: “And are filters combined with AND or OR?”

PO: “What do you mean?”

Dev: “If I select Category=Electronics AND Price=0-100, do I want products that are electronics AND in this price range? Or electronics OR in this range?”

PO: “Ah… AND.”

Dev: “And when we change a filter, do we reload the whole page or just the results?”

PO: “Just the results.”

Dev: “So we make an API request on every filter change? That could be a lot of requests.”

PO: “Let’s add debounce then.”

Story updated for the 3rd time.

Week 5: Story finally developable

But the team spent 3 grooming sessions (3h total) on this single story.

Story re-groomed 3 times before being developable

The Problem:

Scrum Master quote:

“We have stories that are groomed, then re-groomed in the next sprint because they’re still not clear enough. Then we re-groom them a 3rd time. By then, we’ve spent more time grooming than developing.”

Result: Stories are reworked in a loop.

5. The Developer Guesses (“PO Not Available, I’ll Wing It”)

The Scenario: The user story is vague. The PO is not available. The developer guesses and codes what they think is right.

Real example:

User story:

USER-445: As a user, I want to edit my profile.

The developer reads the story:

Dev: “OK, edit profile. But which fields?”

The dev looks at acceptance criteria:

Acceptance Criteria:
- User can edit their profile
- Changes are saved

Dev: “That doesn’t help me.”

The dev tries to contact the PO:

Slack: “@PO: USER-445, which fields are editable in the profile?”

2 hours later. No response.

Dev: “Well, the PO is busy. I’ll wing it.”

The dev guesses:

The dev codes for 2 days.

Sprint Review:

PO: “Oh no, that’s not it. Editing should be inline, not on a dedicated page. And we also needed to be able to edit phone number and address.”

Dev: “But the story didn’t say that.”

PO: “It was implicit.”

Dev: “…”

2 days of development to redo.

Developer guesses, codes 2 days, everything needs to be redone

The Problem:

Developer quote:

“User stories are so vague that I often have to guess what to do. Then in review, I’m told it’s not right. I wasted time coding something that will never be used.”

Real Statistic:

Survey of 140 developers:

Result: Vague stories create waste.

Why User Stories Persist

Reason 1: “It’s The Agile Method” (Scrum Dogma)

The Problem:

Teams use user stories because “that’s how you do it in Agile”.

Scrum imposes the format:

As a <role>, I want <action> so that <benefit>.

But this format never describes the technical solution.

Example:

Standard Scrum story:

As a user, I want to reset my password
to recover access to my account.

What it doesn’t say:

The Problem:

Developer quote:

“We were told that in Agile, you write user stories. So we write them. Even if they’re vague. Even if they don’t help us. Because ‘it’s the method’.”

Result: Scrum dogma maintains vague stories.

Reason 2: “We’ll Detail During Grooming” (Deferred Clarification)

The Problem:

POs write vague stories with the idea that “we’ll detail during grooming”.

But grooming becomes a deferred specification session.

What happens:

Story creation (5 minutes):

PO writes:

USER-567: As a user, I want to see my purchase history.

PO thinks: “We’ll detail during grooming.”

Grooming (45 minutes):

Team asks 20 questions:

The PO answers each question.

But why not write all that directly in the story?

The Problem:

PO quote:

“I create high-level stories. We detail them as a team during grooming. It’s more collaborative.”

Reality:

It’s just wasted time. The PO could have written a clear description from the start.

Result: Clarification is deferred to grooming.

Reason 3: Confusion Between “User Need” And “Developer Task”

The Problem:

User stories are supposed to describe the user need, not the technical solution.

But developers need to know what to code, not just the need.

Example:

User need (user story):

As a user, I want to be notified of new messages.

What the developer needs (specification):

Issue: Implement notification system for messages

Backend:
- Create notifications table (id, user_id, message_id, read, created_at)
- API POST /notifications to create a notification
- API GET /notifications?user_id=X to list
- API PATCH /notifications/:id/read to mark as read
- Trigger: create notification automatically when new message

Frontend:
- Bell icon in header with count badge (number of unread)
- Dropdown on click: list of last 10 notifications
- Click on notification: mark as read + redirect to message
- Polling every 30s to refresh count

Design:
- Mockup: /designs/notifications-bell.png

The first describes the “why”. The second describes the “what”.

Developers need the second, not the first.

The Problem:

Developer quote:

“User stories are written for the product owner, not for me. They describe the user need, but I can’t code a need. I can code a solution.”

Result: Stories are not written for developers.

The Sinra Approach: Direct And Actionable Issues

Sinra abandons user stories in favor of direct issues that describe exactly what needs to be done.

The Concept: Issue = Clear Description Of What To Develop

In Sinra, an issue is an actionable task that says exactly what to do.

No imposed format. Just a clear description.

Example Sinra issue:

Title: Add logout button in header with confirmation

Description:
Add a "Logout" button in the application header.

Behavior:
- "Logout" button visible only for logged-in users
- Position: header, right side, after notifications icon
- On click: show confirmation modal
  - Message: "Do you really want to log out?"
  - Buttons: "Cancel" and "Logout"
- If "Logout":
  - API call DELETE /auth/session
  - Delete JWT token from localStorage
  - Redirect to /login

API:
- Endpoint: DELETE /auth/session
- Invalidate refresh token in DB
- Log event (user_id, timestamp)

Design:
- Mockup: /designs/header-logout.png
- Modal: existing <ConfirmModal> component

Tests:
- E2E test: click logout → modal → confirm → redirect /login
- Unit test: token invalidation

Estimate: 1 day

Difference with user story:

User story:

As a user, I want to log out to secure my account.

Sinra issue:

Describes exactly where, how, what, with which design, which tests.

Result: The developer knows exactly what to do.

Anatomy Of A Sinra Issue vs. Agile User Story

Let’s revisit the notifications example.

Agile User Story (Vague)

USER-892: As a user, I want to receive notifications
to be informed of new messages.

Acceptance Criteria:
- User receives notification when new message
- User can see their notifications
- User can mark a notification as read

Problem: No details on the “how”.

Result: 45 minutes of grooming + 3 clarification meetings.

Sinra Issue (Clear)

Title: Notification system for new messages

Description:
Implement a notification system that alerts the user
when they receive a new message.

Backend:
- Create `notifications` table
  - Fields: id, user_id, message_id, content, read (boolean), created_at
- Create API:
  - POST /notifications (admin only, for manual creation if needed)
  - GET /notifications?user_id=X&read=false (list unread)
  - PATCH /notifications/:id/read (mark as read)
  - GET /notifications/count?user_id=X (unread count)
- Automatic trigger:
  - When message created → create notification for recipient
  - Batching: max 1 notification per minute per user (avoid spam)
- Index: user_id, read, created_at

Frontend:
- Bell icon in header (<NotificationBell> component)
  - Red badge with unread count
  - Show badge only if count > 0
- On click: dropdown with notifications list
  - Show last 10 notifications
  - Format: "[Sender] sent you a message" + relative timestamp
  - Click on notification:
    - Mark as read (PATCH /notifications/:id/read)
    - Redirect to /messages/:message_id
  - "See all" link → /notifications
- Polling:
  - Fetch count every 30 seconds
  - Update badge if count changes
- /notifications page:
  - Complete list of notifications (paginated, 20 per page)
  - "Mark all as read" button

Design:
- Mockup: /designs/notifications-ui.fig
- Icon: Bell icon (Heroicons)
- Badge color: red-500
- Animation: pulse on new count

Tests:
- Backend:
  - Test automatic notification creation when message sent
  - Test batching (no spam)
  - Test GET/PATCH API
- Frontend:
  - E2E test: new message → badge appears → click → modal → click notif → redirect
  - Test polling (mock API)

Dependencies:
- Require: /messages API functional
- Blocks: Push notifications (future issue)

Estimate: 3 days (1 backend, 1.5 frontend, 0.5 tests)

Assigned: Dev 2
Project: Messaging V2
Release: Q1 2026

Difference:

User story: 5 vague lines.

Sinra issue: Complete specification. Immediately actionable.

Result:

Vague user story vs detailed Sinra issue

The Three Pillars Of Sinra Issues

1. No Imposed Format (Clear Description, That’s All)

The Concept:

Sinra doesn’t impose a “As a… I want… so that…” format.

Just one rule: the description must be clear and actionable.

Benefit: Flexibility to write what’s useful, not what’s dogmatic.

2. Technical Issues, Not User Needs (Say Exactly What To Do)

The Concept:

A Sinra issue describes the technical solution, not the user need.

Example:

Bad (need):

The user wants to see their history.

Good (solution):

Create /history page with paginated table (20 per page) displaying: date, action, user. API GET /history?user_id=X. Filters by date (date picker). Design: /designs/history.png.

Benefit: The developer knows exactly what to code.

3. Capabilities To Group Issues (Organize Without Losing Clarity)

The Concept:

Sinra uses capabilities to group related issues.

Example:

Capability: Notification system

Associated issues:

  1. Create notifications table and API (3d)
  2. Add bell icon in header with badge (1.5d)
  3. Implement /notifications page (2d)
  4. Add polling for auto refresh (0.5d)
  5. E2E tests notifications (1d)

Total: 8 days

Benefit:

Capability grouping 5 actionable issues

Real Example: Lumio (Mobile App)

Lumio (team of 8 developers, B2C mobile app)

Note: Lumio is a real company that we anonymized under a fictional name to protect their confidentiality.

Before Sinra: Vague User Stories

Problems Encountered:

Problem 1: Endless grooming

Team spends 4.5h per week in backlog grooming.

Typical flow:

Problem 2: Story / reality gap

Example:

Story:

As a user, I want to share content.

Reality (after clarification):

Problem 3: Developers guess

64% of developers report having had to “guess” at least once per sprint.

Result: 30% of code reworked in review.

Problem 4: Stories re-groomed

38% of stories are re-groomed at least once.

Some stories groomed 3 times before being developable.

Problem 5: Frustration

Internal survey:

Team morale: Exhausted by clarification meetings.

After Sinra: Direct Issues

Workflow:

  1. Product writes a clear issue (not user story)
    • Explicit title
    • Detailed description: what, where, how
    • Design reference if needed
    • Test criteria

  2. Developer reads issue → knows exactly what to do

  3. No grooming needed (issue already clear)

  4. Direct development

Main change:

Before (vague user story):

As a user, I want to filter restaurants.

After (clear Sinra issue):

Title: Add restaurant filters (cuisine, price, distance)

Description:
Add 3 filters on /restaurants:
- Cuisine: dropdown with options (French, Italian, Japanese, Other)
- Price: range slider (€-€€€€, values 1-4)
- Distance: range slider (0-10km)

Behavior:
- Filters in left sidebar
- On change: API request GET /restaurants?cuisine=X&price=Y&distance=Z
- Results updated in real-time (debounce 300ms)
- Show results count: "24 restaurants found"
- Reset button to clear all filters

API:
- Existing endpoint: GET /restaurants already supports query params
- No backend changes needed

Design:
- Mockup: /designs/filters.fig
- Components: <Dropdown>, <RangeSlider> (existing)

Tests:
- E2E test: select filter → results updated
- Test debounce

Estimate: 1.5 days
Assigned: Dev 3

Results (After 3 Months):

Metric 1: Grooming time

Metric 2: Stories re-groomed

Metric 3: Developers guessing

Metric 4: Code reworked

Metric 5: Development time

Lead Developer quote:

“Before, we spent our Fridays grooming the backlog. We read vague stories, asked 20 questions, split them. Now, issues are clear from the start. We code directly.”

Product Manager quote:

“At first, I found it tedious to write detailed issues. Then I realized: I was spending the same time in grooming answering questions. Now, I document once, clearly, and the team develops without questions.”

Lumio: before/after Sinra metrics

Jira vs. Sinra: User Stories Comparison

Aspect Jira (User Stories) Sinra (Direct Issues)
Format ❌ Imposed (As a…) ✅ Free (clear description)
Clarity ❌ Vague (need, not solution) ✅ Precise (what, where, how)
Grooming ❌ 4h+ per week ✅ Minimal (<1h)
Actionable ❌ Requires clarification ✅ Developable immediately
Story/code gap ❌ Massive (2 lines → 50 tasks) ✅ Minimal (issue = spec)
Developers guess ❌ 64% guess ✅ 8% guess
Rework in review ❌ 30% of code ✅ 5%

The Five Signs Your User Stories Are Too Vague

Sign 1: You Spend 4h+ Per Week In Grooming

If you spend 4 hours or more each week clarifying stories, they’re too vague.

Sign 2: “OK But Concretely, What Do I Do?” Is A Recurring Phrase

If your developers ask this question for every story, it’s because stories don’t say what to do.

Sign 3: You Re-Groom The Same Stories Multiple Times

If 30%+ of your stories are groomed 2-3 times before being developable, it’s a clarity problem.

Sign 4: Developers Guess And Code Is Reworked In Review

If 30%+ of code is reworked because devs guessed wrong, it’s because stories lack details.

Sign 5: The Gap Between Estimate And Reality Is Massive

If your stories estimated at 2 days regularly take 10 days, it’s because the real complexity was hidden.

How To Use Sinra To Write Clear Issues

Step 1: Abandon The “As A” Format

Action:

Step 2: Describe The Solution, Not The Need

Action:

Step 3: Include All Technical Details

Action:

Step 4: Use Capabilities To Group

Action:

Step 5: Eliminate Grooming (Or Reduce To <1h)

Action:

Action Points: Eliminate Vague User Stories

  1. Audit your current stories. How many require >30 min of clarification?
  2. Measure grooming time. How many hours per week?
  3. Test Sinra issues. Write 5 detailed issues instead of user stories.
  4. Compare. Grooming needed? Developer blocked?
  5. Adopt Sinra. Direct issues, capabilities to group.

The Key Point

User stories in Agile format are too vague.

Between imposed format, need description instead of solution, endless grooming, and developers guessing, nobody really knows what to do.

Sinra uses direct and actionable issues.

No imposed format. Clear description: what, where, how, design, tests.

The result:

Your developers know exactly what to do.

Your backlog is actionable.

Also discover the “Invisible Problems” series

Ready to abandon vague user stories? Start a free Sinra trial →

Discover project management where issues say exactly what to do, not just the user need.